Eldon-Online

Islam - On The Edge!

I am not a particularly religious person, but was brought up in an enlightened environment of being allowed to make my own choice as to what and whether I believed. "As long you behave like a decent human being" I was told, "and treat people properly, with respect and dignity, you won't go far wrong". I would like to say I have tried, but have not always been successful in achieving that goal, and there are certain things of which I am definitely not proud. However, mindless violence has not, been one of my failings (except, somewhat flippantly, for having played rugby!). But as for the other indiscretions we learn and move on, for the better one hopes.

As a result of not judging other people solely by their beliefs, I count amongst my friends and acquaintances a real kaleidoscope of nationalities, religions, beliefs and lifestyles. And given my time in the Middle East, many of them followers of Islam. Gentle, humorous, hard-working people, both men and women strange as that may seem to some, who will be as horrified and upset by the recent events that have unfolded in Kenya in the last few day as any other right-minded person.

Such episodes are truly tragic and have no place in our society today, or ever. These acts, and others like them - the explosion in a church in Pakistan a few days ago by a suicide bomber for example - are being carried out in the name of Islam. I fear this is taking us on to a more rapidly icy slippery slope than we have been on for some time, and if no one representing Islam can stand up and say "this must stop", and also do something about it, it's only going to get worse.

And inaction within the world of Islam seems to be the name of the game. The civil war in Syria is a case in point. This is not something that the Western powers should ever have been involved in; it should rightly have been the Arab League's responsibility and at one time it looked as though they might indeed become involved ... but nothing happened. Meanwhile Islamic groups, or should I say terrorist groups using the name of Islam, have become emboldened by the lack of resistance to them and are daring to attack targets of their choosing.

What do they hope to achieve?

If the most recent experiences are anything to go by, the rationale seems to be "if you're not a Moslem, then we will kill you". It is senseless thuggery and murder, not a teaching of Islam and it is going to ultimately create a feeling of ill will against the Moslem community at large. In fact there is already evidence in Britain and other countries to suggest this is already happening. Extremist right wing nationalist groups are themselves looking for opportunities that will give them a "cause" to fight for fighting's sake - so why not turn, in their view, against the Moslem communities? Whether or not they are innocent bystanders.

Human nature is what it is. On the one hand we have the rational statements from world leaders who say, quite rightly, that we should not bow to terrorism and who appeal for calm because it is a minority of terrorists carrying out these acts of extreme violence - but then little happens that we, the public at large at least, see that gives us confidence that the problem is being resolved, or even addressed. We therefore start to live in a world of increasing paranoia because you can't even go shopping without being concerned that you could become collateral damage in an act of wanton terrorism.

Of course, no right-minded person anywhere should try and wash their hands of the problem, because it will spread, if unchecked, and touch everyone irrespective of their background. It's all very well saying this is a problem for Islam to solve, which it is, but the silence that emanates from their world at large, the lack of any authoritative voice from within that community calling for this senseless killing to stop is worrying. To me it puts Islam on an edge that I would argue it should not go over. If it does ... then others may take matters into their own hands with far reaching consequences.

It's That Time Again - Annual Handwringing in Hong Kong

The newspaper headline says it all - "HK Fightback Urged As New Zones Blunt Edge"; Oh woe! Hong Kong has just re-discovered that some of Mainland China's larger cities have an intention to become potential competitors to its perceived advantage. Well, currently two of them, this time round.

Given the worried looks and furrowed brows in some quarters, it has to be said that this news should not be a surprise ladies and gentlemen. It is an issue that has been written about by me, and by far more intelligent people than me, (not difficult, I know!) over an extended period of time. And if that hasn't been enough of a warning, Mainland China has been saying it repeatedly and openly. The erudite and highly respected Dr. Fang Xinghai has been pushing Shanghai's case for becoming a major financial centre for a long time - with a view to restoring that city's former entrepreneurial dominance. Representatives from Beijing, and Tianjin and other Mainland Cities have all at some time or another been in Hong Kong saying, "we're open for business", pay attention. But one gets the sense that we haven't paid enough attention.

Hong Kong has benefitted from that blissful honeymoon period enjoyed by many newly weds, when adjustments to their change in status take place. In this case in 1997 of course. As the blushing bride, Hong Kong soon began to experience irrational self-doubt in a manner that had not been felt by the previous generation or two of Chinese entrepreneurs, who themselves had built on the legacy created by the foreign community. Despite Hong Kong being in a "privileged" status compared to many other cities on the Mainland at the time of the handover, the new spouse took care to preserve those privileges in a number of ways. One has to ask whether Hong Kong's retail businesses, for example, would have survived the last few years had it not been for the number of mainland tourists being allowed to visit the city. Certainly given the way rents have increased the vast majority would have been out of business due to greedy landlords, let alone a lack of domestic purchasers.

Then there was CEPA, the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement, not loved by all perhaps but yet a further indication that China was trying to help out its new charge. And let's not get too dewy-eyed about all this, as clearly China also wanted to send a message to the world at large and to Taiwan in particular that it could deliver on its promise to leave things unchanged in Hong Kong for 50 years. 

So far so good; the benefits have been in Hong Kong's favour - although listening to some of the protestors on the street, if you were a recent arrival in Hong Kong, you might think that we have an appalling government and dreadful legislative opposition, and that relations with China are on an irretrievable downhill slope. Well part of it's true ... and possibly less the latter!!

But for us to be concerned at this stage about China's latest strategies aimed at benefitting its other cities is a bit rich. Firstly, we should have been assiduously putting ourselves in a position to compete with the best in China - domestically and internationally - and used that honeymoon period to cement our "privileged" position: not necessarily with the hope that we would remain dominant, because over time that was bound to be eroded, but we would at least be up there with or hopefully leading the other major players when the time came.

Secondly, the two cities chosen for the next stage of development are - only two cities. There could be many others. Admittedly Shanghai is a threat - always has been and always will, but it will still take them some time to gather all the skills and the reputation enjoyed by Hong Kong before they are a real challenge.

As a result, I do think we have time to put ourselves in a strong position to make it hard for other centres to overtake us. We already have the reputation, but we have an increasing negative perception for lagging behind other centres - not being responsive enough to a changing market. Perceptions that have been around long enough to indicate there is truth in them. But all of this is in our hands! If the benefits we have enjoyed are being eroded by others we have to make sure we implement those benefits better than others, and seek other innovative ways to be relevant to the market. 

What we should not be doing is sitting wringing our hands and waiting for a nice handout from Beijing to bolster our position, to the detriment perhaps of the Mainland's other cities. There is a limit to Beijing's generosity. We should also be making it a much harder choice for businesses just to move north to the new centres - unless they are forced by the authorities there to do so. In that last scenario we would be stumped by a non-level playing field, and might have genuine grounds for complaint, but that's a different issue.

I fear we are continuing to erode the spirit that made Hong Kong the vibrant economic powerhouse it once was, by this lack of self-confidence. The announcement from China about the expansion of its financial businesses should be taken as a challenge, not as a reason to produce a handkerchief!

Middle East - A Groundhog Day Scenario?

I am sure many readers of this Blog will be familiar with the 1993 comedy movie "Groundhog Day". If not, and you're up for some light entertainment, do watch it. But Groundhog Day is defined as "a situation in which a series of unwelcome or tedious events appear to be recurring in exactly the same way".  I don't know about you, but certain parts of the Middle East are beginning to look to me more and more like a Groundhog Day scenario.

Mind you, I don't remember anyone with true knowledge of the Middle East saying that the aftermath of the Arab Spring was going to be easy. The region is a conundrum and a kaleidoscope. And never forget the interpretation of the now famous Nostradamus prediction that the starting point of World War III will be the Middle East! 

The current nervousness all started with Arab Spring. The hopeful new shoots of a revolution that would turn the Middle East into a democratic paradise by deposing despotic dictators, or overturning at least decades if not centuries of feudal rule. The bands struck up a jolly tune to herald the new order, but although the band plays on, the music has turned funereal. And suddenly we are displaying shock, horror and dismay. Alright, it wasn't meant to happen this way but neither should we be as surprised as we apparently are nor should we have expectations of a rapid solution.

I have to say that I still get amazed by the number of people who, as with China, look at the Middle East as if it is one largely homogeneous region and that everyone inside behaves roughly the same way, has the same aspirations, and that they all want to be like the West! How wrong can they be? (Statement, not a question!). 

But trying to explain the differences would take a book, not a Blog, so I just want to look quickly at two existing situations in the Middle East that are currently in the news.

Egypt, one of the most significant players in the Arab Spring movement, experienced a popular uprising (the media never seems to find an "unpopular" uprising, do they?) in 2011. I have to say it seems longer ago than that! But the origins of that uprising were bedded in a desire to get rid of Hosni Mubarak's extended and corrupt leadership rather than a deliberate attempt to enter into a democratic process. It was a move welcomed particularly by Western interests who were overjoyed at the prospect of another democracy being established but I was publicly wary, concerned that the country was not really ready for democracy. There were too many "factions" involved with differing interests that were more concerned about self-preservation than the good of the country. And by the way, I must quote a phrase I heard yesterday at a Conference I am attending, which went along the lines of "just because you have a vote, doesn't mean you live in a democracy"! Quite!

But back to Egypt.

The election of President Morsi was an indication that a country that had generally accepted, but didn't always truly practice secularity, (ask the Coptic Christians for a start) was electing someone who though outwardly moderate was nevertheless more fundamentalist than many people would have preferred. I suggested in a Blog at the time that perhaps the new President was nevertheless deserving of a chance - and he was at least more open than Mubarak. But three months into his Presidency, Morsi was beginning to look more and more like Mubarak. He wanted to create a cocoon round himself and his cronies that could have put him in perpetual power. Oh dear! And not surprisingly, it was unacceptable to many of the people who put him in power, although this point seems to have been lost on the West.

After a period of self-restraint, and I do not condone military intervention in national domestic disputes - most of the time - the army intervened and with promises of early elections, some form of stability was restored. But we should remain cautious of the "what next" scenarios. Fresh elections are likely to be fought on largely religious lines as opposed to economic, social and political concerns, and the outcome as well as the future will continue to be uncertain. In other words, don't expect real democracy in the short to medium term because I fear you will be disappointed.

The other issue is, of course, Syria.

I was, and remain, disgusted by the Assad dynastic dictatorship and wished for nothing more than a swift resolution by the Arab League. This is not a Western dispute. We all hoped for the overthrow of that regime with a return of power to the Syrian people - despite the fact that once again we are unlikely to see a true democratic process. That said, it may be more manageable in Syria than for Egypt, where the population is four times greater than that of Syria. But I fear it is too late.

If Western forces attack Syria, what would they hope to achieve? And for many reasons I applaud the British Parliament's decision not to support Cameron's initiative at this time. And if America wants to sulk about that decision, it's up to them. Lest we forget, it was based on lies and flawed information that both countries attacked Iraq - right outcome of course, but undertaken for the wrong justification - and how has Iraq benefitted from that action?

If Western, or any, forces attack Syria today and oust Assad what will be left behind? A bunch of factions, mostly hostile to the West, and no longer representative of the Syrian people. It's not a great solution for the future.

And as for the rationale now for an attack - was gas used in Syria? Certainly - but are we absolutely certain who used it? I make no excuses for either side in the use of gas, whoever used it, but unlike what happened in Iraq - if an attack is to be made on Syria, or more specifically on the dreadful Assad regime, we must be sure we have it right this time, and given the delays so far is another week really going to make a dramatic difference?

Is there any possible good news out there? Watch Iran very carefully!