Monday, January 21, 2008

Assumtions, Leading and Walls

This weekend I was in Toronto and had the opportunity to watch US television and some of the delegates in the United States speaking in their attempt to gain the nomination to run for President later this year.




I was quite surprised by some of the comments made. Edwards spoke about making America an example to the world and a country the world wants to be like! It shows a great lack of understanding when a candidate thinks that the rest of the world wants to be like America. In fact some of the countries in the world actually resent America’s assumption that they should be like them.

I remember going to eastern Europe to speak at a conference and being asked before I spoke by the President, “You aren’t coming with any of that American rubbish are you?”. When I challenged him to explain he said, we have had American consultants over here telling us how to run our business and so far it has always failed. I was not prepared to accept that and so challenged further. He then explained that “their ideas are fine but they make no allowances for our culture or desires. So they fail when we implement them. America sees the world as a series of boxes that things fit into”.

In my travels around the world, I hear the world wanting is a stable America that is an example of excellence and not a dictator. I think John MaCain said that America needs to lead the world, and that is also not true (and not possible with the low credibility it has at the moment). It needs to partner the world and be an example of good governance. In the last six years America has done more to undermine the credibility of democracy that it has done to advance it.

I can’t remember any times in modern history when building walls achieved anything other than expert climbers and resentment. The Berlin Wall is a typical example. The problems in Pakistan today are as a result of the British drawing lines, erecting fences and then leaving.



Why is America building a 700 mile wall between them and Mexico? Do people think this will actually work? I listen to statements about sending all the illegal immigrants back. Do people not realize the impact that will have on the economy of America? Would it not be so much more beneficial to help Mexico develop a strong economy so that people don’t want to cross the boarder and seek work in America? It will take time but it will also save money, improve the area and reduce the effectiveness of terrorism.








I was pleased to hear John MaCain acknowledge that Bush may have got things wrong, but he did change the strategy on Iraq and it seems to be having some effect. I was also pleased to hear that negotiation is starting to take place with people in Iraq that they have refused to talk to before and rather held them up as the axis of evil.

More has been achieved through discussion than has ever been achieved through war or building walls for that matter!

January 2007

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Passion

Every once and a while it is really great to hear someone speak with passion and common sense. Have a look at:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/204

Monday, January 14, 2008

The US elections

This weekend I heard President Bush speak in Dubai. I have got to the stage when I think he says what he says to convince himself! His comment about dealing with Iran "before it is too late" left me thinking, what is "too late"? Does he mean before he leaves office?

As someone who travels the world, I am amazed at how little the President really understands about the culture of the people in the Middle East and the issues there. Does he not realize how foolish he makes the United States appear when he speaks the way he does? The greatest thing I can see coming out of the Bush administration will be the young people who will vote in the elections this year.

I am not sure they want change as much as to make sure the same mistake is not made again. Nobody believes that Government will change but at least they want people that will not be irrational and fundamentalist in their approaches.

What an interesting year it will be. I believe that there has never been a recession in an election year. There are also a whole bunch of first time voters that have never worked in an economy that is so slow!

Obama speaks of "hope". I think people are looking for competence combined with integrity.
Romney thinks that because he has been successful in business, he can be successful as President! He creates the impression of a competent manager when people are looking for a competent leader.

What a great start to what will turn out to be one of the most interesting elections in the history of United States.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

It pays to Listen

If there was ever any doubt about the importance of listening, then this week in New Hampshire we were reminded again of the difference it makes.

Hillary Clinton changed her approach to campaigning after Iowa and started to listen instead of telling. If you watched her rallies, she spoke and then listened as people asked her questions. For the first time she opened up the person instead of the campaign machine. What a difference it made.

There are people who are saying that the moment when her voiced cracked when answering a question, was the turning point. I don't think so. The turning point was that she was listening and because of that there was one moment when she showed a real person behind the candidate.




Leadership is about being able to listen as well as being able to speak. It is about hearing and it is about answering the questions on people minds.

9th January 2008

Sunday, January 06, 2008

Talking about Change



So Obama wins Iowa and everyone suddenly talks about the same things he has been talking about!! He spoke about "hope" and about "change" and it is soooo obvious that people are wanting change. They want a different approach to Government and not just a change of face.

Today Hillary Clinton said that change is not about talk it is about hard work. Yes it is hard work but that is not enough. Hard work on its own is not effective.

From a leader it is about facilitating change, from a group of people it is about managing the change, from the individual it is about responding to change.

Doing leadership is about inspiring people to respond to the change, it is about having the right people in place to manage the change and it is about achieveing change through people.

The result of Iowa seems to say that people understand this and are looking for the leader to create leadership in line with this.

Friday, January 04, 2008

It is 2008! And we need new Leadership – please.

I am sick of hearing about the “War on Terror”. There is no such thing as a war on terror! That is like saying a war on phobias or a war on bombing. It is a nonsense.

What is terrorism? (Interestingly, no Government has dared to define it). Terrorism is a method of fighting. The method is to create terror in people, which incapacitates them in some way. It does not always have to be physical.

Traditional wars were fought by armies, fighting it out, people getting killed while trying to take control of some ground. Having taken control, the winner implemented an order or regime that was to their liking. That is the way it was done for centuries.

Of course this form of fighting means that the strongest tends to win. Maybe not only strength, but strength has a lot to do with it. So what does the little guy need to do to win? Well, he can find bigger weapons and become stronger! The trouble is the guys with the biggest weapons just keep making theirs bigger as well. They also make it impossible to get the materials and the information to be able to make bigger weapons. Eventually there is a limit to the size of the weapon anyway.

But there is one method of war that has been used over the years in different situations by all sides and has been effective. It is called striking fear into the enemy. If you strike enough fear into the enemy, you can overthrow them without as much violence, or at least minimize the violence.

Japan used it to great effect in the World War II, but then again the British used it many years before in Africa, India and many other places. In fact, striking fear in the enemy has been used by the West for many years as a method of fighting.

Today’s wars are not country against country. They are ideologies fighting an ideology. Afghanistan is not fighting USA or visa versa. There is a group of people that are fighting for what they believe in. They based themselves in Afghanistan but are not the elected rulers of the country.

Of course they have limited access to “strength” or “big enough weapons” in order to fight their fight. They are not physically strong enough or have physical weapons to attack with. However, they have a weapon that can be very powerful if used correctly. It doesn’t have to explode (although if it does it provides visual impact) it doesn’t even have to cost a lot of lives. What it has to do is, scare people enough, so that they don’t function well.

The IRA used it very effectively in United Kingdom for years. The bombings that they undertook were not designed to kill, but rather to scare people. They believed that if the people of United Kingdom were scared enough they would demand their Government give back Northern Ireland.

The war against the colonies in Africa was fought in the same way. Southern Rhodesia and South Africa were typical examples. The aim was not to kill all the ‘whites’; they could have done that because the whites were out-numbered. Instead they tried to undermine the economy of the country so that it had to collapse and then they would be able to take control.

It worked! Of course sanctions from the west were a help, but the fear factor was also a contributing element that made the change happen.

So terrorism is a method of war. It is not a war, as Bush would like to call it, that someone can declare war on! Declaring war on terrorism is like declaring war on war.

The real trouble is that the mind-set of the world that is trying to fight terrorism is using conventional methods of war. This is the mind-set of leaders who were leaders in a different era. What they don’t realise is that they are not fighting a traditional war and that being the physically strongest is now not the most important element of the war.

To show how old fashioned the thinking is they still make their decisions based on their own values and beliefs. They think that killing these people will solve the problem. This premise comes from a western belief that human life is valued and people want to live. The truth is, the people they are fighting don’t hold human life as that important. In fact, these people will gladly die if it is in defence of their beliefs.

This method of war should not be fought with the same mind-set of wars in the past. It requires new thinking and new leadership. Solutions to the current problems are not to be found in simply making bigger weapons or shouting louder.

The real impact of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre in New York was not simply the thousands of people that died, although that was a terrible tragedy. The real impact and outcome has been the way United States has got itself into debt and weakened its position on the world stage. The perpetrators of that dastardly attack achieved what they set out to do. They scared America into acting impetuously and into financially de-stabilising itself. Oh yes, it also got America to take out one of its archenemies that was ruling Iraq, and to de-stabilise that whole region. That was a bonus!

What would have happened if America had not gone off fighting in the Middle East after 9/11? What if America had chosen instead to undermine the people behind the attack and even created enough fear in the region to make it impossible for these people to be supported and to operate?

The truth is we don’t know. But we can take an educated guess and one thing is for sure, America would not be as weak as it is now both financially and influentially.

Recently Gordon Brown refused to attend a summit because Mugabe was attending. This is another example of old type thinking and old style leadership. The British Prime Minister thought he made a stand and achieved some sort of moral victory. In reality, Mugabe’s stature has been improved because he managed to force the British out of the summit. The British were too afraid to attend when Mugabe was there! His influence is stronger in Africa because the British Prime Minister had an old style leadership head on.

Terrorism is not something that will ever go away. It is a powerful method used by bullies in playgrounds and corporations in market places. It is so effective because people react to it.

Look how Bush is jumping around because Iran is making nuclear fuel. President Ahmajinidad is having great fun watching how he is terrorising Bush with his rhetoric about Israel and by pretending to be refining nuclear fuel. He knows that if he can keep America fighting traditional wars, their economy will continue to be effected, their influence will be undermined and in this weakened state they can be brought down to size and dealt with.

It is 2008. This year could be a deciding year for better, or for worse. Let us hope that we will see a new generation of leaders emerge that think differently and are prepared to build, rather then destroy. I hear the American news talking about the need for Presidential candidates with “experience”. I am sorry, but the people with experience are often also those that have the old mind-set. Experience is only of value if placed alongside innovation and fresh thinking. Experience on its own is not enough.

Learn from the past but create the future.

The time has come if the people of America and Iran will elect someone who is not frightened. You see: fear is what makes terrorism work!

January 1st 2008