Recent geo –strategy thinking in the United States

Posted on March 1, 2010 by Victor Ofosu

It's being argued that the atrocities of 9/11 mark significant changes in the world outlook of the United States of America . In fact since 9/11, we have seen major changes in the USA 's foreign policy, it have become far more aggressive. Some argue that the USA 's foreign policy was aggressive anyway, many analysts believe this was due to a 'Cold War' hangover, where the USA had a foe to stand up against, it doesn't anymore. This essay discusses neo-conservatism and the spread of neo-liberalism, combined with the idea of the pre-emptive strike as foreign policy.

Since the 'war on terror' is a major current affairs issue, a further examination will be taken on the policies used to fight this 'war' including the idea of unilateralism. The paper concludes by reflecting on the importance of Eurasia in maintaining the United States stance t's been argued that the idea of neo-conservatism is based on the philosophy of Irving Kristal, developed in answer to the social liberalism of the 1960's, where the standard call became, 'Make Love, Not War'. This new conservatism has influenced several Presidents, probably all, except Carter but, more so those since Reagan, ending with George W. Bush stating. "We must deter and defend against any threat before it is unleashed. Even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemies attack. The United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively". (National Security Strategy meeting of the United States. held in 2002).Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice argued that 9/11 was the opportunity needed for the USA to expand its global influence and dominance by using power to support its foreign policy and defend American interests and promote American ideologies abroad.

The policies of the Neo-conservatives are taxes and federal budget, size of government, traditional moral values, expansionist foreign policy and national interest. The manipulation of tax policy is meant to kindle steady economic growth. This has been adopted in an effort to seek economic expansion abroad. Traditional Christian moral values are being used in an attempt to solve America 's social crises, of which there are many. It is also used by the establishment to try forcing 'normality' upon the American public, as well as keeping a semblance of power over said public. America's expansionist foreign policy is putting friend and foe in their separate 'boxes', adding proof to Cox's argument that there is a new World Order emerging. Rice's statement about world domination would seem to agree with this idea. With the USA acting as the world’s law enforcement, as long as it coincides with their 'national interest', it all smells like the exploitation seen in the old imperialist days. The United States sees itself as acting as the defender of democracy under attack from non-democratic countries.

The United States doctrine of unilateralism can be traced back to the 'cold war' era. In that era the USA led its allies from the threat of the Soviet Union . This was with countries incapable of using direct force themselves (Cooley, 2002). This allowed America to manipulate other countries into agreeing with its policies and actions. America used this as away to maintain its influence and control in unstable parts of the world. During the Clinton years it was stated that ' America will take unilateral action against what it perceives as conflict regions, insurgency to terrorism and ethnic unrest. The USA perceives terror as a direct attack on American hegemony'. This was supported in a speech made by Clinton on 26 February 1999. When Clinton by-passed the UN to invade Kosovo the statement was put into effect. The fall of the USSR opened America to another form of threat. By the 1990's America had enjoyed dominating the political world stage for a long time. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was the first threat to America 's dominance (Cooley, 2002). Once that was taken care of, a new threat appeared, in the mid 1990’s that made America look at restructuring its global position. The Bush administration, after the events of 9/11, retreated further into its unilateral stance, because of the terrorist attacks on its mainland. America ceased working with international institutions and other countries. This was highlighted by its withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, as well as its violating its commitment to the non-proliferation treaty and the Kyoto protocol (Liu, 2006).

The invasion of Iraq , without UN approval beforehand, provided even more proof of the USA 's hardening of its unilateral stance, provoking questions of America 's military-geo-political aspirations in the area. When at a meeting, Condoleezza Rice said, " US foreign policy should proceed from the firm grounds of national interest, not from the interest of an illusory international community" (Callinicos in 2003). And this was backed up by Senator Bolton who said, "There is no United Nations and no such thing as International Law" (Callinicos in 2003). The functionality of the USA was questioned, as this shows the USA 's complete lack of respect for the United Nations and the concept of International Law, as well as the entire International community.

Kofi Annan, the General Secretary of the UN, said in an interview with the BBC “any military action against Iraq should have been made by the Security Council" (usiraq.procon.org). The US argued that its position as the world’s super power, its issues both at home and abroad, gave it the right to act unilaterally if needed.

The rise of countries such as China , India and Iran and the re-emergence of Russia allied to the threat of terrorism, creates a significant threat to American hegemony. The invasion of Iraq serves as a way of the American neo-conservatives to control a significant portion of the oil market in the Middle East (Cooley, 2002). Thomas Friedman said that, "The gloved hand of the market needs a hidden fist, McDonalds needs McDonald Douglas. US high-tech industries need the military to protect their investments and interests"(Callinicos in 2003). This may constitute military advances for the control of land mass which when obtained and allied to alliances with country's such as the Balkans and Poland would give America a significantly powerful geo- strategic position in Eurasia. Brzezinski said "Manoeuvre and manipulation can maintain geo-political plurarism on the map of Eurasia " (Callinicos 2003). This perception indicates the possible importance of the European Union development to America , although some share the idea that the European Union may become as strong as the USA in the fullness of time. In many instances it can be argued that American strategic thinking can serve as a different form of 'Imperialism' (Cooley, 2002). This idea is supported by the writing of David Harvey, when he wrote, 'Imperialism is a distinctive political project on the part of actors, whose power lies in being based in being in command of a territory and able to mobilise its human and natural resources toward economic, political and military ends.'( Harvey , 2004) In this way the United States protects its multinational corporations with military forces and asserts its policies on the occupied territory. The invasion of Iraq can be seen as such a move.

Conclusion

This paper has so far given some analysis to the effect of 9/11 and how this event led to United States war on terror. The paper has also indicated the major feature of the United States geo- strategy thinking. In addition the paper has also explained the meaning of neo conservatism. Within the same context the paper has also identified and indicated the differences between neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. This explanation has been conducted with an analysis of the history and the philosophy of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism. Furthermore a detail analysis has also been conducted on the war on terror and it benefit to the United State . In addition the paper has also provided an analysis on United States foreign policy after the events of 9/11. This paper conclude by arguing that although there are some merits to US action and policy after the events of 9/11, in fact the characteristics of neo conservatism indicate a new era of imperialism.

Bibliography

Books

Callinicos. A. The new Mandarins of American power, (2003)

Cooley, j. Unholy wars, the definitive account, the guardian, (2002)

Articles

De Hass. M. Current geo strategy in the south Caucasus , the power and interest news report, (2006).

Harvey , D. The sources and development of American imperial power; the new imperialism, Oxford press, p. 1-5, (2003)

Liu H. C.K Non-proliferation and Unilateral Proliferation, (2006)

Quadrennial defence review report, (2001)

Websites

http://usiraq.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000875 (22/02/2010)

By Victor Ofosu

The rise of Dangerous Ideology in Britain

Posted on October 29, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), in its aim to increase viewers for their Question Time Show last week, invited the leader of the far right party Nick Griffin. The BBC argues Nick Griffin was invited to give his views as an elected member of the European parliament. In my view the BBC’s invitation to Nick Griffin was reasonably a fine idea, as it demonstrated democracy and freedom of speech for all. However the consequence of the interview was an unprecedented increase in membership of the far right party in Britain. In an attempt to discredit both the logic and leadership of the far right party, the audience verbally attacked the leader’s ideology; the danger to this was the party gaining enough air time to preach its ideology and policy. The leader Nick Griffin argued on the show, the economic problems affecting Britain was a direct effect of immigration. In his aim to put his party in a good light he argued his party today believes all race are equal. He stresses the point that his party has moved away from their racist views. The fact of the matter is if his party is not racist and embrace all race as members, then immigration should not be used as a platform for a political campaign. I make this statement base on the observation that most ethnic minorities in Britain are from a migrant background. In other words, attacking immigrants mean attacking ethnic minorities. His statement indicates a move to gain political leadership and a way to manipulate some British public in acquiring votes.. Nick Griffin at no time during his interview demonstrated a change in ideology.

History has shown us that when there is an economic crisis, dangerous ideology such as the far right rises. This was the case in 1929 during the great depression. It is very clear apart from issues to do with the First World War, the great depression of 1929 led to the Nazi party being elected as an alternative to other parties at that time. From 1933 to 1945 the world saw the Jewish population been blamed for all the problems facing Germany at that time. The blame later led to the murder of millions of Jews and a World War which also took millions of life. In fact the marks of the Second World War live in the minds of many today. The ideology of the Nazi’s is not that different from what Nick Griffin is preaching today. Given that he is trying to make the ideology appealing to those he hates.

Just like in the 1920’s today in 2009, we are faced with similar economic issues. The crises we are facing today have zilch to do with race or migration as was the case in the late 1920’s. The crises today are a direct result of mismanagement of our economy coupled with high levels of corruption and greed. No only the above we are also witnessing the decline of the United States hegemony, this transformation in many ways has contributed to the current crises facing many countries today. I also share the view that we have over developed and have leaped into a mad civilisation with extreme social decay. Maybe it would be a good idea for the far right to address this issue.

The failure of our leaders in addressing the economic problem facing Britain has led to the rise of the far right. Again in history the far right is attempting to capitalise on the ignorance of people to gain political power. Not to ignore or dismiss the issue of migration, I agree to a certain level that in every economy whether developed or developing, migration plays both a positive and negative role for the country. Taking Britain as an example, you find white British refuse to take on Jobs such as cleaning. In this field you will find these jobs are occupied by immigrant. However in the middle of economic crises, a party such as the far right will argue migrants are taking the jobs of White British. The far right on the other hand is very much aware of the fact that higher paid jobs in Great Britain are occupied by white British and not by immigrant or ethnic minority British. So if they are looking for someone to blame for the problem or difficulties they are experiencing, I think in this case it will be reasonable to blame the bankers and politicians. On this ground I think it is fair to dismiss the perception that race has caused lost of jobs for the white British population.

Nick Griffin also argues immigrants are too dependent on the British welfare system. He argues because of immigrants white Britain do not benefit from the welfare system. In the interview he stresses that ethnic minorities should be excluded from state benefit. Nick Griffin’s statement is not only an indicating of racism but also show lack of respect for human rights.

Most immigrant come to the United Kingdom not for the purpose of state benefit but for employment. However this is different for refugees, who do not have the right to work and have no choice but to depend on state benefits. On the other hand I do not blame refugees for the problem we have encounter within our economy. Much of the blame should be directed to the British government. The issue of refugees has a direct link with the British government attempt to destabilise countries, invade countries and plundering recourses from other countries for the benefit of the British public. The effect of our foreign activities and foreign policy has led to the increase in the number of refugees in Britain. An example of this will be the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and the Somalia crises. These are not neglecting repressive and imperialistic British activates in Third World countries over the years.

From the above explanation, it is quite clear the issues facing Britain today is not a matter of race. It is also clear that our political leaders are not in a position to address the issues at hand. However we the people are in the position to address our issues. It is important to note, our government is there to manage the country. This means they do not have solution for the problems they create. We on the other hand can make that change by getting active in society. That is mobilising against dangerous ideology such as the far right. A far right party in power spells out more blood shed, and I believe we have witness enough of blood shed. So why not come together and explore possible solution for our problems. Equality and collectivity is the only way forward for a better world.

By Victor Ofosu

The New Mandarins of American power (Review)

Posted on October 05, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

The atrocities of 9/11, the war in Afghanistan and Iraqi war have raised questions about the dominance of the U.S.A. In his book, Alex Callinicos, a member of the socialist worker’s party explores the doctrine behind American foreign policy. Callinicos examines the justification by the United States for their war on terror by going deeper into investigating the way in which the United States perceives itself as the protector of the globe. The book focuses on the conduct of the Iraq war and how Anglo- America justifies the war in Iraq. The author emphasises the way in which President Bush’s administration uses American forces backed by the pentagon to attack and contain its competitors. In addition Callinicos outline the ideology behind terror, he librates on the mechanisms deployed by the United States to create a universal certainty that the world is under threat by terrorist. This indicates a shift from the threat of communism to Islamic terror. This, I believe gives the Americans the justification to create a global policy which will help enable their goal to achieve total domination. Callinicos emphasises that in order for the United States to maintain its hegemony, the Bush administration had to create trepidation in the public. This fear made it easy to spread neo liberalism and American capitalism which the Bush administration claims will bring about economic equality in the world. From my perception the policy adopted by the United States will further the stagnation on the Continent of Africa and other developing countries. His perception gives the understanding that with unilateral policy, the world will be dominated by a western hegemonic force whose aim is to repress the rest of the world. The author looks at the history of the United States and its modus operandi of world dominance. His perceptions provoke questions on the decline of the United States. Although Callinicos views are quite prominent, it raises the question of exactly who the next world power will be - perhaps the European Union, Africa, China, India or Russia. The author highlights the importance of Eurasia in America’s search for dominance of the global market. He exposes the methods Bush and the neoconservative advisors employed, that is the threat of terrorism, to justify its aggressive action on the Middle East and the rest of the world. Callinicos gives a deeper explanation on the link between the United States and the Middle East and the threat of Nations such as Iran, China and Russia. He goes beyond examining the motives behind Bush’s doctrine and links it with the Reagan administration. In a way the book can be viewed as a warning to the world on what is to come. To Callinicos the United States takes action against what he calls the rouge regime according to its interest or to protect its interest. I can support Callinicos argument by illustrating the question of Rwanda. The book makes a good reading and gives details into issues of great importance. Callinicos book shares a controversial perception on the extreme importance of the topic, giving details on the New American century. In my view the doctrine of the neo conservatives will be best understood if the book is critically examined. Subsequent to critical examination I believed, the thought was developed in by the left in early 1960s. Some believe the thought was developed from the 1880s. The word neo conservative has also being used to describe British politics between the 18th and 19th centuries. Neo conservative’s main policies are Taxes and Federal Budget, Size of Government, Traditional Moral Values, Expansionist Foreign Policy and National Interest. This review focuses on two main policies expansionist foreign policy and national interest. Neo conservative’s expansionist foreign policy defines differentiating your friend from your foes, at the same time maintaining your power. The perception of national interest indicates a defensive and offensive policy. Which is prominent in Bush’s Doctrine, of preemptive war stated to the national Security Council, and entitled National Security Strategy of the United States published in 2002. The spread of neo conservatism abroad indicates what Trostkist identify as a permanent revolution. From my perception this is the creation of a permanent army economy, enforced by the United States. This Trotsky predicts so well. Callinicos explores further to revile how unjustly and unequally economic power is shared between nations. This is the effects of the spread of neo liberal ideas. I think Callinicos indicates how imperialism is alive and signifies the existence of slavery through economics. The book provokes the perception that detaining Bin Laden is long forgotten because of the war in Iraq. Can it be possible 9/11 was perpetuated by the Bush administration?

By Victor Ofosu

Racist free world is possible

Posted on September 27, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

Most countries pride themselves on being committed to Human Rights. They are the foundations on which we build a healthy, civilised nation. However, racism is still a big issue in today’s society. The question here is why? From the perspective and analysis of history, we can evidently see that racism causes division, fear and violence, negative ideas which fascism feeds and thrives on. In fact the system in which we live divides people. As the gap between rich and poor grows, people feel dispossessed, angry and insecure. The basis of this system is competition, causing division not only within races, but also within social classes. The majority of the people at the bottom of this social ladder today are people of colour. Why is this? From the abolition of slavery in the 1820s through to the 1960s, people of colour have been denied advancement and have been seen as the decay of society. This segment of society has been deprived of the knowledge and opportunities that are needed to break the cycle of poverty and violence, leading inevitably to problems with criminal and antisocial behaviour. Islamaphobia is the lowest form of racism, and is being fed by the US driven “war on terror” – a cover for Bush’s plans to dominate the Middle East and grab its vast oil worth. Even today, people forget that racism is a product of ignorance, fear of the unknown and fear of what is different. Some people are blinded by that fear and resort to violence. It is a sad and stupid thing that in this day and age people still get killed because of the colour of their skin. Division between the races will always lead to individualism, selfishness, hatred and sometimes even war. It is about time for us to learn from our past and make changes for the future. This can only start here, within this university. We need to take a look at ourselves, then at each other and be able to see past the physical and cultural differences. We need to be aware of each other as human beings, each responsible for their own actions and for sharing this planet together. It is not about skin colour, but about who we are. Helping each other will help society and reduce hatred and division. Humans thrive by communicating with each other and their surroundings. Life is a cycle and within this cycle we all have our role to play, and it is by being united that we will bring progress to our society. We must stand against fear and injustice. Unity can only be achieved through respect, peace and love. You are the future. We need to create changes and it should start now. Let’s unite for the right cause, the eradication of the causes of racism!!! A better world is possible.

By Victor Ofosu

The issues of homelessness

Posted on September 12, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

In today’s society, due to the increase in population we find that unemployment and homelessness are unaddressed issues. My research shows that, as some people argue, homelessness is not a choice many make. The lack of housing has been quoted as a reason for homelessness but, there are nearly a million empty houses in the country. So the problem is really a governmental lack of effective policy on houses left unused. There are numerous causes of homelessness, including but not restricted to the breakdown of family, drug and alcohol addiction, abuse of the individual, unemployment, lack of education and mental health problems. There is also a problem with the availability of easily accessed help centres. A lot of people who are homeless are those living on the margins of our society. Those that have been in the care of the social services, those released from either prison or mental health institutions. Ex-service men and women form a substantial proportion of the homeless, normally because there is very little or none aftercare services available for service personnel who suffer the after effects of being in a war zone. Many people see a family member with mental health issues, as something to be ashamed of, especially in some of our ethnic minority communities. It is never spoken about, actually kept behind closed doors and so the available help is never sorted out. This in turn means the problems are left unaddressed. Many of the above reasons for homelessness lead to social isolation which again only acerbates the problems. What is needed is a more open-door approach from the government to solving these problems. We as a society can do a great deal to help the problem, by not looking the other way we can lead a hand in solving the problem. We need, as a society to engage with the homeless, to stretch out the hand of friendship, even if it’s something as simple as spending 5 minutes talking to a homeless person. You would be surprised how much difference that would make, not only to the homeless person but to yourself. We individuals make up the society, what is needed is to re-connect with each other and realise that the material goods we are so in search of, are making us divisive and inhuman.

By Victor Ofosu

The future

Posted on August 13, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

12/08/09



The future presents us with severe uncertainty. Humans have developed too fast in the wrong way heading for the wrong direction. Humans today believe we have accomplished the impossible, but in reality we are destroying not only ourselves but our whole existence. The definition of development presents the notion that we expropriate, live and die with the understanding that we are leaving behind what is needed for the youth to develop. But development in this day and age is the wrong way forward for a productive future for the youth. Today we fight amongst ourselves for our own material needs, forgetting the need to preserve nature for the future. We must understand nature and land is for the usage of all man, women, children and most importantly animals. Sadly our greed has led to creating an impossible utopian society which is by no means is the beginning and the end of our existence. We forget humans just like the forest and animals have significance in future.

Our various governments today preach the need for the preservation of nature yet; on the other hand they are all too eager to sign agreements with corporations involving the destruction of our forest. They wage unnecessary war and in the course killing animals and destroying our beautiful nature. I dreamed of a day when human will be ready to forgo all his desires which is indeed leading to our destruction. I see a future where water and food would be the cause of major wars, a future where our destruction of nature would lead to suffering and incurable diseases, a future where man will fight against the rebellion of nature this manifesting itself in different form. I also see a future when human would wish they could go back in time and undo their mistakes. However it is not too late for man to develop in the right way and to put the future in the right course. I pray for all to understand the need for persevering our beautiful planet, by this meaning respecting ourselves, animals and most importantly the forest. We should only use what is needed and not to over produce for our own ambitions. The solution to accomplishing a better future is not only through government policy but also by each individual living life responsibility. Also through education and developing ourselves we still have a chance for a future survival. I warn all man and woman it is time to make the right decision for the betterment of the future. I believe a better world is possible do you share this view? If you do, let us make this world better for the future of our youth.

By Victor Ofosu

I miss you Kwame

Posted on August 13, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

13/08/09


It is hard to say goodbye to those we love and have lost through the struggle. I remember the good time we had as we sat on the street corner contemplating on how to progress in this unequal world. We made plans not only to develop but to help ensure equality. Kwame I can not believe you gone. Also to my friend who did not make it through the hardship of street life, I promise I would maintain the vision we had to create equality. Although you gone I know and feel you still with me. Kwame sorry I never said all I had to say because now you are gone. I never imagine I would be living without you. I feel you here with me and this keeps me alive in my quest. We both took life for granted but I hope you know I always cared. All the summers we spent together felt you would forever be here. But now my sleepless night makes me feel all is lost. But in my heart I would always carry you and initiate your dreams. Kwame you was a wide young man blessed with the foul lesson of this unfair society. We both mess with the wrong crowd and learn our lesson. We spent days stressing on life and prayed how to get out of the streets. We spent time hurting our own kind, but Kwame now I see the bigger picture. I have forgotten the criminal ways of fight, now it about educating the youth about our struggles. It was always a hustle on the street going through the ills of society. I remember when we had the police running after us sometimes it felt like equality was a counterfeit. They said all men were equal but when we got stopped we were treated like we were from different spices. Through our struggles we took advantage of the hard life we were born into. We were never valued by the establishment but we always knew our existence was priceless. Through out our mission the devil had plans to take you way from me. We always felt we could not trust the government and through the process the police took you away. Today few years after your death the young today, are killing each other which was not the case with us. It is sad that the institution who supposes to protect you took your life. Before your arrest, I waited for your return to commence on our plan for change. But the next morning I was informed you were gone. I never had the change to say goodbye. For the love of money we were dragged down into negativity, only if we had education and liberty this world would have been a better place for us. Kwabena has never been the same since you gone, but today he has the family he always wanted. Kwame we are now doing just fine. We miss you.

Kwame Sasu Wiredu

Age 23

30th August 2002

Died in police custody at stoke Newington police station.

By Victor Ofosu

Youth crime

Posted on August 13, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

03/08/09


03/08/09 The latest government policies and advertisement presented by Transport for London, which attempts to address the issue of youth crime indicates how disconnected the government is with the youth today. We must first understand the issue of youth crime is not a new phenomenon. The difference between today’s youth crime and the past is an increase of relative deprivation and social inequality. Boris Johnson’s advertisement calls for young women to stop their boyfriends from engaging in crime. However, what Johnson refuses to acknowledge is that today some young women just as in the past are more fascinated with bad boys or young gangsters because of the status or fast flowing money which they may offer in the short term. This is also ignoring the fact that young women themselves are increasingly involved in street crime and gangs. Boris and the government need to recognise much of the problems contributing to youth crime are in many ways connected to government policy which constantly alienate young people from society. First step is to make sure that every single individual is educated up to the age of 16. There should not be possibility for young people to be permanently excluded from education. Money should be invested on the youth by providing specialist schools for every single excluded youth. This ensures that the future of this society is left in hands of people who have the ability to improve society with their skills. In addition, the government needs to address the break down of the family system. Also both the police and the media should refrain from criminalising the youth. I have the understanding that the presence of high level social crises means there is an unaddressed economic crisis. As this is the case in the United Kingdom, it would be more beneficial if the government addresses the issues of our economy. Then find ways to create opportunities for the youth. Finally the government and its institutions need to make education available and free for all as they enjoyed during their youth. If our government is really interested in the well being of the youth, it is crucial that they take responsibility for the current crises afflicting our society. Most importantly the government must invest our money in the people not in nuclear weapons and definitely not in invading other countries. In addition politicians should not use the issue of youth crime as a platform and a tool toget themselves elected into political positions. This is not the way of solving the situation at hand. My friends lets come together under the banner of UNITY and find the best way possible to address the issue of youth crime.

By Victor Ofosu

African Development (Solution)

Posted on June 28, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

For Africa to develop the continent has to gain its economic independence from it colonel leaders. African need to develop its own political structure, which can accommodate the various conditions in Africa, in addition Africa needs to invest in training and educations. Good governance, industries and investment in Agriculture will assist African development. Africa must also adopt the outward system of trade, this mean less imports and more export. What is your view?

By Victor Ofosu

The youth and the future

Posted on June 28, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

The most serious threat to Great Britain is not terrorism, or state security, but the way we handle our internal economic affairs. Today our country is confronted with economic affliction of great proportion. I stress the point that the state of British economy is deteriorating. Our main problem accumulating to this issue is that our parents have been too selfish. It is quite sad that this generation of youth will one day be responsible for paying the bills left by our parents. Although this is the case we the people have a choice in the matter. We need to call for the government to act now or we will pay the replications. In order to solve the problem we require spending discipline. By this I mean both the government and the people needs to stop spending money they don’t have. This requires a true partnership between the people and the government. A close partnership is this case requires more savings and less usage of credit. This should take effect on both the social and governmental level. The problem we face today is not only a result of housing crises, but also issues which have been left to spill over from the First and Second World War. Our high borrowing, fraud and uncertainty of our financial market can also be blame for these crises. Today in 2009 our economy is suffering and bleeding from inside and at the moment a garrotte is not going to help as, we need to clout the economic crisis. We can not simply cut and paste using foreign economic templates. It is in our best interest to address the issue as it suits the British people. We the people need to call on our government to implement measure which will attend to this illness for the betterment of the future. The solution to this problem to me is a stronger banking policy. In addition we need a stronger economic growth, which in this case may depend on lower inflation. In another to acquire low inflation we need more interest on saving and less interest on the stock market. Vice Cable in his book the “Storm” stress that over population is one of the key factors contributing to our economic crises. Mr Cable’s statement resurrects Malthus argument of overpopulation. Although there are significant merits in Vince Cable’s argument, my analysis on the issues indicates that industrialisation, technological advancement, over production and mismanagement of our economy are some of the main factor contributing to our current economic crises. In addition I see that the effect of a permanent arms economy which moves our attention from addressing social issues to the production of arms is also to blame for our problem. On this issue our government invest more in arms production for the so called protection of our country. But in fact they wage war on countries such as Iraq in other to make money from the sales of arms. The right solution for me will be investing in our manufacturing industries and small business. This solution I believe will increase employment which in turn would contribute to saving to secure the future. However the state of our economy I argue is also a result of short term measures implemented by our governments. In effect our leaders gave us the impression that we could spend and borrow at will, as a result were mortgaging the future of our youth leaving them with the responsibility to pay for our own mistakes. The current measures implemented by our government will only lead to high taxation and extended deficits. I hereby stress the need for severe measures to be implemented in order for the future leaders of our country to mange our economy. If these measure are not implemented the future leaders will have less of a quality life which our current leaders have enjoyed. In other to control our trade deficit our country need to export more and import less. This solution on the long run will control our deficit. I say this because I foresee a future were our governance will be unaffordable. Tomas Jefferson during his time argues that it is immoral to leave the future generation with debt. My fellow citizens we are the future and the generation who will be affected by the current economic mismanagement. We must act now to secure a better future. We must not simply go according to what is presented by our leaders; we need to take effective action for a better tomorrow.

By Victor Ofosu

MP expenses

Posted on June 26, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

Today revelations on MPs’ expenses are clear indication that minorities are not alone committing crime in Britain. The question is, are those MPs’ going to face public persecution? I ask this question because it is sad to see how many poor people go to jail for less then a meal. I do not believe resigning is justice, but it only serves as away for MPs’ to avoid prosecution. Resigning only serves as recognition of wrong doing; it does not punish them. The same goes for the top financial directors in Britain. My word on this is clear, I do not agree that anyone should abuse the system and I am tired of government hypocrisy. Melonie Wheatle a student from London south bank university argues we all know that none of those MPs will face prosecution from what they have done. In fact prosecutions will have to be brought under the Fraud Act 2006 and based on an analysis of that piece of legislation absolutely not one of them will ever be brought to justice. She goes further to argue state “they wrote the laws and they know that based on the provisions of the act, it is a fact that it is a closed case.” I hope reader agree with me if I state enough is enough. It stated with an illegal war on Iraq then a financial crises. And today we are face with the issue of high level corruption. What is the difference between corruption in the third world and that which when face in England .

By Victor Ofosu

Enquiry into the War in Iraq.

Posted on June 26, 2009 by Victor Ofosu

This week our un-elected Prime Minister argued the need for an enquiry into the war in Iraq. Although there is some merit in our Prime Minister’s argument, it is still unclear as to the basis on which he wishes to conduct this enquiry. I can say that this enquiry may serve as a platform to close the book on the war in Iraq. In his address to the House of Parliament the Prime Minister argued for a half open public enquiry and a closed door enquiry. Brown was convincing enough to make it clear that both the individual and the institutions appointed to initiate this enquire were in agreement with his proposal. Revelations from the newspapers this week indicates there is less truth in the Prime Minister’s statement. It was made clear by the Evening Standard that the individual mention in Brown’s statement had no idea about his proposal before it was made public. In fact many of the individuals alleged to be involved in the enquiry were not consulted. It becomes ever so clear day by day that our leaders are nothing but liars and not to be trusted. The question here is what action would be taking after this enquiry? Also what should the public expect from this enquiry? I ask these questions because after a series of demonstrations against the war, Former Prime Minister Tony Blair still took us to war. The effect of this is the cost of a war which the next generation would be paying for, for many years to come and I must say this is highly immoral. My personal feelings on this issue are there in no need for this enquiry. Much like the Bloody Sunday enquiry in 1998 it will be a costly, time wasting affair with no real consequence. Most importantly this enquire will only prove beneficial to the British public only if the perpetrators face prosecution. The fact is we all know very well this would never be the case. In addition to being a complete waste of tax payer’s money, can the current economic climate in Britain really afford it? The British public should only agree to this enquiry on the basis that both Blair and Bush face prosecution, for misleading the public and misusing public funds. My fellow citizens’ times are changing and these political can no more misuse our trust. This mean the people taking effective action over issue which affect them. I say enough is enough and I go straight to the point to say the fun days for these political gangsters have come to an end. I urge us all to take effective actions to protect the future for the next generation.

By Victor Ofosu