By Behrouz Saba

The News of the World, to most people outside the United Kingdom, is an unknown commodity. Some may have heard of it as a “British tabloid” to be dismissed along with its gossip-mongering counterparts. Yet the Sunday weekly, which is slated to have its last press run this weekend, was first published in 1843 and has enjoyed a circulation of 4 million, one of the largest in the U.K., where people still read newspapers and heed their endorsements of political candidates.

Troubles for the paper started when it was revealed that its staff had hacked cellphones to gather first-hand news, and things snowballed with further revelations that bribed police sources had provided the paper with some of the phone numbers. The hacked numbers were first believed to include those of top athletes and other celebrities. Yet additional reports indicated that phone messages of murder and kidnapping victims as well as families of Britain’s fallen soldiers had also been illegally intercepted.

The newspaper not only had cozy relationships with the police, but with 10 Downing Street as well — the infamous residence of the British Prime Minister.

The editor, Andy Coulson, now free on bail after his arrest, who presided over the paper when the hackings occurred, was also the spokesperson for current British Prime Minister David Cameron until earlier this year.

All of this begins to make even more distasteful sense when one considers that the News of the World is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, whose British holdings also include The Sun, The Times, the Sunday Times as well as 40 percent of BskyB, which is the largest provider of satellite pay TV in all of Britain. (Murdoch’s recent bid to gain full ownership of BskyB is now said to be in jeopardy.)

Murdoch and his media organizations have been instrumental in bringing every British prime minister to office since Margaret Thatcher, including Labor Party’s Tony Blair who garnered the garnered the media mogul’s personal backing.

It is no wonder that Murdoch’s employees, seeing Britain’s so many politicians of consequence in their boss’s back pocket, considered themselves above the law and impervious to prosecution. They began to work as part of a corrupt governmental apparatus rather than its media watchdogs.

These days the British media thunder with words of indignation from the very politicians who are so deeply beholden to Rupert Murdoch and his son, James, who is now at the helm of News Corporation.

Cameron, taking “full responsibility” for having employed Coulson, is employing a high-minded rhetoric. “This scandal is not just about some journalists on one newspaper,” he said. “It’s not even just about the press. It’s also about the police. And, yes, it’s also about how politics works and politicians, too.”

James Murdoch addressed the News of the World employees in a message which is posted on the newspaper’s Website. It reads in part, “So, just as I acknowledge we have made mistakes, I hope you and everyone inside and outside the Company will acknowledge that we are doing our utmost to fix them, atone for them, and make sure they never happen again… Having consulted senior colleagues, I have decided that we must take further decisive action with respect to the paper… This Sunday will be the last issue of the News of the World.”

The British have had more than their share of political scandals large and small, with the more sophisticated or cynical among them smiling and shrugging off the current deluge of headlines. The entire affair is certain to blow over, they believe, soon to be replaced by another shocking set of news bulletins.

The events in Britain, however, constitute a clear warning for the United States, where News Corporation owns the Fox Broadcasting Company, Fox News, 20th Century Fox, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and HarperCollins Publishers. Fox News has already had a pronounced impact on coarsening and cheapening the quality of political debate in America, compelling such rivals as CNN and MSNBC to hire loudmouths of their own in a shouting match that benefits no one.

While it is doubtful that News Corporation will wield quite the same power it has in the United Kingdom, it has nevertheless worked its way seamlessly into the American news industry whose numerous corporate affiliations, special-interest debts and political allegiances make it far from the impartial institution as envisioned in the Constitution.

Washington, D.C., as the seat of the federal government’s three branches, the K Street lobbyists and a formidable gathering of representatives from powerful national media, creates an incestuous environment which promotes cozy relationships between jornalists as well as those within the governmental and lobbying organizations they are supposed to watch.

Today, it is all the more important for the reading and viewing public to constitute the ultimate watchdog, particularly in these days of proliferating citizen journalists online. The finely honed messages of political power centers and special interests delivered through the corporate media should be balanced by efforts of smaller organizations as well as individual citizen journalists to seek and publish the truth.

By Lauri Elliott

With the U.S. Federal Reserve and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) echoing the same news that the U.S. economy has weakened and that unemployment will remain high for a while, many are wondering where to turn.
Lauri Elliott, CEO of Conceptualee, Inc. based in Charlotte, North Carolina and author of Redefining Business in the New Africa: Shifting Strategies to be Successful says, “Americans continue to overlook Africa as an option to boost wealth and jobs in America because of the persisting mindsets formed about the continent over decades and centuries as a place of poverty, disease, and conflict. While these challenges still exist, they are on the decline and Africa has turned the page and has entered a new era.”

Regional growth in Sub-Saharan Africa has surpassed that in Asia in the last several years, according to The Economist. The emerging markets in which the West is pushing to enter – Brazil, India, and China – are knocking down the doors into Africa.

“The U.S. still sees Africa as a continent of poverty instead of prosperity for the most part – to its own detriment,” says Elliott. What she says is illustrated in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, U.S. Companies Race to Catch Up in African Markets. The CEO of U.S.-based Cummins International, Tim Solso, admitted that he came to the realization that his Chinese counterparts were beating him.

“Large U.S. companies have been in Africa for a long time for its natural resources, particularly oil with major producers like Nigeria and Angola. Others like Coca-Cola have also fared well, but by and large U.S. companies are not keeping pace with those from other countries in taking advantage of opportunities on the continent,” adds Elliott. “However, a good sign is Walmart’s recent acquisition of consumer goods company, Massmart, in South Africa that has operations in over ten African countries. If Walmart, The Gap, and other major U.S. retailers continue to enter Africa markets, hopefully other American firms in diverse sectors will realize there is money to be made.”

While natural resources continue to be a major draw for foreign investment, the large, growing population of 1 billion is another natural asset which draws investment and business. In fact, this
population will surpass India and China by 2025 with current projections. And, non-oil revenues surpass those of oil revenues when you look at the continent as a whole.

“We are now seeing the start of Africa’s “Baby Boomer” generation – not only a large population, but a growing middle class. Remember the effect the Baby Boomer generation had on driving the U.S. economy. If Africa keeps its current trajectory, this new generation will do the same for it and maybe even more,” remarks Elliott. To tap the growing local consumer markets, China is developing five key special economic zones on
the continent. “Don’t think China’s only intention is to tap the local markets. The cost of labor and manufacturing in China is rising, so that it is no longer a low cost alternative. Expect China to export
products from Africa into China and other markets including the U.S.,” indicates Elliott.

While the opportunities in Africa, a continent with 54 countries, can be mind blowing, so can the process to get a business going on the continent. “There are actually many pathways that make it easier, more cost effective, and efficient to enter African markets. Some of these include locating operations in and looking at consumer markets around large urban centers and development corridors, as well as placing your operations in a special economic zone which offers solid infrastructure, strong business support, tax incentives, etc.,” suggests Elliott.

“We recommend focusing on creating a small, but significant footprint in one location that will give you the experience of business in Africa, develop your reputation, and give you access to a sufficient client base while at the same time placing you in a good position to scale nationally, regionally, and across the continent,” offers Elliott. Elliott, Hartmut Sieper, and Nissi Ekpott, themselves doing business in Africa, present more insights in their book, Redefining Business in the New Africa: Shifting Strategies to be Successful.

Elliott sums up the picture by saying, “The opportunities and business environment in Africa currently reflect China as it was 20 or 30 years ago. Now look at China. It is the second largest economy in the world, having recently passed Germany and Japan. It is expected to replace the U.S. as the number one economy by 2016. While Africa may or may not reach this pinnacle, those who enter now have a great opportunity to enter a market on the upside not on the downside.”

But Africa is not just an opportunity for businesses to make money overseas while eliminating jobs in the U.S. “As we are creating pathways for business and investment between the U.S. and Africa, we have found many opportunities that will create new business in Africa but also revitalize entrepreneurial, as well as small and medium, enterprises that have been hard hit with the global economic crisis. We don’t believe it has to be a win-lose for key stakeholders. Our approach is about creating opportunities so that both America and Africa benefit,” emphasizes Elliott.

For further information on Redefining Business in the New Africa, go to www.redefining-business-inthe-new-africa.com. For resources, nformation, and insights on doing business and investing in Africa, go to www.afribiz.info. Here you can also read featured articles by and listen to radio interviews with experts, offering both strategic and practical insights.

About Lauri Elliott

Lauri Elliott (www.lauri-elliott.com) is a strategist with over 25 years of business experience, specializing in global business, innovation, technology, and new ventures and start-ups. As a noted new media broadcaster, author, speaker, and consultant, she helps small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and entrepreneurs bring life and profit to business ideas in tough, turbulent business environments around the globe, with a particular focus on emerging markets, including Africa.

Ms. Elliott is the founder of Conceptualee, Inc., under which she created the brands Afribiz™ (Afribiz.net ) and GlobalBizconcierge™ (Globalbizconcierge.com – launching 2012). As the Director of Afribiz™ Media, which includes Afribiz.info and Africathegoodnews.com, Lauri has developed a solid reputation as a journalist, broadcaster, and media personality. She is the primary host of Afribiz.fm™, a regular radio show about doing business and investing in Africa.

Lauri has authored several books

Dr. Cialis Online Harold Pease
Why is it that both Republican and Democrat administrations always favor tyrannical non-democratic regimes in times of revolution?  Time and time again whether in Iran in 1979, under Jimmy Carter, Tiananmen Square in China under George Bush, Iran again less then two years ago, under Barack Obama, or now in Egypt under Hosni Mubarak, it is the same.  We want guaranteed stability from known murderous dictators rather than risk the unknown by supporting pro-democracy governments. We alone are capable of individual liberty, a position somewhat insulting to other people.  The fallout is always the same; we only preach freedom but do not support it in practice.  We consistently let the people seeking their own liberation down then wonder why they fall to more radical preachments and end up hating us.  We play these people for our own benefit.
President Carter, in 1976, openly supported the Shaw of Iran, as had his predecessors, a brutal dictator against the will of his people demonstrating for freedom.  I had several Iranian students in my classes at the time and they could not understand such friendship.  They said, almost in unison, “We don’t hate America!”  “Your media lie to you!” “We hate—how you say his name—‘Roc-ke-fell-er’.”  “You know about him?”  History does show David Rockefeller as having played a major role in bringing the Shaw to power in Iran.  When the hated Shaw was finally forced out we brought him to Panama for medical treatment despite intelligence reports that the Iranians would retaliate.  Iranians were, in part, driven to accept a far more radical leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, by linking their hated leader with America who sustained him in power.  The more extreme element expressed their anger by taking U.S. embassy personnel hostage.
In Tiananmen Square university students built a statue of liberty modeled after our own then paraded it about with slogans asking for freedom as expressed in America.  The government, caught totally off guard, finally brought in tanks to encircle the thousands of dissenting students.  One student stood in front of incoming tanks.  They unsuccessfully tried to move around him.  Friends finally removed him but his “Patrick Henry type” body statement, ”Give me liberty or give me death,” resounded throughout the world.  This promising bid for liberty ended when in the middle of the night tanks savagely raced in crushing hundreds of sleeping demonstrators.  The U.S. reprimand was mild and short lived as George Bush awarded the Chinese most favored trade status within a month of this horrifying event.
Less than two years ago the Iranian people begged America to help them depose their fanatical religious dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  President Obama, with absolute knowledge of this tyrant, who soon will have nuclear power, found it prudent not to get involved.  Video coverage released to the internet, by the victims themselves, shared the sounds of Iranian paramilitary forces entering the homes of dissidents.  Their last cries for help were heard worldwide as they were savagely beaten.  When we had the power to usher in a far more friendly government our silence only strengthened the repression.  Why would any Iranian thereafter have faith in our words of freedom?  We are hypocrites.
For many years Hosni Mubarak has been the second major recipient of our foreign aid.  Just sixteen months ago President Obama spoke in Egypt calling upon the Arab world to respect the “will of the people.”  The Egyptian people loved him and now wonder where he is when they want it.  They are finding his silence a form of betrayal just as have other protestors in other lands.  One protester’s sign in English, obviously for the West to see, said it all, “Foreign Governments Stop Hypocrisy and Stand For Egyptian Freedom.”  Perhaps President Obama will surprise us and it won’t be too little too late as in the case of Iran.
If our foreign policy was not always based upon what is only good for us and we gave some attention to what is good for them also, we would not be consistently linked to the hatred they have for their abusive leaders.  We would not play a part in driving them to the more extreme elements that gain power by that connection, as for example, the Muslim Brotherhood.  Consequently, we would then have many real friends.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

By William A. Collins

World-class buildings
Aren’t enough
To bring a nation
Up to snuff.

Yemen is finally being thrust upon American consciousness. Little good can come of that. Until now, the Yemenis had been allowed to suffer in private desperation. That’s over.

Their worst liability is a sinking water table, which is compounded by a skyrocketing population. Unlike its oil-rich Gulf neighbors, Yemen’s wells don’t produce enough oil to pay for desalination.

That’s just the beginning. Saudi Arabia, the powerhouse kingdom to the north, is unhappy to border upon a “republic” bearing a socialist gene and somewhat less stringent religious standards. Worse still, much of the nation is addicted to qat, a mild narcotic leaf chewed constantly in a large cheek wad. Qat orchards drink deeply from the sagging water table, sparking water wars like those of the old American West. Plus, chewing the leaf further impoverishes and numbs users.

And now yet another plague has emerged: the United States. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced that the United States is eager to help Yemen rid itself of al-Qaeda. Yemenis are understandably on edge. What if the local “war” doesn’t go well? Does Yemen become another Iraq or Afghanistan?

Yemeni fears of the United States aren’t new. American military planners have long salivated over the Yemeni island of Socotra, strategically located at the mouth of the Red Sea. From there, our navy–if only it had a base–could menace sea lanes carrying Saudi oil to China. And now, the U.S.-created Somali government, across the straits, has initiated its own claim to Socotra. Will America help the Somalis if Yemen proves uncooperative?

Thus it is hardly a surprise that Yemenis are more than a little skeptical of the latest al-Qaeda scare. Did those parcel bombs discovered on U.S.-bound planes late last year really originate in Yemen? Did they really exist? If real, were they actually dangerous? Why isn’t Yemen being kept in the loop?

Adding to this understandable paranoia are the CIA’s unmanned drone flights and occasional attacks on presumed al-Qaeda operations. Who gave the United States permission to be in Yemeni airspace? Is there really a problem that the army can’t handle? That’s always possible, but so far the public isn’t buying. Yemen has always suffered armed conflict. Yemenis fear their country will become more collateral damage in the latest round of the Great Game between the Great Powers over Middle East oil.

Meanwhile, Yemen has already experienced collateral damage of other sorts. Tourism is way down, military spending is way up, and donor nations have pulled back on aid and loans. Then there’s the damaging effect of nearby Somali pirates on local fishing and Viagra buy sea trade. Complicating matters still further are 300,000 foreign refugees huddled in Yemeni camps, mostly Somalis escaping the nastiness back home. All told these economic ills add up to about $1 billion a year.

There’s still more fallout. Several nations have announced that they’ll no longer accept parcels from Yemen. For about a month late last year, Air Canada forced Yemeni travelers to undergo extra security checks.

Yemen’s President Ali Abdullah Saleh refers to all this as “collective punishment” of his country, outlawed by UN treaties. He contends Yemen is the victim, not the perpetrator, of terrorism.

And so if you had been contemplating emigration to Yemen to enjoy its natural beauty and dramatic architecture, you might want to think again.