Biden 2020

It appears Joe Biden wants to run for the presidency of the USA in 2020. Maybe the 2016 missed opportunity is haunting him. In 2020 he will be 78. I don't know how age will be against his candidature but the hope is that the nolstagia of the Obama years will be in favour of his candidature. This is so because from the looks of it, the Trump presidency is destined to be a failure. He doesn't know what is in store for him.

On a final note, I think Biden's obiquitous admission of a 2020 run is too early strategically. Others who might want to run in 2020 have got more time to work around any possible weaknesses on Biden's suitability for office. In politics anything goes. Let's wait and see.

Fidel Castro dies

Former Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro diea at age 90, state-run media reports. The story is developing....

Obama’s hollow legacy

Check out this article on Obama's legacy. It's a good read.

Trump wins US Elections 2

Donald John Trump

Hillary Rhodham Clinton

This post is continuing from the last one. So Trump has won therefore what does that mean? Before that question is answered, let us examine the details. While Trump has won the election based on the Electoral College System, Clinton leads the popular vote. This raises an issue on whether, Trump's victory was substantial or just 'because of the rules.' I briefly touched on the unfairness of the election via the Electoral College System before (in the context of what constitutes a free and fair election).

The question of whether US elections are free and fair is muzzled out in the mainstream media. The elections are depicted as free and fair but a lot of evidence points to the contrary. I'm referring to events before, during and after the election.

The Trump-Clinton's scenario is not the first in the history of the USA. This is the fifth time something of this sort has happened according to The Guardian

The last time the electoral applecart was upset in this fashion was in 2000.In controversial circumstances George W Bush took Florida, allowing him to reach the 270 vote target-just. He secured 271 electoral college votes to Al Gore's 266 (one elector abstained from casting an electoral vote for the latter).Prior to that election, it had been 112 years since another Republican candidate, Benjamin Harrison, secured a majority of electoral college ballots while losing the popular vote.

It was (yet another) Republican who this system first advantaged in 1876: Rutherford B Hayes won out by just one electoral college vote, despite more than 250,000 fewer ballots being cast for him than his main opponent, Samuel J Tilden. Arguably the strangest happening of all, however, was in 1824, when John Quincy Adams won the presidency even though Andrew Jackson had received more popular votes and more electoral votes. Because none of the candidates in the race reached the required number of electoral college votes, the decision was left to the House of Representatives, which opted for Adams.

The mainstream media's polling failed in the US elections and some are seeking answers from anywhere. Polling in this case was going to be difficult because of the reason given below in a previous post

When you have a controversial candidate (with the case of Trump) at times the polls before the actual polls are sometimes misleading because where there is controversy, inactive or dormant voters come out of their shells. Those kind of voters are unpredictable.

Others have given their own reasons but it is important to note that opinion polls are not in any way the actual polls and it is important to carefully read the situation on the ground for one get a clearer picture.

Trump's right wing populist approach to campaigning attracted vitriol from many directions. On face value it would appear as if he was not electable. Sometime in February this year I actually did not imagine him winning the election.

What then is going to happen to America. Definately Trump is not going to be the US President. The Republican party is going to be damaged to the core as a result.

At the time, I was wrong. His continued surge in the primaries and finally bagging the Presidential Election tells us a lot more about the electorate. People are fed up with the government, corruption and elitism by corporates, congress and other so-called washington insiders. Racism in America was believed to be on its way out but for sure it is alive and well. Society in the US is deeply divided. There is a lot of hate. In my opinion, not even Trump is able to douse the flames. When people believe that their ignorance is the truth, you should know that there is trouble right ahead.

What is ubiquitous at this stage is that the American people have been conned by Trump. I doubt very much that he is going to implement some of his ludicrous campaign pledges. The moment he became president-elect, his tone changed. He became restraint, calling for unity from every stakeholder. This indicates that some of these pledges were a way to get support from the people. They are not going to be implemented. Examples include the repeal of Obamacare, a wall along tje border between the USA and Mexico, the imprisonment of Hillary Clinton e.t.c.

On some of his pledges, let us wait and see how he is going to tackle them. His choices on members of his administration will give us a hint on the trajectory he is going to take.

The Syrian Rebels and Chemical Weapons

It looks like the Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons in their uprising against the government of Bashar al-Assad. The US and company are at a loss of words and at the moment they are trying to downplay the evidence. Imagine if it was al-Assad. When reports emerged sometime ago that al-Assad had used  chemical weapons, the US and company were raging like pit bulls even before any concrete evidence was even put out in the open.

Up to now it seems those rumors were just rumors. Rumors meant only to destabilize Syria. The true colors of the rebels will soon show themselves up in the open for everyone to see. That’s when the hypocrisy of those who support the rebels will be exposed. If the rebels want change, why don’t they support dialogue. All they want is war, something which is destabilizing. What’s happening in Syria is just disturbing

The World in a Flash….

Recently I have been posting quite a few posts and its not like I’m losing interest in blogging but just that something has been preoccupying me recently. Anyway on the international scene the Reinhart-Rogoff debacle is still ongoing and the Eurozone is still the sick man of the world. These are some of the things I want to share with my followers now and again. But eishh that’s life and I will just have to let it roll.

UPDATE: World Bank Presidential Elections.

As expected Washington managed to arm-twist its way into making sure that it's preferred candidate (Jim Yong Kim) was appointed as the World Bank President. What I found intresting was the seemingly choreographed & biased responses to the news of the selection by Western media and policymakers.

The press statement by the Center for Economic and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot is a clear example. In it, he says that 'despite being a US citizen, he (Kim) would not take orders from Washington as anyone that might be appointed from another country'. He goes on further saying that the US uses the WB as a foreign policy tool to advance it's political and economic agenda of mainly neo-liberal economic policies of abandoning state-led industrial and development strategies, and tighter fiscal and monetary policies. But he contradicts himself in a Voice of America (English) article in which he says that since Kim doesn't have much financial experience, hence he will have to rely on WB staff on these issues. So how doesn't that prevent Washington from influencing him, since it controls the WB.
Essentially the real decisions at the WB are about allocating resources among the various competing developmental needs.

Other right-wing guys like William Easterly were completely out of touch by commenting that 'why should we rush with the appointment'. Wow. Is it because Kim was under intense scrutiny. Such a call wouldn't have been made if a candidate from a developing country was under scrutiny. What I noticed from media houses such as AFP via Yahoo & Huffington Post is that they talked about how a success Kim would be, but crucially ignored the issue under contestation that if he was the best candidate for the job.

Peter Chowder of Bretton Woods Project which monitors WB work summed it up by declaring the appointment was a stitchup between the US & Europe.

The World Bank Presidential Elections.

With the World Bank meetings coming up. The race is now up to two candidates, American Jim Yong Kim and Nigerian Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala with the Colombian Jose Antonio Ocampo having dropped out already. Originally I wasn't interested in the news pertaining to the jostling for the job among these world actors. But the endorsement of Okonjo ahead of Kim by The Economist got me thinking. It seemed to me that the Western consensus regarding apportioning these key jobs among themselves on reasons other than meritocracy was losing steam among themselves. The failure by the WB and like-minded institutions to reduce poverty substantially and thereby contributing to sustainable development has necessitated a rethink in how development issues are handled and the first step is having a competent person at the top.

On who should lead the WB among the candidates, it is clear that Okonjo is the best person in terms of depth and experience having been previously been a Managing Director at the same institutioon. Of course Kim has had some experience in issues such as public health but what matters at the end of the day is how the scarce resourses are going to be allocated to achieve an optimun result. Okonjo is one who has been there and seen it. Kim is at present struggling to give a clear picture on how the WB under him will look like. If he wasn't nominated he wouldn't have been a contender for the post therefore I dont see how now he could suddenly be the best guy around. Some supporters of Kim have been theorising that he is unorthodox hence he will present a new face and ideas to the WB. But Kim is not competent enough in wholesome development issues including food security, affordable housing, firm state institutions, the funding matrix etc (he's limited to public healthcare, his area of expertise). Like I mentioned before, the key here is how to balance the books to fund and manage these development areas, something Kim lacks. Other people such as Noam Scheiber have been naive to suggest that appointing an American is essential to secure Congress funding. Here's the case, the Chinese Developent Bank's assets are worth more than those of the WB and Asian Development Bank combined. Hence alternative sources of funding are available other than the US Congress.

Lets hope the WB Presidential election doesnt turn out to be a scripted event by Washington. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala deserves the post.

French Elections.

With the French Presidential Elections coming up (1st round - 22 April 2012), it will be worth noting how a Sarkozy defeat will change the dynamics of Europe and the World. Of course, the one most likely to defeat him is Socialist, Francois Hollande. Given the central role France has played in regime change agendas across the world (including Europe) in recent times from Ivory Coast to the Arab & North African countries. Even European governments had to face the bullying tactics of France and Germany under a failed policy of austerity. Governments have changed in Italy, Spain, Greece among others. A change in government in Franch will be a relief for many because of the scorched earth policies Sarkozy at al have been using. This will definately change France's relationship with Germany whose Chancellor Angela Merkel has unconventionally endorsed her partner Sarkozy. It will result in a rethink in the austerity policies Europe has been following religiously (hopefully in a positive direction). Sarkozy's hypocritical policies in the Arab Spring have regressed France backwards in contrast to how independent-thinking Chirac had been eg the Iraq issue.

Henceforth a Sarkozy defeat is progressive in my opinion.