Obama’s Foreign Policy Successes: One for the Annals of American Presidencies!

Keywords or Terms: Al-Qaeda; Republicans, Democrats; Arab Spring; Muammar Gaddaffi; Obama’s Doctrine; White House Oval Office; George Bush; Barack Obama;  U.S troops; Iraq; and 2012 National Elections

Every American – whether you are Republican, Independent or Democrat – must now give kudos to President Obama with his steady record of successes in Foreign policy: 1) The engagement and killing of several Al-Qaeda leaders, including their crown prince, Osama Bin Laden; 2) The concentration and use of flying drones to engage American enemies and destroy them, including the demise of the American-born Muslim Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, Al-Qaeda #2 Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, Al-Qaeda #3 Mustaf Abu al-Yazid, and several henchmen loyal to radical groups in Arabian Peninsula and Islamic Maghreb; 3) The cautious support of democratically minded groups in the Arab world to foster what is now known as the Arab Spring; 4) The reconnection with the World beyond Middle East and Pakistan in foreign policy advancement; 5) Global leadership on non-proliferation, including the crafting of intelligent campaign for non-proliferation in the world’s discourse and a structured  approach to Non-Proliferation Treaty Reviews; 6) The withdrawal of US troops from the middle eastern country, Iraq; and, 7) The ‘hard- to-praise-itself-or-take-credit’, even when the foreign policy success can only be traced to his administration doings. Obama’s subtle enthusiasm for his foreign policy has not only sustained his presidency in time of gloomy economic seasons, it has put his Presidency on a road map of a unique strategy that has hardly been subscribed to in American foreign policy advancements in half a century. Incredibly, it has been magic!

A great number of foreign policy experts have indicated that no President in the past half a century had accomplished so much in foreign policy successes as President Obama had done, with fewer loss of American lives. Some of the foreign policy successes were considered insurmountable given the history of international conflicts and politics, yet Obama has made that shinning light on the hill even more of a leader to respect and follow than to scorn as was the case under the previous Republican Administration; and, he accomplished many these successes leading from behind, or without being perceived as a bully by the rest of the world. Even though he has just been in office for three years, Obama has accomplished what the most recent Republican President, George W. Bush, couldn’t despite his choice of aggressive and impromptu war engagements. Fascinatingly, he has done so through hard work at the State Department under the leadership of U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, National Security Organizations, American Military and private security enterprise; and sometimes, through share luck in a few cases!

Obama’s foreign policy strategy affably referred to as Obama’s doctrine in the Foreign Policy circles has brought to justice three prominent international fugitives and enemies of America within a span of six months: Osama Bin laden; Anwar al-Awlaki, and Muammar Gaddaffi. To underestimate these laudable successes would be tantamount to heresy in American Foreign Policy parlance. What Obama’s doctrine in foreign policy accomplished since the exit of the last Republican President are not only ground braking or breath taking, hardly could they have been taught at Harvard University Kennedy School of Government for senior executives in National and International Security Programs.

Not that this or similar government and security programs at first rate American Universities are not brilliant; but, where on earth could you have taught how to immediately enter into the Briefing Room at the White House to make an historic and somewhat shocking announcement to American people that you were bringing their children home after languishing in a foreign land for nine years in a war that is now considered a mistake and based on unfortunate lies from the executive wing of the American government. Where on earth could you have learned how to make good on a campaign promise to end the Iraq war and bring American troops home, a day after Democratic-Progressive Forces captured and killed Colonel Muammar Gaddaffi, the Libyan strongman for forty-two years, who eluded not only the golden Republican Presidential leader, Ronald Reagan, but remained a pain to successive American Republican Presidents, until a Democrat President, Barack Obama, came along. For everyone’s observation, President Obama accomplished the last feat or trophy without shedding a single American blood!

The announcement from President Obama that all US troops will be pulling out of Iraq by the end of 2011 to make good on his predecessor’s arrangement and decisively subscribed to by his administration after long negotiations with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Malik, was a brilliant feat on its own. The Iraq’s pull out not only surprised critics it dumb founded many of the Republican leaders that all they could offer was: Obama’s leading from behind strategy hurts America’s image. To Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman: “The announcement by President Obama and Prime Minister Maliki yesterday was a statement of failure, not success”. A pronouncement to which avid watchers of American Foreign Policy in the Middle East, understand within the context of where the interest of the former Vice-Presidential nominee lies and the possible interpretation of some strong lobbying groups in congress of the new announcement from Obama’s Administration. In reality, Obama’s announcement sets in motion other variables in the national politics of a somewhat recalcitrant middle-eastern ally.

Who else could describe the withdrawal of Americans from arms way in the Middle East, as a failure, considering where his heart and lobbying money comes from? Who else could described this very important national interest decision from the White-House thus: “A failure that puts at greater risk all that those Americans and Iraqi fought, sacrificed, and in thousand cases, gave their live to achieve: an Iraq that is self-governing, self-defending, and aligned with the responsible nation of the world in the fight against Islamist extremism and terrorism?” Only a Senator who has not only sold his soul to lobby groups from that part of the world but is known to hold brief cases for the insurance companies that have doubly helped to destroy the American economy.

Further, for those Republicans who are romanticizing that their party would have compelling foreign policy argument against the President on Russia, China and Middle East, I’ll say, good luck! Obama’s Administration has been so successful in many of its foreign policy decisions that some of us, who are in love with his style can only wonder, if half what he has accomplish in foreign policy had defaulted to the national economy, won’t we be popping Champagne Bottles in celebration of his guaranteed second term in office.

One more thing, look out Republicans, the sun is shinning on the economy already and come next November, the President who found and killed Osama Bin Laden and campaigned heavily to put teachers in the classrooms, fire fighter, police and emergency personnel on duty, while Republicans fought vehemently to deny him this effort, will be waiting at the debate table to outperform your close to disastrous offing as a contestant for the White-House Oval Office! By accomplishing so much in foreign policy, we believe that the Obama’s Administration successes will translate to other appreciations that will make voters retain the first articulate and probably the most reasonable free-world leader in a complex and dangerous world.

Of Royal Weddings and the Monarchy: why the British Public is transfixed with the fiery tale, again?

Kate and William’s wedding would probably be over before the British wake up and ask themselves: what was the fuss all about? Friday, April 29, 2011, will go down as a date when probably the next king of England and his princess sow the proverbial marriage knot at Westminster Abbey. Just like the royals before the newlyweds, each will take his or her place in the annals of history, one born with the silver spoon in his mouth, the other attaining the silver spoon through marital agreement. While the average Briton lives in challenging economic times, the British Monarch has deem it fit to throw a once in a life time wedding party, costing over eighty million dollars for a Prince and his bride. Bravo, what a way to empty the nation’s coffer while keeping the people in a fiery or la-la-la land! Before I rain on someone’s parade, let me get off here and discuss the political implication of the withdrawal of the invitation to the wedding of the Ambassador of Syria. However, not until I mention the marital power play in royal weddings and compare two royal weddings at the same church, thirty years apart.

The 1981 Royal wedding afforded the upper crust of the British society to smooch with Kings, Queens, Princes, Princess, Presidents and Prime Ministers, Top Military Brasses, Foreign diplomats and leaders of the Church and Businesses. The 2011 Royal wedding would do the same, even if at somewhat of a nostalgic comparison, the 2011 version of the fanfare will be more of a wall-to-wall display of mature interaction between two adults who are in love. The 1981 Royal wedding was probably between a groom who was in love with a different woman than the one he had at the altar; and, a novice 19-year old, who hardly knew, and who ended up being a sacrificial lamb to the monarchy. The 2011 Royal wedding is probably between a man and woman who consider themselves equals or pairs, while the 1981 Royal wedding was between a mature adult and a beautiful teenager trying to find her feet in the world. Frankly, the whole thing about the 1981 Royal wedding was fake, fake to the bone. What a Tragedy! So, for those who are watching the 2011 drama unfold let them understand that a similar drama took place at the same venue thirty-years ago, but with different actors.

Can we ever have equality in a marriage between a king-to-be and a commoner? It depends on who you talk to. If you consult a marriage counselor, she or he, would probably tell you that marriage is a power game! One person is dominating the other party, who wants to be dominated. Within a marriage, is often a power game that if one is unwilling to continue to be the foot mat, the power shifts that takes place, may consummate in the dissolution of the marriage. Much as Kate Middleton may attempt to see herself of equal status to Prince William, the power game and societal perceptions, including the overbearing influence of the monarchy, make it difficult. To prevent Prince Williams from being seen as the domineering one, he may pitch in to clean up at home after his new wife or future children; however, the public still wants him to be domineering! No Briton wants a sheepish or woman’s apron for a King! As sexist as the last two sentences are, they are unfortunately the truth, whenever a royal goes into wedding with a commoner, in a male-oriented or male-dominated society. For example, no one is seeing Prince Williams take the name: Middleton; rather, it is Kate that is submitting her last name to the future king.

Enough of bad blood, let’s get to the real discussion about the politics of first invitation, then, no invitation. Almost about a month ago when the invitation to the wedding between Kate and William went out, the Syrian government, through its representative in London, the Syrian Ambassador, probably felt the British Monarchy and government are according her equal disposition and recognition in the committee of nations. The coveted invitation to the wedding of Prince William and the St. Andrews University’s Art History degree holder was probably the talk of town in the diplomatic circle. Then came the spring of the Arab world, and so many given started to give way: major crackdown of Democratic seeking people led to irresponsible killings of the innocent souls yearning for freedom, after over forty-years of one party and one family rule over a people of Assyria. Muslims and Christians in Syria saw and experienced the brutality of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The world saw a man who once called for peace in the Middle East in 2009 in the presence of King Abdullah of Jordan; unleash terror on his own people.

In addition to the terror in the outskirts of Damascus, the Syrians saw the other side of a leader who is willing and bent on destroying those he swore to protect and lead. A leader, who continues to weaken political moderates among its citizens, sent out a network of terror machines to the outskirt of the capital of the nation of Syria, to ensure there are no dissenters. With over four hundred and fifty Syrians reported dead from the hands of a tyrant, the extensive support that Assad had received from the Arab world, started to dwindle. The world was dismayed and under somewhat of a tight fist, began to see what Tyrant Bashar al-Assad, is willing to unleash on his people. Not to be reckoned as accomplices, many leaders in the west started to talk about sanctions and the possibilities of closing the financial conduit to al-Assad government. The west, which have often preached representative constitutionality and pledged equality of groups in their domain, saw no room to wiggle out, but to use all instruments within their power to send a clear message to Damascus that their brutality will not be overlooked. Just as President Obama was announcing that his government is looking into all possible means to impact the government of Syria, the British Monarchy, yanked the invitation to the Royal wedding from its ambassador. Good radiance to bad rubbish, I can hear from 10 Downing Street!

Although this invitation withdrawal seems to create a unified front from the west against a government whose actions have gone beyond civil, the worst violence and probably the most harmful ones are still to come. Two days ago, just as the United States government was threatening sanctions against Syrian government and the United Nations drafting statements condemning the violence in the nation, over 4000 strong military and security forces equipped with tanks, moved into the Southern city of Daraa, Syria, early in the morning, mowing down their citizens, indiscriminately. The new assault from President a-Assad was probably meant to scare some people or destroy the nation’s psyche from any effort to gain their freedom. Now, how about that for a man who held hands with other members of the Organization of Islamic State, to preach peace among Arab states and the rest of the world?

By default, the withdrawal of the invitation to Kate and William’s Royal wedding is a political statement or development telling the President of Syria that, no one is willing to accommodate his barbarism; and, is meant as an encouragement to the citizens of the nation, that the rest of the world is watching. If the international community’s effort does not yield any result, at least it is on record that as Britons celebrates the marital bliss of one of their princes with another commoner, the plight of the underclass, are not overlooked. Those advocating for a Republic in Britain had better watch out, there are times when the monarchy that is perceived as being very offish and inconsiderate, do have a soft and compassionate flair and love.

So, as we celebrate the royal wedding with Prince William and Princess Kate, let us remember that there is a nation out there, whose invitation to the royal wedding was withdrawn; and, which probably is contemplating killing its own people as the British and their monarchs eat caviar, drink sweet wines, top them with royally lofty cakes and sing the Union Jack! Long Live the Queen and Kings, to come!

Obama’s Speech, the Arab world and the changing face of America’s Political intervention

Keywords and Terms: Military Intervention; American Allies; Libya; Internal Strife; Skeptical Americans Public; Massacre; Moammar Kadaffi; Zinga-Zinga.

While engaging in a civil war may not be the essence of the United States intervention in Libya, Obama’s constructive and forceful argument for intervention gives a new definition for being sympathetic to the course of democratically yearning people of the world, especially in the Arab world. The statements of the President, no matter what fence you sit on, shows a President actively engaged in positioning the country properly in the upcoming changes in the Arab world and probably the whole of middle east. The blog tonight looks at the president's argument for intervention; and the quick withdrawal of leadership of the intervention in Libya.

Libyans and probably secretly, many leaders in the Arab world, subscribes to the leadership role taken by the United States in this instance in the Arab world. A few political observers in the Arab world, probably wished the US could have done the same in some of the more despotic countries of the region, a few of which are currently having faint echoes of progressive democratic group inkling. The fact that the intervention is circumspect, both by liberals and conservatives, would probably convince any observer of the politics of Obama’s Administration, that it is accomplishing the objectives it has set for itself since the November 2010 election results: Go Centrist!

The conservatives are concerned that the President's action came a little too late and liberals found the action probably unacceptable in light of the fact that the country is already engaged in two foreign wars. Be as it may, the nature of the current intervention does not represent the determinism of the White House for all countries that may be yearning for political freedom; as you may deduce from this administration’s action with respect to Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria. Instead, the current Whitehouse believes that its intervention in Libya remains a compassionate action to save thousands of lives that might have been lost, with Kaddafi’s promise to root out oppositions, ‘Zinga-Zinga’!

While the President overwhelmingly subscribes to the view that it is our responsibility as a nation to protect helpless Libyan citizens, very few people believe that a threat to our national interest was evident in his choice. Indeed, many Americans internalized close to a universal belief that the American military and or might, was being stretched too thin with a third intervention in less than two decades. Maybe the President’s comment: "In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners," convinces the skeptics that this intervention wasn’t going to be a one-man show and was necessary on humanitarian grounds; or wouldn’t be for too long or too costly for the nation to bear.

Given that the current intervention sought an international coalition of the willing, who are willing to take on the responsibility of leading the war, as the US shuddered the burden of being the prime leader, no one in the skeptical group completely believes or buys into the President’s assertion that the country has an important strategic interest in preventing Kaddafi from overturning those who oppose him. While the President made somewhat of a convincing case for intervention, the better news from the administration probably came from Secretary Gates comments to CBS’ Bob Schieffer on the face the nation program, last Sunday: "I think the military mission has gone quite well...I think we have been successful a lot. You know, there was never any doubt in my mind that we could quickly establish the no-fly zone, and suppress [Qaddafi's] air defenses." Coupled with the following from Secretary of State Clinton: "we've already seen quite significant progress on the ground;” one can believe that our voyeurism in Libya is temporary. In other words, we are done with our immediate assignment and we are getting out in a jiffy!

Many in the Arab world may subscribe to the notion that the conflict in Libya has the tendency of spreading beyond the country’s border, however, very few of them share the conviction that clamping down on Libyan’s oppositions by Kaddafi will endanger democracy movement in neighboring countries as Egypt and Tunisia. With progressive forces fanning democracy across the Arab world, just as the manhandling of the conflict in Libya by Kaddaffi may spread to other country, so also can the wave of complete conviction in breaking the chains of oppressions and abuses spread across the Arab world. In fact the latter assertion is already taking place, whether other despotic Arab leaders know it or not. The reality is that some leaders in the Arab world are so brutal and more disposed to doing the same thing Kadaffi is accused of, and probably are presently doing same discretely. A few of them are more worried about the political implication of America’s intervention in terms of their own long term survival, with the wave of democratic forces upheaval within their border, the repeated regime changes that has deluged the Arabian world, and the uncomfortable theater of political instability that is now developing with many Muslim countries. The Arab nations are geopolitical different as is well known and the progress already made in the democratic movements in the Arab world, with changes in Tunisia and Egypt being somewhat unique and germane to each of the country because of the geopolitical arrangement within the borders of each country, the coming changes and the US administration’s reaction to each, is a toss up. Indeed, change is already in the Arab world and no one out there can actually say what to expect with the roaring change and clamor for democratic principles in many of these nations.

If the President’s outlined doctrine for intervention in a situation where there is a repressive regime is to hold, the question that ought to be addressed then is, why haven’t we done the same in China, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, North Korea and a host other countries known for repressive regimes? The truth is there is no general agreement regarding why we intervened in Libya, even within the Democratic Party membership. Some critics of the President’s failure to quickly act or ‘slow to act’ choice before intervening in Libya may want to stress the inequality in his doctrine of intervention. Different treatment of nations regarding when to intervene or when not to intervene, when there is a likelihood of a repressive regime in power, exhibits the follies in the intervention doctrine as espoused by the President tonight.

Even though the President believes that a failure to act in Libya would carry a far greater price for America, objective assessment of the action taken so far with respect to Libya, differs from what happened with similar upheaval in China, Bahrain, Jordon and Yemen. Because of our failure to act in a nation like Yemen, a country where Al Qaddai is known to flourish, even though we believe in the lukewarm approach of their leader in the so called war against terrorism in that country and the recent action from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with respect to what was going on within the borders of Bahrain, calls to question our conviction in the President’s doctrine of intervention.

When the upheaval began in Yemen, we had the opportunity to intervene and actually root out any of the clowns/clans and madrasses in that country known to be propagating hatred for America and the west. We had the opportunity to clandestinely cleanse that country of people known to want to kill us, who populate that country. Tyrannical and despotic leaders are still in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, North Korean, Zimbabwe and many more. Women, who cannot drive or go out singularly in Saudi Arabia, will tell you their repressive regime ought to be questioned and so far, we have refrained from doing that while going after Libya. In fact, it could be argued that the only reason why we have not taken similar action in Bahrain, a country where a minority group leads a majority group, is because of our understanding of the differences in the geopolitical power tussle in many Arab nations. Repressive regimes still exist in the Arab world and we know many of them, Saudi Arabia, being number one. Our intervention in Libya does not justify intervening in those countries; however, justifying intervention in Libya with the premise that the cost could be higher, hardly holds much water.

As of today, the United States has taken the extraordinary step to halt the aggression of Col Kaddafi on his own people. President Obama said the US and its allies faced a choice between taking military action and letting the despot massacre civilians in an act that could have stained the conscience of the world. Apprehensive political observers however, reject the discriminatory doctrinal principle advanced for justifying the intervention because we know other despotic countries exist in the Arab world, and elsewhere as we speak, and our doctrine has not been invoked regarding their administration of their nation's affairs; or, clamping down on democratic progressive forces within their border. Moreover, evidence reveals that because of the delayed intervention or the ill-defined purpose of our intervention, our doctrinal strategy at this time, may suffer a setback, if the rebellion in Libya could not take over Libya from Kaddafi. The President has effectively said that the US wants Kaddafi out. If we are unable to achieve this, then our nation’s reputation is on the line. If the rebellion cannot overcome the power of Kaddaffi, there is no way we will not have to commit ground troups in Libya to accomplish the President’s pronouncement of wanting Kaddafi out. Anything less, will be an affront to our integrity as the leading nation in the world!

NB:
Despite my criticisms, I defer to the President on this one because of the articulation of his presentation. He believes in his arguments and presented them in a more aggressive fashion than in the past. The speech was well delivered and carried an allure that is a departure from earlier speeches of the President. Mr. Obama, you are worthy of that office and I enjoyed your presentation!

The 228 to 192 Vote to Defund NPR: all of us do not want to end up as Sarah Palin!

My mom once told me, you think education is expensive, try ignorance! You think National Public Radio is contributing to the nation’s deficit, imagine what a bunch of illiterate pregnant teenagers will do to the nation’s budget. When you take away any source of learning from people, all you have left are wastes and Riff-Raff.

Slavery days are here again, educational slavery, informational slavery and people's exploitation, if you ask me! The only reason why many of us can read and write, listen and adjudged comments from other people, is because we are exposed to erudite communications from so many guests and speakers on National Public Radio. Well, maybe I am pushing that too far, but schooling information and learning are important in our ability to articulate issues. Many people who have graduated from high school are not only able to understand issues and changes better, they get the privilege of making more money throughout their life time, than those who have not. After school, it is often important to be exposed to information to help us reinforce our learning, knowledge and advance our intellect. The Republicans voted 228 to 192 in support of a bill that will cut public funds to the National Public Radio, an important source of information and learning. What an achievement!

This is a sad day in America. Not only do I and so many well deserving human beings take objections to this bill, we absolutely impinge anyone’s character, any Republican who voted to take money away from television programming that introduced barney to my daughters, is guilty of child molestation. By this singular act, Republicans have made it personal against my family. My daughters, God bless their souls, listened religiously to National Public Radio, and today one of them is a speech pathologist and is graduating with an MBA, come June. Now, you want me to tell you, what National Public Radio means, and yes: It means a difference between a literate populace, who can contribute to our Democracy, and a nation full of bonobos who think and speak like Sarah Palin!

Since Republicans consider Sarah Palin as their heroine; yes, I don’t want any of my daughters to think and talk like a dummy. That is why defunding of NPR on a vote of 228 to 192 in the US House of Representative is an affront on literacy. I am boiling to kingdom come right now, boiling so badly, I am about to boil over. This type of crap is what they did to slaves in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Now, they are doing it all over again only this time, to the greatest number of Americans who can still think and have their heads over their shoulders. We are not going to let this one down, though. If any of our current congressmen or women went to a state supported school and he or she voted to defund NPR, he or she is an ingrate and ungrateful wretch. Because a few NPR executives made some gaffes, millions of children will not have the opportunity that Mary, my beautiful daughter, had to watch Barney? Oh No, I am going to cry foul until someone comes to convince me that defunding National Public Radio and CPB will help America balance its National or State’s budget deficits!

All republicans that voted to defund National Public Radio are short-sighted. I am leaving my phone number for you to call me, 253-347-1420, because that is how passionate I am about public radio and the insult from all that voted to defund this singular service that means anything on the airwaves. None of us would want our children exposed to languages from drug addicts and college drop outs that are filled commercial radio. None of us want children that talk like a nincompoop, that is why we are upset that the only other source of critical thinking that is left on the airwaves is about to be taken away from us. You know what goes around comes around?

Want, Effort and Satisfaction in Egyptian Uprising and Democracy?

What a profound spectacle to watch President Hussein Mubarak of Egypt fall from grace to grass. It would be difficult to ascertain what exactly led to the overthrowing of a despot who led Egypt for over three decades, dined and wined with kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, democrats, capitalists, communists, and oligarchs of all shades and colors across the globe.

Progressive pressure groups and some media outlets would like to credit the fall of the former President of Egypt to social media; however, those who know better will tell you that it takes more than social media; it took the will and dedication of the Egyptian masses to bring down a conniving despot. The stars for his fall were probably better aligned this year, considering that the April 6 pressure groups in Egypt had consistently worked to topple his government prior till now but had been unsuccessful; just as the Muslim brotherhood and other political action groups in Egypt had worked to see Mubarak go into retirement with exasperation.

To paraphrase the Nineteen Century French Economic Journalist Basitiat Frédéric (1801-1850), the (Egyptian) poor have risen against the rich house of the pharaohs, the proletariat against the monarchy, government outsiders against the insiders; the commoners against the power that be, the scorns of the earth against the filthy rich; the underclass against the blue blood! Tasha, times are a-changing! The former first Egyptian family, who has been alleged to have stolen billions, if banking record can help prove that, is tonight in a hole in the resort city Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, just like a foreign tourist in the land of his father and mother! How are the mighty falling and the weapons of the war, perish! With a backdrop like this, what must now be our focus in foreign policy initiative for Egypt or diplomatic work arrangement with respect to the new nations that are falling into democracy or falling out of tyranny and oppression from despots in the middle east? Our blog tonight attempts to explore this question and associated developments.

Just before Mubarak fell, the embattled President attempted to hold on to power, by giving a speech now considered as a flagrant insult to the Egyptian public. While remaining defiant as he offered a theory that foreign influence was behind the progressive groups' attempt to dethrone him and relied on appealing to the nationalistic sense and pride of a people he once had total hold over. Obama Administration did not help matter either, as it continued to diplomatically work behind the screen, imploring the despot to depart from office. The White House publicly denied it was working against an ally, but deep within the State Department Office were foreign policy experts on middle east working over time, trying to figure out what next step the former president was going to take. The soon-to-be ousted President Mubarak attempted to arouse the sense of pride and dignity of being Egyptian, but failed to appreciate the gravity of the movement against his leadership and the extent of hatred for his administration. Maybe this was a folly of his, but the reality was that time already ran out on him with the new protest and there was nothing anyone outside of Egypt could do to save the despot.

At long last, Egyptians of all shades, rich, poor, Christians and Muslims were completely in agreement that it was time for the despot to go, yet in his delusion, he found stepping down from what he considered a meritorious service to his motherland, difficult to swallow. Alas, the same preconceived group, the military whom he had assume an unyielding loyalty from, showed him the door. Mubarak hand-picked Vice-President, Omar Suleiman and Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, probably advised him that his time is up; and, though he may not want it, the forces against him as the President were too overwhelming. The thirty seconds announcement from Omar Suleiman in an eye-drooping and self-defeated look said it all: the people have spoken and there was no more room for Mubarak tactics or oppression. Egyptians people took back their power!

Mubarak wanted to remain in the office, he wanted to hold on to power, Egyptians who had been deprived of any sense of decency for three decades, wanted their freedom and were willing to die for it. The revolt from the people was as huge as a hurricane and as wet as dripping rain. The dictatorial rule of Mubarak conflicted with the people’s cry for freedom. There was no doubt, a transformation was taking place last week Thursday. No one however, knew what the form of transformation was about to take. The uncertainty of the revolt beclouded even the most astute foreign policy experts in America. The character of the transformation was unpredictable and the certainty of the effort of the progressive groups in Egypt was arguably debatable. However, at last, Mubarak fell.

For now, it would be difficult to say whether Mubarak's despotic power has passed from him to the military; or that the newly found freedom by Egyptians are concrete enough to guarantee the type of Democracy or freedom, they are badly seeking. We do not know, whether the freedom sought by Egyptians is going to pass from theory to practice or that it may be delayed by the military care-taker government that has taken over from Mubarak. What is known though is: The former President of Egypt is no more the head of state in Egypt and his past influences, if not completely wiped out by now, has waned disproportionately. Mubarak is despised everywhere in Egypt and probably a few groups who may still have nostalgia for his leadership, are fast realizing that a new day is here for the country: Egypt.

Our pivotal foreign policy question now: how do we address or deal with the new realities in the middle east, vis-a-vis the change that has suddenly befallen or about to befall many nations in that region? Where does our national interest stand? What must we now do to ensure that our national interests that were preserved under the previous leaderships are not eroded with the new dispensation in the middle east, especially in the land of the pharaohs?

Turning a mix of loosely surviving despots and probably some budding democratic states into advantageous or sympathetic loyalists, must now take a prominent place in our foreign policy initiatives. How will our prior negotiations that have so much served our nation so well, survive under the new leaderships and systems of government? Reduced budget for toppling the despotic leaders across the globe will be in order. Financing and supporting internet connections for many more nations in the region is not out of order but cannot be solely regarded as a silver bullet for bringing down governments in nations as Iran, North Korea or Yemen.

Understanding the progress on the ground in many nations yearning for Democracy is one step forward; however, a renewed emphasis on those areas of cooperation with progressive groups in unstable nations where we can gain some traction and commitment from the new power brokers, may just be another alternative in waiting. Building our carrots around those initiatives and programs that will help the nations with their newly found freedom understand what is expected in running and managing a democratic system of government must now be part of our foreign policy diplomatic portfolio. Those nations are yearning for knowledge on how to accelerate nation building in a democratic styled system of government. We must now help them understand what it takes to be successful and must be part of our focus in foreign policy initiative.

No one must now debate that the 'Domino Effect' is in full play and we may not have complete control over how many nations with despotic or unstable governments may fall in the coming months or year. The foreign policy war now is not sustaining former despots who have bid our interests; rather, the war is capturing the new power brokers in the nations that are gradually falling into Democracy, if you will allow me to say so. The challenge for the State Department and foreign policy analysts is how to develop mutually beneficial democratic government building programs, programs that will gain currency among the former progressive pressure groups who saw our nation as a beacon of hope, the shinning light on the hill, which many of them are now clamoring for or flocking to be like. How successful we are able to achieve this new threshold, or how we are able to convince these new democratic neophytes will determine our level of influence in the coming decades in these countries.

We must now invest in leadership development in democratic nation building in radically under-capitalized or un-capitalized economies. While opening our benevolent hearts, we must not have the illusion that all these countries will end up being loyal or sympathetic to our course or immediate interest in the type of government that will emanate from this new crisis over the middle east or the world. We cannot remain docile hoping that once these countries are able to get rid of their oppressing governments or start to take baby steps in democratic governance, they will see issues our way and manage their affairs the same way we have done.

There are some nuances and characteristics peculiar to some cultures in the states seeking democracy that are antithetic to some democratic principles. Some of the inherent cultural road blocks may make progress to a successful democratic state unattainable on our own time table. Like new babies, we may just have to wait for some nations to find their own bearings, just like a new baby, they must be allowed to fail and learn from their mistakes as they take the long walk to a free and democratic state. While doing all these, we must stay loyal to our national interests. This is our new foreign policy realities and we must now work to embrace them in our foreign diplomatic work.

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND THE EGYPTIAN UPRISING

The making of a modern day democratic state in the middle east is not going to be easy. The challenges are not strictly political, it is the histological and philosophical perspectives of the middle eastern landscape that have mesmerized leaders in that region of the world, while attempting to achieve something similar to a democratic state. Monarchies and Empires are not attuned to democratic principles the way we know them in current day perspective. Change may be coming to the middle east, but hardly in the context of current day democratic principles. Look out guys, you may just end up with what you hardly want!

American Foreign policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty

It did not take long for the markets to react to rumors that Wiki leaks founder, Julian Assange, who released cables of diplomatic communications among American Embassy officials and Washington DC was about to release intricate business decisions taken by Bank of America, before the bank officials began to deny claims. Bank of American shares were falling like a yo-yo in early trading on the New York Stock exchange. The fear of opaque transactions in a prominent American Bank translated into fears among investors. The markets became bogged down by rumors that Mr. Julian Assange was about to call the shots on the way banking transaction across the globe were carried out. And, just as hell was about to break loose, some government officials both here and overseas were putting out interpol arrest warrant for the new internet crusader.

The thought of having deals manipulations between commercial banks' heavyweights made public the way the embassy officials communications were released in recent days, made some bank officials go into fit at the headquarters of the Bank of America. According to Bank of America, the probability that its institution’s records, including documents, emails databases and internal websites may have been compromised, is very remote. While the founder of Wiki leaks promised that his 5GB of Bank of America’s profile with his organization will expose an ecosystem of corruption and could take down a couple of banks, made this claim rather intimidating and would probably make doing businesses with banks and investors difficult. While officials at Bank of America are crossing their hands and hoping for the best, our blog today is looking at the implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty of the new development in the releases of private communications between institutions, government and banking.

By this afternoon, it was public knowledge that, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States had loaned money to commercial banks in Europe and probably some other countries in Asia and South America about two years ago, just about the time the whole global economy was precipitating into a free fall. The singular action by the Federal Reserve Bank brought a new dimension into the understanding of monetary integration and legal sovereignty. Commercial banks in foreign countries are known to conduct business independently with the support of their nation’s central bank, not with the central bank of other countries. However, with the step taken by the Feds to loan money to banks in foreign countries, it was becoming clear that monetary regimes are hardly as isolated as once thought; and, that a foreign commercial bank is beholden to the US Federal Reserve Bank, from that singular loan of about 50 billion dollars to say UBS, a Swiss Bank, it will be difficult to continue to ascertain national sovereignty with respect to monetary regimes. The issue of pride in national currency is probably now secondary, if the United State Federal Reserve Bank can have the back of a foreign commercial bank, in the middle of a global recession.

If most independent countries cannot continue to ascertain their nationality through management of currencies and commerce between or among financial entities within their boundaries, it hardly makes any sense to be talking about legal sovereignty. As defined by the 1999 Nobel Laureate in Economics, Robert Mundell, Legal Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state to make its own laws without limitations imposed by any other outside authority. Could the Swiss government make laws that would impinge on the decision of his central bank officials to seek fund from the US Federal Reserve Bank? Probably yes, however, the commitment of funds from the United States Central Bank may make the Swiss government think twice, considering the implication for their national economy and currency. Here lies the joker: the implication of say UBS abandoning its national currency and bank to go seek financial help from the US Federal Reserve Banks, puts a damper on the crave for legal sovereignty; it also creates a difficult environment for the assertion of national sovereignty by the Swiss.

The reality that the United States Dollars has grown up from a national currency to an international medium of exchange with the status of truly being the number one currency of international transaction, now puts into the tanker the argument of the independence of national currencies. The integration of the world’s currencies is getting to be a reality and the de-facto argument of associated national sovereignty and independent currency is gradually becoming a thing of the past. With the US Federal Reserve Bank loaning money to the Lloyds of London, the United States Dollars is virtually becoming something of a profound commodity, being sought by every financial institutions all over the globe. Citizens of the world now depend on the United States’ Currency to dictate the pace of commerce, even within boundaries of countries far remote from the United States. With the Feds loaning money out, comes the landmark concession of national sovereignty with respect to monetary policy. Does this give a bragging right to Washington DC? Probably not, considering that the nature of this type of transaction may be available on tapes, emails and documents that can be released on the WEB by Wiki Leaks, today or tomorrow!

If European commercial Banks agree to seek money from the national bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank, this choice leaves room for monetary expansion policy implication within the European Union. Further, if the Lloyds of London can draw on a short-term Bank Note from the US Federal Reserve Bank, the question of a system of fixed currency exchange rates and the central control over the British Pound by No. 10 Downing Street or the Buckingham Palace, is probably about to become history. Since Britain and United states are not known to have a joint currency, the issue of independence and sovereignty of the nation state, United Kingdom, can be readily called to question. With the singular act of the feds loaning money to European Banks, the kind of legal tender power that is often associated with independent nation’s currency can now come into play, even within those nations boundaries. Since the Swedish bank, UBS, did not seek the replacement of its nation’s currency in its deal with the US Federal Reserve Bank, the implication of its transaction may have a political under tone. here again lies the challenge that Wiki Leaks can drop on the laps of European and American politicians. No wonder, France is out with a similar warrant to the United States for the founder of Wiki Leaks!

The potential that Wiki leaks may get its hand on tapes and documents of say Bank of America and probably the UBS or any other bank out there, may actually introduce a fatal weakness into the international banking system. Imagine that during the turbulent early period of the global recession two years ago, a bank official from UBS and another from the US Federal Reserve Bank had entered into a deal that may impinge on either nation’s monetary regime, then there is obviously a concern that such information is available to a third party like Mr. Assange. The fact that Assange can then turn around and make this type of transaction available on the WEB, can actually destabilize international banking system. Further, it may have an added destruction to the independence of a nation state and its ability to have control over transactions taking place within its borders. The national security implications of the new development in the cyberspace is now a thing that is best imagined than coming to reality. If Wiki Leaks make good on its promise to release the commercial banking transactions on the WEB, you can bet, more than hell will break loose!

It is possible for countries' embassy tape discussions to be made public. It is also admissible that such communications between embassy staff may be cause for alarm by the State Department or Washington DC. However, when the real backbone of many economies are probably going to be at stake, well your imagination is as good as mine. When European Commercial Banks interest are being beholden to the U.S. national Bank, what is the sense of talking about national currencies and pride. It's all about to go into the air: puff! The notion that bank officials are incompetent or cannot manage risk, becomes secondary at this point. The embarrassments for many more national government is the issue now at stake. As we continue to watch events unfold on the WEB, I can imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Paul Allen asking each other: what in the world did we let loose in New Mexico and California three decades ago?

American Foreign Relations has definitely taken a hit from the Wiki Leaks releases. The State Department is busy scrambling around to mend fences with foreign government and national security assets all over the world are probably being moved around and educated about new strategies of communication between their outpost and Washington DC. Unfortunately as one individual said early in the week, we have entered that era in which the facades are being removed from the face of the people: welcome to WEB 4.0! The collective impact of the Wiki Leaks releases on national governments and commercial bankings is probably good for those who have chosen to pursue this route for achieving fairness in the world; however, is this what we really need? I don't know, but what I realize from this new frontier, is that America must continue to look out for Americans and other nations, theirs. We are now in a time zone, where the word Armageddon, is taking a new interpretation in foreign and monetary policies implementation around the globe.