When embassies gossip...

Julian Assange gets hold of that information and publishes it on wikileaks. The promulgation of hundreds of thousands of "cables", internal communications between US embassies and Washington, became the news-feeder of countless tv programs and newspapers. The cables concerned what embassy staff and other diplomats' views were regarding socio-political events or political figures. None of the information published can be cross-examined, since it only reflects the views of the United States Embassy or the official who made them. Further, the information published did not advance the dialogue in any meaningful or transformative way.

Cable-gate, as it was inaptly named, is the last set of information published by the founder of wikileaks. The data revealed on Iraqi casualties did have a far greater real effect than what the embassy cables have shown so far. It provided for counting the number of Iraqi civilians killed and the circumstances of their deaths or injury.

The most significant piece of data, published by wikileaks was that of the video of a helicopter raid on innocent people and killing them, among them were two reporters. This revelation led to an official investigation of what happened.

So why does information that has no real effect on the lives of ordinary Americans or to that of the United States government, other than embarrassing it momentarily, become such an international issue? Maybe because we love to gossip also?

Who can forget the cable that indicated how close was Muammar Gadaffi with his "voluptuous" Ukranian nurse? I think cable-gate should give way, and it has, to the recent revelation that a former banker gave Assange discs containing the bank accounts of thousands of public figures and corporations. I hope the coming revelations would lead to criminal investigations or otherwise they might have the fate of cable-gate.

Financial crisis of 2008: who is to blame?

To use an American political cliche, there is plenty of blame to go around. First and foremost, the greedy behaviour of the Investment Banks, and secondly the non-existent Congressional oversight.

Number one rule for profit-making companies is to maximise the profit of their shareholders. In the world of investment banking the more risky the behaviour of the bank, the more profit the shareholders will make. Thus, there is a built-in mechanism for greed in the capitalistic system. However, internalising the profits and externalising the damages is disadvantageous to the taxpayer. More specifically, the banks, or to be more precise, their risky division (investment banks owned by the parent bank) have been engaging in the derivatives market, which is highly complex and speculative, and when the banks would make profits they would give it to their shareholders, however when banks are in danger of failing, the bankers demand from the government to bail them out or otherwise the banking system would collapse (systemic risk) and take with it the whole economy.

The overwhelming part for the blame lies with the regulators, and generally with the government. Since the late 1970's successive governments have deregulated the banking sector to a point where the derivatives market size was 500 trillion dollars and the regulators did not know anything material about it. The government also failed to separate the big banks to investment and commercial thus not letting the risky activities of the investment bank affect the commercial part of the bank. In addition, the government failed to stop the banks like Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and Morgan Stanley developing into huge banking conglomerates. These banks became so big that in case they were to fail the economy would collapse also, and not only that of the United States. This scenario would have materialised if Congress would not have passed TARP in September 2008 to save the ailing banks.

So, it would be preferable not to ask bankers to be less greedy but to ask governments to regulate risky financial activities that banks undertake. Thus reducing the chance of the economic system collapsing in future crisis.

Obama: the deal-maker

Well, that does not look like a change we can believe in, does it? President Obama has been in office for two years and to the dismay of many Democrats he has not delivered on the promises made.

On healthcare reform, the proposed bill was watered down in order to satisfy the demands of the Republicans, the Bush-era tax-cuts were extended for two years, however, the Democrats' plan was to eliminate them. The don't ask/don't tell policy has not yet been repealed. Issues such as the aforementioned have shed a less than positive light on the abilities of President Obama to lead America on the set of policies he campaigned for.

Many on the left think of Obama as weak and unable to stand up to the Republicans. As a side note, irrespective of your political beliefs you have to admire their military-type conformity on the issue of healthcare reform. I do not think Obama is a weak negotiator, what he lacks is a "air-tight" Democratic party that stands behind him when the going gets tough.

For example, on the healthcare reform plan there were members of the Democratic Party that did not keep the party line. I am talking about you Max Baucus and the rest who got millions of dollars to vote along. This is not Obama's fault. Harry Reid should take a page from the Republican textbook on how to keep the members of the party on the same page. Thus leading Obama to make deals with the Republicans in order to get something done.

This is not to say that Obama has not made any mistakes. The way he handled the healthcare debate and the tax-cuts for the wealthy is wrong. Most of us thought that Obama, will be a different kind of President, especially when comparing him to his predecessor (President Bush). However, it seems that he is not able to break through the incredibly slow process of change in Congress. Leading Obama to resort in making deals with the Republicans.

Egyptian protests: is the world better off if they succeed?

Protesters Occupy Tahrir Square in Cairo, Egypt.

Tunisian protesters overthrew the government of President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali sending shock-waves to the Arab world. In this spirit, Newsnight, a nightly news program on BBC, was asking, "who is next?". Well, it seems that Egypt might be next. Reports, as of tonight, seem to indicate that the Mubarak government is getting prepared for some regulatory changes. Whether those changes will be significant or not only time will tell. A significant change would be if President Mubarak resigned. However, the scenario of overthrowing Mubarak might not be the best outcome.

Undoubtedly President Mubarak has kept the lid on the social, political, and religious demands of the people making Egypt a stable country that was accepted by the West. Yet, let us not forget that Egypt is home to the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood claims to be a religious group that has no connection to radical Muslims. That is not the case because Ayman Al Zawahiri, Usama Bin Laden's mentor, is an Egyptian member of the Brotherhood who during his years as a medicine student in Cairo was attracted by the beliefs of Sayyid Qutb, a revered figure of the Brotherhood's past.

Given the influence of the Brotherhood in Egyptian politics it would be reasonable to believe that the protesters to a smaller or greater degree espouse the beliefs of the Brotherhood. Now, with the present danger that the Egyptian people might elect, if and when Mubarak resigns, in the eventual elections a radical Muslim, how will the United States, Israel, Syria and the Middle East in general react to such events? I can guess, they are not going to be happy about it.

If Egypt "falls", it would be the catalyst event for major changes in the political realm throughout the Middle East. The domino effect will only gain strength if Mubarak loses power. And the next in line is the autocratic leader of  Syria, Bashar al-Assad. However, the status quo might be a better option than a domino effect that takes place "uncontrollably". A "controlled" domino effect is what the West and other Middle Eastern countries would prefer. Because on the one hand, the West wants a stable Egypt that can do business with, and on the other hand other Middle Eastern countries would want more time to solidify their power and silence any attempt for change.

What is the big deal?

Lately, the story of phone-hacking celebrities is everywhere. For those who are not familiar, The News of the World, a British tabloid, reporters would hack into the phones of celebrities and other individuals. The process was easy, early 2000s era, the reporters would call the person of interest and after the victim did not respond, then press 9 to enter their voicemail. Information obtained by the hacking would later appear as front-page news.

This issue has political ramifications since Andy Coulson, David Cameron's communications director resigned, after it became clear that a second police investigation was under-way that might implicate him in the scandal as he was the editor of the tabloid at the time when the alleged hackings took place.

However, i fail to see why has it been discussed so much.

The scope of the phone-hacking was limited, the Metropolitan Police has launched a second investigation, and Andy Coulson's damage to the image of the coalition government will be minimal at most.

Albania: six days later...

Albanian police guarding the Prime Minister's Office

Three protesters shot dead, presumably by the police, have been buried. There is a pending investigation as to who shot the protesters. An indication as to who shot them is the "arrest warrants" issued by the Prosecution Office to six police officers. However, the "arrest warrants" are not being executed by the Prime Minister, Sali Berisha, because he believes that the Prosecution Office does not have jurisdiction over the police officers present at the governmental buildings when the protesters were shot.

The clash between institutions is not a new phenomenon in Albania or any other country for that matter, but, when the Prime Minister blatantly violates his constitutional role in non-executing the "arrest warrants", then the rule of law ceases to function.  In this case the judiciary can find the solution, however, in Albania that is not the case.

The judiciary is practically powerless. That is partly due to the corrupt judiciary and partly due to the executive branch's pressure. As a result there has not been a single case where a public official of the upper echelons of government to have been prosecuted and sentenced due to their involvement in alleged corruption scandals such as the building of Durres-Morine motorway, the Gerdec explosion, killing tens of people, and the newest of scandals, that of Ilir Meta, deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister.

It is clear that the rule of law is not functioning. Setting back the aspirations of millions of Albanians to join the European Union for a while.