#52 "Google is Your Friend"

The information age has put us adrift on an infinite ocean of information. Yet, without an able navigator, we either fail to leave the shore or we become consumed by its infinite nature. Fortunately, a number of navigation (search) tools have been developed to help us filter and find our way: Google Search and Yahoo Search to name the most prominent ones.

Search is all about finding knowledge, ranking disseminating and distributing that knowledge to the inquiring parties. Whereas in ancient times such tools and skills came at a hefty price, we are led to believe that these services are provided to us by search clients for free. But this is not the case. There is a price being paid and there is an implicit, almost invisible contract in place that relatively few people seem to acknowledge or realize.

What we are perhaps forgetting is that by making what we search known to enterprising parties, albeit in aggregate, it says an awful lot about who we are and what our interests are. The key is that the sum of that information is in fact more valuable than what we are searching for. There is no philanthropy in search. In fact it is big business. The value of Google alone as of the 31st of March 2007 was 127 billion US dollars and counting. Just to put that into perspective; 127 billion is larger than the GDP of countries such as Egypt, New Zealand, Israel or Colombia.

Companies like Google make these billions today because people believe that they are making use of a "free" service. Sure it is free in a financial sense in that one is not paying cash to do a search. But one is paying with privacy and knowledge. The difference between you and Google is that they have turned the collective of knowledge and privacy into a hundred billion dollar asset and you find whatever you were "googling" for. In fact, thinking that using Google search (or any other search provider for that matter) is "free" is just plain misleading yourself. You are inadvertently paying for that search by selling pieces of your life.

The action of search companies equate to that eavesdropping train passenger, gently leaning over, so he/she can hear your conversation, quietly taking notes. Even if the curious passenger doesn't know your name he will know a lot about you after listening in. Even if caught in the act, the eavesdropping passenger can easily claim that since he doesn't know who you are it doesn't matter what you said specifically. In actuality, the eaves dropping passenger is only interested in the words you've used, not your name.

Looking at Google’s privacy and cookie policy, you can ask yourself the question “if Google doesn't need to know who I am, then why does it collect the address of my computer, the system I use and the internet browser I use, on top of what I am searching and clicking.” The eavesdropping passenger by now is starting to look a lot more than the Gestapo than those brightly colored and friendly shaped letters that make up the Google logo.

Search companies like Google are taking advantage of a society that is changing faster than people realize. Knowledge remains an important commodity today. However, what has changed is the scope of what we consider knowledge. The public just hasn't realized this yet and smart companies such as Google are quick to take advantage of something we don't consider a commodity: our privacy.

From the perspective of a Google shareholder, one would like to see Google doing even more to optimize the use of their information. The problem is that what can and could be done with specific information or even the aggregate of such information would be on the boundary of what is morally and legally right. Technology moves a lot faster than our legal system, so it is possible that there are enough loopholes that can be exploited in which "googlified" information could be used against our interests. This would call for interesting legal cases, but, even those would be difficult to beat. Who can beat the legal team of a 120 billion dollar company? Due to the low level of my budget, the only defense council I would be able to afford would probably have to rely on Google search to build my case!

It must be said that the intent of this article was not to bear any hostility towards search enterprises such as Google. It is merely a rhetorical reply to a professor who stated that if all else fails "Google is your friend." At first it did seem that way; the friendly web page, ready with thousands upon thousands of search results just a click away. However, as an economist trained to believe that the only thing free in life is sunlight and the air we breathe (for now at least), I did have my hesitation with the definition of Google as a friend.

At the end of the day you as a user just have to keep in mind the implicit nature of the seemingly invisible contract you are colluding with Google as you make use of their services. Even if most people won't be bothered to think about this, do measure what you are giving and what you are receiving for it in return. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is information. And yes, knowledge IS power.

#51 Modernization, Myanmar Style

Today's most famous examples of reclusive states with hard handed dictators are most probably Zimbabwe and North Korea, while others would add Cuba to the list (personally I think Cuba and Castro in no way compare to the brutality found in Mugabe and Kim Jong Il's respective nations). Less famous garrison states include Turkmenistan and Myanmar. It is Myanmar that beckons attention in this article.

Few people know more about Myanmar than that it is ruled by the military, it used to be called Burma, and Democracy activist Aung San Suu Kyi is held in house arrest. As with every country, there is a lot more to it than first meets the eye, but Myanmar's recent decision to abruptly move their capital to a city that didn't even exist two years ago, particularly merits special attention. To be sure, the country has undergone a tremendous amount of changes in her long history.

On 4 January 1948, Myanmar gained independence and was named the Union of Burma, with Sao Shwe Thaik as its first President and U Nu as its first Prime Minister. After a period of relative stability, the country found itself unable to remain Democratic and experienced repeated name changes. In 1962 Democratic rule was ended with a military coup d'état, followed by a name change to the “Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma” in 1974, another coup d'état in 1988 by General Saw Maung, a name change back to the "Union of Burma" the same year and it was finally renamed the "Union of Myanmar" in 1989.

Free elections were held the following year, in 1990 and were decidedly won by Aung San Suu Kyi's political party, the National League for Democracy (NLD). The military junta (known as the "State Law and Order Restoration Council," or SLORC) refused to accept the result, however, nullifying it and seizing power. They later changed their official name official name to the "State Peace and Development Council" (SPDC) in 1992, remaining in power until today. The country has known two rulers since the military junta seized power by force in 1990: General Saw Maung and current leader, Senior General Than Shwe.

Until March 27 of this year, the capital of Myanmar was Yangon. As can be expected based on the country's history, Yangon was not always known by that name. The old name, Rangoon, was officially changed in 1989 to Yangon. Officially, the new administrative capital, Naypyidaw, was proclaimed on 6 November, 2005, but it was not named or shown to the outside world until March 27 of this year. Naypyidaw lies 3 kilometers west of Pyinmana and approximately 460 kilometers north of Yangon. It translates to the "abode/city of the kings" and, judging by the first pictures of the city, it certainly appears to befit kings.

According to Information Minister Kyaw Hsan, 924,608 people now live in the 7,000 square kilometres that has become Naypyidaw, in central Myanmar. The city is expected to be competed in a year, with all the buildings constructed, the green flourishing and road and rail links improved. The city is divided into three zones; one for the military, one for government administration, and one for residences.

While the reason for moving the capital remains unclear (perhaps it is nothing more than following an old tradition where ancient Burmese rulers used to dismantle the capital of their predecessor and build a new one meant to outshine all those that came before), it appears certain that it will be an economic failure. For one, all government employees were forced to move to Naypyidaw a year and a half ago. The countless apartments are being developed for these workers, who now find themselves with reliable water and electricity supply and newly paved roads - all rarities in the impoverished nation. Furthermore, government officials have seen a major increase in their salaries, with some top-ranked officials seeing their salary soar more than 1,000%, according to the BBC. This might sound nice, but seeing that there is no real economic shift or progress in the country and thus no solid basis for funding this project, it will surely lead to disillusionment among the people and possible economic disaster. Resentment might also increase among the populace, as those who are not government officials will be left with no benefit and increased inequality. The luxury cars and uniformed men on motorcycles in the "Military Zone" of the new capital, where a fortress-like complex houses Myanmar's leader, won't help either.

Talk from the military remains highly anti-Western, with blame for most everything being laid on imperial powers on a daily basis. Simultaneously, however, talk of Democracy surfaces occasionally, as it did in the speech of Senior General Than Shwe at the Armed Forces Day parade. Than Shwe said "The people, together with the military must also strive hard to build a modern, developed state where disciplined democracy flourishes." So far, this kind of talk has been little more than empty words. Unless the government truly changes its ways and allows space for proper business initiatives and investment, not only is Naypyidaw doomed, but the country as a whole stands little chance of rebounding.

For pictures of the new capital, Naypyidaw, have a look at the following link:

http://svaradarajan.blogspot.com/2007/01/naypyitaw-photo-album.html

#50 Is Afghanistan the Right War?

With the recent announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair that the English involvement in the American-led Iraq War was entering its final stages, the question of American involvement in an increasingly unpopular war has once again been brought to the front burner. The fact that the English withdrawal coincides with an increase in the troop deployment in Afghanistan highlights the differences between these two theaters of war. With the exception of the United States, the coalition in relation to the Iraq War is fading. Simultaneously, however, the idea that the war in Afghanistan is a ‘just cause’ and one (in the eyes of the rest of the world) worth fighting for has raised some interesting contradictions.

While the obvious links to the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York and Washington D.C. should not be understated, I am questioning the relevancy of Afghanistan and its role in relation to American strategic interests. Of course Afghanistan is a hot-bed for terrorist activity and has played host to some of the most infamous international terrorists. But so has Pakistan. I contend that even although a failed Afghanistan would be an annoyance to America and its allies, it would have little more effect than that on the international community. In fact, the overall economic and strategic position of Afghanistan is extremely limited. With the exception of Kabul, the country is almost entirely impoverished and rural. Two-thirds of the Afghan population lives on less than two dollars a day and it is estimated that one-third of its economy is based on the production of poppy seeds.

What exactly are we going to accomplish in this impoverished and isolated country of 30 million? The Soviets found that they were unable to accomplish their mission even without the watchful eyes of the international community. Afghanistan’s limited role in Middle East affairs and its virtually non-existent role in international relations, means that even a successful mission by the international community bears no real fruit.

Conversely, the situation in Iraq necessitates the presence of the international community. As a central figure in the Middle East and a major oil producer, the importance of Iraq far exceeds that of Afghanistan. A failure in Iraq would open the door to a new level of anti-American extremism which would in turn threaten the international community at large. Failure would further strengthen the tyrannical regimes of Iran and Syria and lead to an increased likelihood of a prolonged civil war. The consequences to the international community are profound. By removing themselves from Iraq and increasing their presence in Afghanistan, the English have revealed their true colors. The English and the European Community as a whole are once again in the position of transferring the real responsibility to the Americans.

With the international community fleeing Iraq, but not wanting to look weak on security issues, the conflict in Afghanistan is a relatively safe alternative. Dozens of nations continue to support the American-led Afghanistan war and the overthrow of the Taliban regime. Where are the supporters of the Iraq war? While the international community can clean its hands of the Iraq war and not feel the guilt associated with its failure, the long term consequences are severe. The rise of anti-American, anti-war rhetoric concerning the Iraq war may appease some in the international community, but in the end not only fails to solve the problem, but could potentially reinforce it.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Westbrook Sullivan

#49 The Social Science of Economics Part 2

Be sure to read The Social Science of Economics Part 1 first!

Entering the twilight zone…

In part one I hinted at the idea of computers and complex quantitative models taking over from humans as active market makers. We are definitely going to see rapid further growth of quantitative financial modeling, computer run portfolios and computer market management based systems. Before you feel completely obsolete, however, keep in mind that there are still a number of factors involved that should, at least for a while, guarantee jobs for those beings with emotions and mortality.

There remain limiting factors to quantitative perfections, as computers and models require data. And there are many different types of data, such as trading volumes, stock prices, volatility, interest rates, Gross Domestic Product, consumer spending, job growth, inflation, etc. The problem with data is that some of it may not be a true reflection of the economy. Think again about our definition of the economy as a common denominator of human interaction.

Traditional economic approaches fail to capture the true scale and complexity of the global economy and therefore so do our data. In fact, there is a shadow economy, be it a twilight zone, completely untouched by the bias of our standard quantitative approaches to economics. For example, to what extent does GDP truly reflect the sum of economic behavior of a country? GDP only contains that what we measure and unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your profession) not everything is measured. Why not? Because the real world contains aspects that cannot be measured. In development economics this is partly captured by the notion of the "informal economy." The informal economy contains activity that is neither taxed nor monitored by a government and is subsequently not included in that government's Gross National Product.

The informal economy can encompasses everything from money laundering, drug trade, prostitution and bartering of goods and services, to mowing the lawn for grandpa, writing a blog and downloading or uploading content from the internet. With that in mind, the informal economy probably says much more about human behavior than does the formal economy. Although the informal economy is notoriously unquantifiable, it is probably a grossly understated element driving GDP.

Coming back to the idea that economics is a social science: exchange does not have to be monetary. In fact, most exchanges between people do not directly involve money. Inherently it means that value is actually arbitrary and, analogously, the value of money is arbitrary as well. Just as purchasing power parity can explain why an American middle class salary lets you live like a king in Vietnam, the arbitrary value of money explains how people value an X amount of money irrespective of the differences in their environment.

So now the twilight zone is complete: there is a world with arbitrary value, one where there are different modes of transaction – monetary and non-monetary. Monetary exchanges include informal monetary transactions (think about prostitution, micro finance (e.g. mini loans, transactions within families or farm cooperatives) and mafia practices). In terms of non-monetary alternative exchange based transactions, think of media exchange on the internet, bartering goods and services, etc. This twilight zone should encompass economics. But it doesn’t, because it presents a nightmare scenario of elements that are by their nature difficult to quantify and analyze in a traditional economic sense.

A common thread and constant within this twilight zone is human behavioral aspects. This is not saying that human behavior is constant (in fact it is probably highly variable and scenario driven), but it saying that, although the basis of exchange and circumstances is variable, there is perhaps a common thread (keeping in mind bounded rationality) that can accurately describe human economic behavior more accurately than traditional restricted economic models. So conclusively, if we accept that economics is a social, behavioral science, it needs to extend the breadth of analysis by drawing from disciplines it criticizes as soft or irrelevant. Finally, if we are to use economics to accurately model the aggregate of human behavior and exchange, it is imperative that we explore closer integration with fields such as behavioral finance, psychology and, in the future, neuroeconomics.

#48 The Social Science of Economics Part 1

When you think of economics, traditional concepts such as of supply demand, interest rates, inflation and GDP all come to mind. These are relatively abstract notions that do not seem very important on a gloomy, cold and rainy morning in March. Nor do they provide a natural gust of excitement in your body the way tabloid pop culture news might. Arguably, the problem with economics is that we have lost sight of what it really is: A common denominator of human interaction.

You might say that my definition appears far removed from economics. Well, the opposite is actually true. It's nothing more than common sense re-rationalized. Economics is really about human interaction; more specifically about exchange and the conditions of exchange. Human interaction, be it on a micro or macro level, is really a behavioral science. So, in fact, when we are studying markets we are really studying aggregate psychological behavior: the sum of all interactions.

Currently mathematics is used to study economics and finance by constraining the "human" elements prevalent in the exchange. Common assumptions such as “risk neutral”, “risk averse”, “homogenous expectations” and “rational actors” are all foundations upon which many economic and financial models are based. To give credit where credit is due, it has to be said that by constraining human behavior, we are able to examine how perfect markets would work and this has contributed greatly to our understanding of economics and financial markets.

However, humans are far more than merely rational, utility maximizing robots. We have feelings, emotions, memories, a conscience, and are often absorbed by greed. So, in fact, human rationality is a biased rationality, if not a flawed rationality. Human rationality is different from the machine-like rationality upon which clever mathematicians and econometrists build their assumptions models. This begs the question of what this means for markets?

Behavioral finance is a relatively new field that draws on heuristics, cognitive biases and bounded rationality. The basic premise is that behavioral biases play an important role in markets. Even more interesting is the study of neuroeconomics, which studies how the brain makes choices in combination with psychology, economics and neuroscience.

Imagine modeling the neuroeconomic behavior of macro market movers such as hedge fund managers. A computer model with A.I. (artificial intelligence) capabilities would be able to predict and model the market scenarios and move against them accordingly. Since economics as a social science destroys the concept of ‘perfectly perfect’ markets anyways, the neuroeconomic models could create tremendous arbitrage opportunities. There are some limitations that lie at the core of not only this idea, but general economic modeling that need to be considered first.

Read The Social Science of Economics Part 2 as we enter the twilight zone of economics!

#47 Chavez vs Bush

It is nearly impossible these days to escape the continuous taunting of US President Bush by Venezuelan President Chavez. A large portion (in any case a very loud portion) of the world seems to be squarely on the side of the Venezuelan leader, either because they truly agree with his Socialist policies or simply out of blind disgust for anything Bush-related. Both leaders are currently on a tour of Latin America, with the not all too subtle aim of beating out the other in the eyes of the local populace. While Bush is in Brazil and Uruguay, Chavez is in Argentina; Bush in Colombia, Chavez in Bolivia; Bush in Guatemala, Chavez in Haiti. Again, whether justified or not, it seems Chavez has a clear advantage, though Bush certainly wins the award for most dignified demeanor.

Indeed, by repeating calls like "Gringo go home!" and "Yankee go home!" Chavez is using highly irresponsible terminology that creates hate for an entire nation, rather than only for the man Chavez claims to be taking aim at. "Gringo" and "Yankee" have evolved into highly derogative slurs, which, coupled with the use of terms such as "devil," are nutrients for widespread incitement. Accusatory calls that the CIA is plotting to assassinate him will also do little good for US sentiment in Venezuela and beyond. Chavez recently repeated this allegation, saying "Who did they swear in at the White House as deputy secretary of state? A professional killer: John Negroponte...They have assigned special units of the CIA, true assassins, who go around not only here in Venezuela, but in Central America, in South America."

Chavez's calls resonate in the region, however, with anti-US sentiment quite possibly at an all-time high. Wherever Bush visits, he is welcomed by major protests and often violent demonstrations. Mayan priests in Guatemala have even promised to purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate "bad spirits" after President Bush visits. Chavez easily garners tens of thousands of supporters at "anti-imperialist" rallies in any given Latin American nation.

Rather than yelling back with slogans of his own and organizing rallies (granted, it seems highly unlikely that Bush would be able to attract enough supporters to his rally), Bush remains cool, proclaiming "I bring the goodwill of the United States to South America and Central America. That's why I'm here." He rightfully notes that bilateral aid has doubled under his presidency from 800 billion to 1.6 billion and stressed "I don't think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people's lives. And so my trip is to explain, as clearly as I can, that our nation is generous and compassionate." In this respect Bush is wise to ignore Chavez's provocations and not stooping to his level. This might count for something in time to come.

Besides the ethanol deal, Bush has pledged medical aid in the form of a new project that dispatches a Navy medical ship to 13 countries in the area in order to treat the poor. Millions have also been made available for affordable housing for the poor, while a new initiative was also presented in which $75 million is to be made available to help Latin American youth learn English and study in the United States.

Chavez, in turn, is offering free goodies such as sending doctors and teachers to allies such as Bolivia, providing an oil refinery and a highway free of charge to Nicaragua, and paying off billions of Argentina's debt. Chavez has also pledged $15 million in aid for flood victims in Bolivia, including a squadron of helicopters to deliver food to remote villages, making the $1.5 million sent by the US pale in insignificance.

In terms of direct aid, Chavez has a slight upper hand overall in Latin America today, but the years of US aid added together dwarf anything Venezuela or Chavez can dream of offering. When it comes to public opinion and image, Bush doesn't stand a chance next to Chavez. However, Bush has managed to retain his dignity in the face of ridiculous taunts and accusations. For example, the world praises Brazil for their advanced use of alternative fuels and urges the world's greatest polluter to follow suit. With the newly signed ethanol (a bio-fuel made from sugar cane or corn) deal between Brazil and the US, Bush is doing precisely this. Unsurprisingly, Chavez found a way to turn this around, saying "the US is taking food from the poor and giving it to vehicles instead." With this kind of logic, you can criticize everything and anything, of course.

The Bush vs. Chavez rivalry is far from over and is sure to provide enough interesting material for future reference.

#46 The Trouble with Israeli Apartheid Week

The Oxford University Arab Cultural Society (OUACS) is a society which one presumes exists to celebrate and propagate Arab culture. Odd then, that this week is the amply advertised and broadly publicized Israeli Apartheid Week, brought to Oxford courtesy of the OUACS and constituting its flagship project. One would hope that there is more to Arab culture than antipathy towards Israel and her policies alone, but I suppose the OUACS are in the best position to judge.

What precisely is Israeli Apartheid Week? The plan is to regale audiences over a five day period with various lectures and other events which will convince the attendees that in addition to a host of other sins, Israel is guilty of practicing Apartheid and that it is morally incumbent upon each and every one of us to confront such heinousness and to put a stop to it. In the organizers’ own words, “the aim of Israeli Apartheid Week is to push forward the analysis of Israel as an apartheid state and call for a boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign.” Whatever the merit of such an analysis, it is clearly not one given to nuance.

Indeed, nothing about “Israeli Apartheid Week” is even remotely calibrated to dialogue and apolitical study of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is very much a partisan event in which no opposing views are to be heard, and this need not be objectionable per se. It is quite obviously a fact that the Palestinian people today is suffering greatly on account of rather many diverse reasons. To the extent that the Palestinians are suffering, it is desirable that we should alleviate their distress. But this end will not be served by an event as politicized as Israeli Apartheid Week.

Let it first be said that the understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being promulgated by the OUACS is at the very least controversial. Although Israel may be guilty of certain condemnable acts and policies, so is the other side in the conflict, a fact left entirely unaddressed by Israeli Apartheid Week. As for allegations of Israeli apartheid, these are belied somewhat by the OUACS’ choice of speakers. Monday evening Jamal Zahalka, an Arab Muslim member of the Israeli parliament, spoke at great length about Israel’s grave discrimination against its Arab citizens. It seems to have escaped him that as an Arab man born in Israel he was able to obtain his B.A., his M.A., and his Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem without any ado, he has been able to write, travel, and freely express his vehemently anti-Israel views, and he has been able to form with other Arab citizens of Israel a political party which he currently represents in Parliament. While doing all of this, the man has not once been beaten, assaulted, or otherwise savaged by the Israeli authorities. Israel’s Arabs may be in many ways disadvantaged, but there is no question of apartheid; another Arab, Ghaleb Majadle, is currently a serving minister in Israel’s government.

Arguments regarding Israeli apartheid in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are similarly tenuous. Glaringly, there are no longer Jews in the Gaza Strip, and those synagogues built there have long since been razed to the ground. It seems difficult to maintain an apartheid regime over a territory that one does not control. As for the West Bank, there the situation is significantly more complex and comparisons between Israeli policies and those of apartheid South Africa can appear to have some justification. Proponents of the political view represented by the OUACS point to checkpoints, segregated roads, the security barrier, and other features of Israeli control as racist policies exemplifying Israeli apartheid. What such an interpretation omits entirely is any attempt to distinguish cause from effect: prior to the Intifada, none of these most egregious of examples existed in any way comparable to their present incarnations. If today some roads are reserved for Israeli citizens only, be they Arab or Jewish, then this situation arose as a direct result of frequent shootings on roads that had previously been used by both Israelis and Palestinians. Likewise, the number of checkpoints mushroomed in an effort to inhibit the movement of those seeking to perpetrate terrorist acts against Israel and the security barrier was built in order to prevent the infiltration of Israel by these same people. One may take issue with such policies and regard them as too draconian or ineffective, but it cannot be said that Israel set about applying them because of some malicious desire to oppress Arabs. If this were the case, then why do all the most frequently mentioned illustrations of alleged Israeli apartheid postdate the beginning of the occupation by at least thirty years? Occupation is an ugly thing, but that Israel’s policies equate apartheid is by no means a straightforward proposition.

Still, the OUACS is certainly entitled to voice its perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however unbalanced and contentious it may be. Despite this, one is left with the question of why the OUACS has chosen an obviously inflammatory way in which to postulate its case. If there is apartheid in Israel, then let the facts speak for themselves. I wonder if the OUACS would be entirely comfortable with the idea of a Palestinian Terrorism Week with an explicit agenda directed at publicizing the view of Palestinian society as based on the glorification of terrorism and the systematic delegitimization of Israel’s right to exist. Such a week would be no less contentious than Israeli Apartheid Week and it would be equally ill-conceived. One hopes that the OUACS is merely seeking to shed light on the plight of the Palestinians and to espouse the Palestinian cause; why then, did they not organize the Plight of the Palestinians Week or some equivalent thereof? Surely one does not need to be anti-Israel to be pro-Palestine?

Other questions arise. If the OUACS is a political society which seeks to redress the ills suffered by the Arab peoples rather than a purely cultural society, then why has it neither held nor is it planning to hold an Iraq Week or a Darfur Week or a general lack of democracy in the Middle East Week? What, ultimately, does the OUACS intend to achieve beyond a vilification of Israel and the winning of proselytes to a somewhat radical understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? To make any headway at all toward the reconciliation of Arab and Jew in the Holy Land, it is imperative that partisans on both sides of the argument refrain from blatant provocation and seek instead to organize joint events in which civil and cordial debate takes place, giving the audience a fuller picture of the conflict and allowing them the liberty to find their own, more nuanced positions in the dispute. This is in every way preferable to spoonfeeding the public with undiluted partisanship and propaganda, as is the case with the OUACS’ Israeli Apartheid Week.

- This article was written for publication in Cherwell, the Oxford University newspaper, and was provided to the Weekend Economist by the author, Jonathan Valk.

#45 Eternal Leaders Part 2 - Mobutu

In this first analysis of a number of the 'eternal leaders,' the track record of former heavyweight Mobutu Sese Seko (former President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; then known as the Republic of Zaire) will be analyzed. Mobutu might very well be one of history's most brutal and miserable dictators, bringing his country's economy to ruin and implementing a reign of fear.

Born Joseph-Désiré Mobutu on October 14, 1930, Mobutu Sese Seko - as he later became known - would grow up to brutally lead the Republic of Zaire for 32 years (1965-1997). Through his career in Journalism, Mobutu met future Prime Minister of Belgian Congo (as the nation was called at the time) Patrice Lumumba in Belgium in the late 1950s. The two got along well and, upon return to Belgian Congo, Mobutu was offered the position of colonel and chief of staff of the Congolese army, following the granting of independence on June 30, 1960. From this day forward, Mobutu's true character came to light. He first deceived his friend Lumumba within months of his appointment, siding with President Joseph Kasavubu and deposing of Lumumba in a coup d'état. Lumumba would later be captured by soldiers loyal to Mobutu, beaten in plain sight of television cameras on a number of occasions (including in Mobutu's villa), and was finally executed.

Not long after, on November 25, 1965, the army took over power and Mobutu's 32 year reign began. Opponents were taken out and a cult of personality ensued. His Popular Movement of the Revolution (MPR) Party became the only legal political party in 1967, all unions were put under government control and in 1970, legislative and presidential "elections" were held, where voting was compulsory and Mobutu was the sole candidate. He won with 99% of the popular votes. Having crushed an attempted coup in 1967, co-opted or murdered his opponents, Mobutu now had a solid grip on power.

This led to experimentation with far-reaching policies such as renaming the country the Republic of Zaire in October 1971, ordering citizens to drop their Christian names for African ones (he named himself Mobutu Sese Seko Nkuku Ngbendu Wa Za Banga - "The all-powerful warrior who, because of his endurance and inflexible will to win, will go from conquest to conquest, leaving fire in his wake" - in 1972), imprisoning priests for baptizing a Zairian child with a Christian name, banning Western attire and ties, and forcing men to wear an abacost (a lightweight short-sleeved suit, worn without a tie).

Economically, Mobutu was a disaster, and a highly corrupt one at that. In 1973 Mobutu decided to nationalize all economic assets owned by foreigners, leading to a catastrophic decline in national productivity and wealth. The major failure of this policy eventually led Mobutu to return farms and factories to their original owners in 1977, but it was too little too late. While the country suffered major economic woes, Mobutu allegedly had amassed a fortune estimated to amount to US$5 billion in 1984, according to Fortune magazine. He also owned and traveled in his fleet of Mercedes-Benz vehicles and numerous palaces, while infrastructure virtually collapsed and public service workers went months without being paid. Inflation was a direct result of his policies, which was only exacerbated by the equally prevalent kleptochratic environment and nepotism.

In terms of foreign policy, Mobutu proved to be a relatively reliable ally for the West (mainly the US) in the Cold War. Nevertheless, Communist leader of Romania, tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu, was a close friend of Mobutu's, while Zaire also enjoyed good relations with China. Western disgust of Mobutu became apparent after the end of the Cold War, however, when he was no longer needed, shunning him in a rather hypocritical fashion.

After superficially agreeing to end the ban on other political parties and appointing a transitional government that would lead to promised elections in 1990, Mobutu retained power for another seven years, when he was overthrown in the First Congo War by Laurent-Désiré Kabila in 1997. This was a direct result of his support for Rwandan Hutus in the Rwandan genocide in 1994, when Mobutu issued an order in November 1996 forcing Tutsis to leave Zaire on penalty of death. Kabila was supported by the Tutsi governments of Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda and got rid of the ailing Mobutu in a quick and effective manner. Mobutu died soon after in Morocco, where he lies buried in, ironically, a Christian cemetery.

Although having economically ruined a resource-rich nation, butchering thousands and embezzling billions of dollars, Mobutu can be credited for maintaining the peace in Zaire. In the 5 years of independence before his rule, almost one million Congolese had died in conflict. His hard hand ensured that high profile torturing and assassinations of dissidents instilled a fear of the military and government that would prevent any such recurrence of violence. No matter how you look at him, he certainly qualifies as an "eternal leader."

Please have a look at #43 Eternal Leaders Part 1 for the list of the world's longest serving leaders.

#44 How Democracy and Diplomacy Can Solve the Iranian Nuclear Issue

The idea I will put forth in this article may raise a couple of eyebrows around the world. Iran’s record in the field of human rights and democracy is terrible; certainly when compared to Western countries. However, in the Islamic world, it is actually one of the democratic front-runners. The 2006 local elections demonstrated that Iran is not as totalitarian as we all like to believe. Furthermore, it demonstrated that the Iranian people do not wish for a collision course, nor do they want any further humiliation of their country. Therefore, it is imperative that the United States re-starts diplomatic relations with Iran and that it returns to the negotiating table. It is the only option left to solve the current nuclear crisis.

The sore wounds left by the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the ensuing hostage crisis still guide American response to Iran’s actions. The United States has always relied on its unmatched military might to influence relations with Teheran. However, with Iraq sliding more and more into outright chaos and the United States’ military still tied down there, the Pentagon’s plans to use force against Iran could be of better use in Hollywood as an interesting movie script. This leaves diplomacy as the only feasible measure to provide a solution to the urgent problem, because every day that inaction dominates Western policy, Iran is coming closer to a nuclear weapon.

The argument for diplomacy actually lies in the reasons why Iran wants to obtain a nuclear weapon. It is not for offensive purposes that Iran wants a nuke, because offensive use of the weapon would be suicidal. It is simply not possible for Iran to obtain enough nuclear weapons to conduct an offensive doctrine. However, the weapon would be very useful in diplomatic relations, as a nuclear weapon would demand instant international respect.

It is exactly the aforementioned respect that Iran is after. Ever since the Teheran hostage crisis, the US has not conducted any diplomatic relations with Iran. It has also imposed a strict sanctions regime on Iran, which lays a heavy burden on Iran’s unstable economy. Therefore, the UN-imposed sanctions of December 2006 will have little effect; they will only strengthen the feeling amongst Iranians that the whole world is against them. And the Iranian people are actually the key to success in diplomacy.

The power of the Iranian people is not to be underestimated. In 2006, president Ahmadinejad suffered a remarkable defeat in the local elections. The Iranian people clearly spoke out against his hard-line anti-Israel and nuclear stances. With the 2008 parliamentary elections in mind, Ahmadinejad will have to moderate his position on the nuclear issue. Key here is a respectful and decent offer at the negotiations table. The Iranian people will not tolerate a rejection of such an offer and they will punish the president once again in the 2008 parliamentary election. However, continuation of the current policy against Iran and the threat of force will unify the Iranians once again behind their leaders and it will empower them to continue their enrichment program.

Therefore, the time for diplomacy is now. If the United States accepts that it cannot resolve this issue with force and actually makes a sincere attempt at the negotiating table, the Iranian government will have to come forward as well, making a speedy and desirable solution of the issue a more feasible outcome. It may seem like a paradox, but it will be internal democratic accountability, and not sanctions, that will force the Iranian leaders to concede.

- This article was written for and provided to the Weekend Economist by Jorik Reijmer

#43 Eternal Leaders Part 1

Countries who are used to proper functioning Democracies with limited re-electability enshrined in the law are used to seeing new faces as head of state. This does not apply to a significant number of countries in the world, however. In fact, having leaders in power for over 30 years in a row is not as uncommon as one might expect. This series will look at the performance of a number of these "eternal" leaders. Part 1 provides the list of the longest serving 25 heads of state currently still in office, while the subsequent parts will take a closer look at the results of their leadership.

The list excludes royalty and heads of state who have no real power, comprising mainly of leaders who are Prime Minister or President of their respective countries. For example, Malietoa Tanumafili II, who has been head of state of Samoa since January 1, 1962, is excluded from the list because his post is largely ceremonial (true power lies with the Prime Minister). Similarly, famous royals such as Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (1952-currently) and King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand (1946-currently) are excluded from the list. Furthermore, only leaders of the 20th and 21st Century are taken into account.

Before presenting the list, it is also interesting to have a look at some of the longest ever serving heads of state. A number of these leaders will also be profiled in this leadership series.

President Kim Il Sung: 1945-1994, 49 years (North Korea)
Emperor Haile Selassie: 1930-1974, 44 years (Ethiopia)
King Hassan II: 1961-1999, 38 years (Morocco)
President Gnassingbe Eyadema: 1967-2005, 38 years (Togo)
General Secretary Enver Hoxha: 1948-1985, 37 years (Albania)
General Francisco Franco: 1939-1975, 36 years (Spain)
President Alfredo Stroessner: 1954-1989, 35 years (Paraguay)
President Mobutu Sese Seko: 1965-1997, 32 years (former Republic of Zaire)
Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew: 1959-1990, 31 years (Singapore)

Now it's time to look at the main list. Below are the top 25 longest serving world leaders currently still in power. The position in office is written first, followed by the name and date the leader in question took office. In brackets you will find the country where they reign freely.

0. President Fidel Castro: February 16, 1959 (Cuba)
1. Prime Minister Hassanal Bolkiah: October 5, 1967 (Brunei)
2. President El Hadj Omar Bongo Ondimba: April 14, 1967 (Gabon)
3. Colonel Muammar Gaddafi: September 1, 1969 (Libya)
4. Prime Minister Khalifa ibn Salman Al Khalifa: 1970 (Bahrain)
5. Prime Minister Qaboos ibn Sa'id Al 'Bu Sa'id: July 23, 1970 (Oman)
6. President Ali Abdallah Saleh: July 17, 1978 (Yemen)
7. President Muamoon Abdul Gayoom: November 11, 1978 (Maldives)
8. President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo: August 3, 1979 (Equatorial Guinea)
9. President Jose Eduardo dos Santos: September 10, 1979 (Angola)
10. President Robert Mugabe: March 4, 1980 (Zimbabwe)
11. President Hosni Mubarak: October 14, 1981 (Egypt)
12. President Paul Biya: November 6, 1982 (Cameroon)
13. President Nursultan Nazarbayev: March 22, 1984 (Kazakhstan)
14. President Lansana Conte: April 3, 1984 (Guinea)
15. Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen: 1985 (Cambodia)
16. President Yoweri Museveni: January 29, 1986 (Uganda)
17. King Mswati III: April 25, 1986 (Swaziland)
18. President Blaise Compaore: October 15, 1987 (Burkina Faso)
19. President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali: November 7, 1987 (Tunisia)
20. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: June 4, 1989 (Iran)
21. President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir: June 30, 1989 (Sudan)
22. President Islam Karimov: March 24, 1990 (Uzbekistan)
23. President Idriss Deby: December 2, 1990 (Chad)
24. Prime MInister Meles Zenawi: May 28, 1991 (Ethiopia)
25. President Isaias Afewerki: May 29, 1991 (Eritrea)

Please have a look at #45 Eternal Leaders Part 2 - Mobutu for an analysis of the leadership of former Republic of Zaire President Mobutu Sese Seko