The UK Tuition Hike Protest Violence & Royal Pains

The UK's coalition government just won, by a 'narrow margin', the vote to hike student tuition fees up to a maximum of £9000 per annum. The run up to the vote was punctuated by student protests and moments of violence, vandalism and disorder. The latest round of protests included an 'attack' on Prince Charles and his homely consort-cum-wife, Camilla, an incident apparently worth more attention than the hypocritical turnabout by Lib Dem, Nick Clegg, and the Conservative Government, that both promised not to do what they have just done. 

A case for violence

The protests are a democratic right, and the violence debatable, however, Western action and philosophy provide for violence when there is no other recourse, and often when there are a myriad of other options. The United Kingdom uses violence against other nations at will and with little cause - and has done for centuries. Iraq is the latest and best example, but the Falkland Wars will do nicely as well. 

But when 'the people' become violent it indicates a profound societal issue: nothing else works. What became obvious in the run up to the vote and the vote itself, is that students and parents had absolutely no say. The only place a student voice could be heard was through the media, and that could not guarantee that those who 'mattered' were listening.  Based on the outcome of the vote, they definitely weren't and that is a genuine and disturbing problem in an allegedly democratic nation. This is an excellent object lesson for both the people and the Royals - now they have first-hand knowledge of potential causes of violence in third world nations: when one feels helpless to act, any action will do.

That said, the hypocrisy of the coalition government continues as they self-righteoulsy condemn the student violence and attempt to get the attention away from their broken promises, all while the UK continues to ravage Iraq and search for a pretext to invade Iran.

Importantly, PM Cameron noted that it was a majority of protestors that engaged in violence, it was completely lost on him that this may indicate something about the decision. Majority, it is widely believed, is an important element in democracy. But democracy may not be so important in the UK. 

Getting what they wanted

The irony, however, is that 'the people' got the government they voted for. Albeit a coalition, that it is Conservative heavy is no secret, and neither is the elitist leaning of the Conservative party. Historically, Conservatives favour the rich and exploit the 'commoner' - should the people really be surprised at the sudden 180 degree turn of their Government of choice? 

There is no debate that the budget needs to be trimmed, but why education should suffer and not defence (what with troops allegedly scheduled to pull out of Afghanistan next year) is an argument that never occurred, but should have. The fact that the Government didn't even consider a delay of the vote suggests the outcome was a fait accomplis. 

In the end Great Britain, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Well, you just did. 

Iran and Iraq - for the US the only difference is a consonant.

                       “They have good reason to be suspicious of our intentions.”

                                              Ivan Oelrich, senior fellow, Federation of American Scientists                

The above quote is uncharacteristically humble, responsible and reasonable on the part of the West, and from a Washington-based group to boot. But then again, the speaker is a scientist and not a politician. That said, it's still the first sign of some admission that the West is even remotely responsible for the defensive posture Iran has had to assume - nuclear armament or not  - and especially since the Bush administration declared it was part of the enigmatic 'Axis of Evil'. 

The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, US and UK) along with Germany, are in Geneva conducting a second round of talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But the first item on Iran's agenda was the November 29 killing of Iranian nuclear physicist, Majid Shahriari, in a Tehran bombing. Most telling was not the US denial of involvement, but unwillingness of the UK and Israel to comment. Is silence consent?

The issues are many, but there are a few I'd like to highlight: 1. The agenda began by the Bush admin seems to be moving ahead apace 2. The scenario is eerily similar to that pre-Iraq invasion 3. The entire Region, not just Iran, has reason to beware. 

As mentioned, it was the Bush admin that initially proposed the 'Axis of Evil' concept, citing that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were somehow the world's greatest threats. Iraq has already been appropriated and its oil fields sold off to private interests - mission accomplished - if Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons, who can blame them? Iran has the world's largest oil reserves second only to, and this might surprise you, Iraq. Nothing stopped the invasion of Iraq; not facts, lack of evidence, diplomacy or common sense - what reason does one have to believe anything will stop the implied invasion of Iran under almost identical circumstances? 

So what's the blatant implication? The American/Western corporate agenda takes precedence over any political or ideological agenda regardless of who is president - and that makes it ok for him or her to be Black and erudite (as in the case of Obama) or embarrassingly undereducated and inarticulate (as in the case of he-who-doesn't-have-to-be-named). That the scenario is almost identical to pre-Iraq invasion is obvious, what is alarming is that no one seems to care. Not the American public, not the Iranian public and not even Iran's neighbours who are likely to be next on America's hit list. 

In this context, the recent alleged 'Leak' that has dominated headlines in recent weeks, seems to play right into a Western pretext for an Iran invasion. It claimed the Saudi King urged the US to conduct missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and somehow painted the US as a reasonable and reluctant participant in the same. 

That the oil rich Middle East has been in Western crosshairs for some time is no secret. Some argue that Israel is its loyal 'watchdog' armed to the teeth and a constant destabilising force, now joined by an occupied Iraq. Divide and conquer seems to be the order of the day. Even now the GCC countries are meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE to discuss Iran's predicament, among other things (importantly a unified stance against terrorism). We hope they make real concrete process. Even though Iran doesn't always see eye to eye with its Gulf neighbours, there is a common interest that may warrant some call for unity, cooperation or least dialogue that indicates, not support for the American agenda, but solidarity on an inclusive Middle East agenda.

Even as the US plays an essential role in brokering relations between Israel and the Arab world (and hence makes a logical ally for Arab states), its historical actions seem to indicate it has other more pressing concerns that may supersede all others. I'm not making any accusations, but there may be a reason to be 'suspicious'.

The New World Cup Hosts & England's Baffling Reaction

Russia and Qatar were just named the Fifa World Cup hosts for 2018 and 2022 respectively, to their own jubilation and to England's chagrin. While the preceding bid-teams celebrated their selection, the English press asserted claims of corruption, cheating and favouritism.

According to The Guardian the, 

2018 [UK Fifa bid] chief executive, Andy Anson, also said there was no point England bidding for another World Cup until the process was fundamentally overhauled as the detail of the humiliation was laid bare. "I would say right now, don't bother until you know that the process is going to change to allow bids like ours to win," said Anson.

Anson's statement is revealing. The obvious implication being that the system only works if England wins, not a gracious sentiment coming from the host of the upcoming 2012 Olympics. Apart from demonstrating an inability to lose with dignity, some elements of English media, and perhaps English public opinion, also exposed an arrogant and baffling sense of entitlement. Why should England have won and why shouldn't Russia or Qatar? England's odd reaction is made stranger considering it was eliminated from the first round of the two rounds of voting - it wasn't even close. There may be some element of denial here. 

Some claim that the move was all about money - it probably was and there is nothing wrong with that at all. It will, after all, take money (and lots of it) to host these events and Russia and Qatar have it, and from all indications, a Global recession and massive cuts in public spending, England (and indeed Europe) doesn't. But logic and common sense aside, Fifa has also been aiming to put the 'World' into the World Cup. 

In the 19 events since the beginning of the competition in 1930, over half (10 to be exact) were hosted by European nations (including England in 1966 - which they won), Italy and France got 2 opportunities at bat (in 2014 Brazil will have too), the US hosted once as did South Korea/Japan, and the rest were hosted by a mix of Central and South American nations. This year saw an African nation hosting for the very first time. Each of these nations had a 'first time', Russia and Qatar deserve no less. 

Indeed, the WC was seeing a revolving door of winners and qualifiers happily broken by Spain, first time winner in the 2010 competition. The danger was to see a similar list of the 'usual suspects' taking on hosting duties and benefiting from the potential commerce thereof. Fifa is absolutely right to spread opportunity - one that doesn't always guarantee profit as the gains for hosts are usually over the long term.

Some objectors to Qatar's selection cite a small population, its negligible footballing presence, relatively small size and very high summer temperatures as the main reasons that make Fifa's decision a questionable one. Qatar countered with a promise of climate controlled stadia and the relocation of the same to developing countries after the competition. A savvy and thoughtful response - and if the ambition, growth and wealth of the region is anything to go by, they are capable of living up to their word. Still, we speak in future terms - all is just a promise, and if it makes those objectors feel better (and it shouldn't) there's still time for both events to be catastrophic failures. 

A Panorama documentary has also been blamed for England's failed bid, with claims that voters, offended by accusations of bribery in the show, spurned the Brits proposal. If this was the case, it may be justified - certainly England's graceless response to their loss doesn't help. It may betray the attitude of a First World nation that is historically accustomed to getting what it wants simply because it wants it. Perhaps the best lesson for those English who are mortified by the loss and consider a Middle Eastern host 'a disgrace', is that the World Cup doesn't revolve around them.

The Problem with Wikileaks (for us, not the The Man)

The next Bond villain?

Wikileaks and its enigmatic silver haired, Bond-villain like leader, Julian Assange, came into our consciousness with a resounding 'WTF!' (as said by governments around the world). I think any true lover of freedom will applaud the intent and actions of Wikileaks, as it seems to be removing the veil of secrecy and hypocrisy worn brazenly by First World nations, and the US in particular.

While Wikileaks seems to have become a much-needed thorn in the side of the West, especially with the latest revelations, there are a few issues and questions that naturally arise:

• Why do Governments condemn Wikileaks instead of their own people who are the ones clearly 'leaking the Wiki'? US senators called for the site to be branded a terrorist organization - wouldn't that make the leakers terrorists too?

• Governments can clearly leak what they wish for their own purposes (which makes said Governments complicit in terrorism if US senators get their way - see previous point). This latest leak is more problematic for the Middle East than the US as it has the potential to divide the Region (based on the 'fact' that Saudi Arabia has been asking the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities). This leak definitively supports a Western agenda and works in favor of the US who would like nothing more than a divided Middle East. Quite honestly, this latest leak actually has the US coming out looking pretty good - but not too good. But good enough. Look at this BBC condensation of the contents and judge for yourself. 

• No doubt the credibility and agenda of Wikileaks will be questioned. Surely conspiracy theories as to its true origin will (or already have) arise. Is it truly an independent body, or part of the West's propaganda machine? The bit of info that most supports the latest US mission most of all - and no doubt will take centre stage in Western media outlets - is the alleged acquisition of North Korean WMD's by Iran. The now, Twosome of Evil (Iraq was after all saved by an American Bootoscopy), is really being set up for an all-out Iraq style US invasion and just in time for the fresh NK/SK conflict. Coincidence?

• If Wikileaks is truly independent, how can it be sure that 'leaks' are truly 'leaks' and not political PR and power plays (see point 2)?

• Will Julian Assange reveal that he is the Anti-Christ by 2012, and is Obama going to be consumed with jealousy as a result?

That's all I've got. Feel free to add what you will. I gotta take a leak.

[EDIT: check this link for at least one differing view on the Leak courtesy of Ahmadinejad]

More Interesting Facts (& Rumours) About Living in the UAE

1. You need a licence to buy alcohol and keep it in your house.

2. You need a licence to dance. Yea you heard me, a licence to dance.
If holding a function of any kind you will need a ream of permissions, among them the permission to dance.

3. Dancing in public is frowned upon as is singing out aloud.

4. Alcohol is not sold openly - only in tourist areas like Hotels. You can get arrested for improper use of alcohol.

5. Emiratis are nicer people than you have heard.

6. Western culture is becoming quite dominant in the UAE and beginning to override local customs and standards.

7. Dishdashas (worn by local men) and Abayas (for women) are rather elegant (IMHO) and can be quite fashionable and chic.

8. Proper policing of traffic has only recently begun in the UAE.

9. There are a range of nationalities within the UAE including Indonesian, Indian, Pakistani, Lebanese, Egyptian, assorted European, American, Jamaican (Ya Mon!) and Filipino...oh yes and some Emiratis (only 20% of the population though).