Our 3rd issue for Gulf Elite is now live!
Leading revolutions is no longer the sacred duty of leaders, it is now becoming a collective investment and a cooperative action which puts each and everyone of us in the position of appreciating what couldn't have been reached otherwise with scattered efforts. Time has come to detach oneself from the need of getting credit for every endeavor initiated, and start thinking in this revolutionary template of social movement capacity of creating change.
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
Gulf Elite Magazine #2
Gulf Elite Magazine Issue 2 is finally out! No better way to brighten up the day after the US partial government shutdown than a great Magazine by the youth, for the youth!
Whether it is Entrepreneurship, Business, Lifestyle, Fashion, Youth success stories, Personal Branding or Motivational content to pump you up, Gulf Elite Magazine will cover the topics that matter most to you!
Whether it is Entrepreneurship, Business, Lifestyle, Fashion, Youth success stories, Personal Branding or Motivational content to pump you up, Gulf Elite Magazine will cover the topics that matter most to you!
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Why I say No to the military coup
With no introductions, here is my personal take on the Egyptian
recent developments:
Well I disagree with the way they brought Morsi down; if it's
going to be a democracy, then let the impeachment be through the voting
ballots, not through military coup in a country divided heavily. It is easy to
miscalculate what a majority is when we use as references pictures of thousands
or millions marching and chanting against the president, but truth be said,
millions in a country of 80 million individual is far from statistically
meaning anything.
Even if scores of the population went down against Morsi, he
still have as many supporting him, and throwing the votes of the millions who
voted for the Islamist president down the trash is not only a slap against what
democracy is standing for, but is also an open invitation for direct
confrontations that can easily escalate into a civil war. Indeed brotherhood
failed in dealing with several issues of economic or political nature, but
isn’t it the case for most democracies and political governing systems
throughout the world? The day an elected government manages to tackle all
domestic challenges and successfully address them, then we’d have achieved that
utopia no one talks about except in books of fiction. A military take over and
mass detentions of Brotherhood figures doesn’t seem to be an achievement of a
popular will, but most likely seems to be a rushed reaction to deal with an
uneasy transition, and most likely to cause an even greater crisis given the
stigmatization it has brought against Political Islamism and the alienation of
a segment of the population’s will or political choice.
Some may argue that the political environment, as well as the
judicial and institutional realities of Egypt may have prevented a democratic
action to impeach the president or to bring on early elections, but let us
remember that the Egyptian people were the ones voting for Morsi in the first
place, and the ones taking on their disapproval to the street didn’t allow the
president elect a fair period at the helm of the government to actually produce
results. One year is not enough to judge a president (that is why in most
democracies presidential terms span through 3 to 5 years), especially someone
who took office after a revolution, an economy in the red and security in
jeopardy.
Egyptians may have set the bar too high, and it's impossible for
a president or a government to fix everything an entire chaotic country the
first months, Transitions are hard and demanding, but Egyptians appear to
forget that the nation is gathering itself out of a regime meltdown and is in a
re-evaluation phase where all principles of governance and political
institutions are put under scrutiny and reconstruction.
Maybe the Muslim brotherhood is not that good in many respects,
but the reality is that they are the most organized and they won the elections.
If the Egyptians are against them, then let them show it through political
parties and political participation;
The best way to oppose some political or ideological organization
in a democracy is to organize and face them in the battlefield, aka the
elections; making a mess, encouraging anarchy or getting the military involved
never solves anything but just brings the country to the brinks of a civil war.
Many you argue with tend to delegitimize the popularity of the
Muslim Brotherhood by invoking that their supporters are mostly residents of rural
areas and are not fully aware of the Brotherhood’s lack of good governance and
whatnot, yet this argument seems closes to a self-condemnation because the very
people who preach it disregard an important question: If the rural areas are so
blinded into voting for the devil himself, then why didn’t the previous regime
or the numerous NGOs set a comprehensive framework to spread awareness to rural
areas or improve their living conditions as to draw them away from the
Brotherhood’s grip? It is easy to point fingers, find excuses, and fall into a
state of arrogance where we categorize a segment of the population as worthy of
the right to choose their political representatives while denying it to others.
What is alarming in the current Egyptian crisis is the far
reaching implications it has on the MENA region and the Sahel. Political Islam
has always been stigmatized because of its tendency to promote violence and
preach a bloody agenda of extremism, ultra-conservatism and anti-human rights
policies, yet when the Political Islam renounced violence in the post Arab
Spring through the participation of Islamist factions in the political life
(something they have been banned from doing), the reaction from the street and
from a certain segment of the population has been outright rejection of their
legitimacy and reactionary refusal of an agenda they didn’t even have the
chance to assess because of the many prejudices held against it.
Political Islam now is being given another excuse to lose hope
in democracy and democratic tools of participation. The rule of law, although
preached and professed to be for everyone now appears to be an exclusive right
of the secular, the liberal and is forbidden for Islamist models of rule. This
leaves no other means for the Islamist to voice their opinions and shape
politics other than through violence, which is why the West, championed by the
US is reluctant on approving of the military’s move given the disastrous
implications it can set in motion in the future.
After Algeria and Palestine, Egypt joins the club of countries
where the military unlawfully deposed a democratically elected government shaped
by Political Islamist agendas, and the consequences as in these nations is a
return of extremist violence, something which we already started witnessing in
the Sinai where armed operations against the military are being conducted by
Islamist factions.
Closing TV channels to prevent the Brotherhood from decrying the
military takeover, rounding up their key figures and claiming that major cities
are the only representative of the Egyptian will stems from a fear that Political
Islam may become the key force driving politics and Egyptian domestic affairs,
a turn event that is far from making the strongholds of corruption happy, and
is sure to threaten the economic empire of the military as it did in Turkey
with the AKP.
Egypt is in a turning point, and much of the region’s future
development will be shaped by what actions are set in action in Egypt during
the crisis. Be it a civil war, a return to armed confrontations, a
radicalization of the Muslim brotherhood and its operations or a return to
civilian rule through the restoration of the president elect are all potential
outcomes that can either build or break modern Egyptian democracy, or at least
the nation’s stability and security.
Mohamed
Amine Belarbi
Sunday, April 28, 2013
When Chemical weapons and terrorist groups are better excuses
Syria's Chemical Weapons are a true "game changer" for international terrorism
The last few weeks have been
generous in events and catastrophes, from the Boston bombings to the Iraqi
bloodshed, from the attack in Libya against the French embassy to the Somali
terror wave and the Iranian devastating earthquake, yet the landmark that has
been highly overlooked and is of critical importance is the suspected use of
chemical weapons in Syria.
The French, British and
Israeli intelligence community were affirmative in proclaiming that Assad’s
regime indeed had recourse to chemical weapons against the rebels, and the
allegations were soon to be followed by several pictures of Syrian casualties
presenting symptoms of chemical poisoning which the White House deemed possible
yet not supported by clear and irrevocable evidences.
Deemed a “red line” not to
be crossed and a “game changer” by Obama, the systematic use of chemical
weapons by the Syrian regime seems to be a victorious challenge to the current
administration who cannot but push away the red line further, hoping that Assad
would deign cross it and save the US another humiliating and embarrassing
stance.
Yet…
As much as it seem that a
potential intervention is unlikely giving the cautious rhetoric of Washington,
the events on the ground suggest a wholly different approach. The US has
witnessed the last week a convening of various Arab leaders who, by coincidence
or design, have been scheduled in the oval office for private talks with the
president at around the same time period. From the Emirati crown prince of Abu
Dhabi to the leaders of Qatar and Jordan, the choice Obama made is highly
strategic since these countries are the main regional players in the Syrian
conflict, described by Fox News as “believed to be arming or training the rebel
forces that are seeking to overthrow the Syrian government”[1]
in a recent article tackling the meetings Obama held with the aforementioned
leaders.
The timing of the meetings
and the announcement of the usage of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government
suggest a covert preparation for an imminent action in Syria. If the evidence
about a determinate US plan to intervene military against Assad are blurry, the
arguments for such action are not lacking with regards to US interests and
national security imperatives.
The chemical weapons
stockpiled in Syria are significant in numbers, to the extent that it is
believed and assessed by various intelligence communities that “The Syrians
have one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world.”[2]
Chemical weapons are the main source of alarm for the international community
when it comes to the Syrian conflict, first because of the prevalent presence
of Al Qaeda affiliates in the battle ground and their noted superiority in
combat and organization, and second because of the ease of use and deployment
of chemical weapons in terrorist incidents as in the 1995 subway Tokyo attacks.[3]
The Al Nusra rebel front,
one of the most powerful factions battling Assad’s regime and by far its most
radical, didn’t hide its allegiance to Al Qaeda as not only a small part of the
network, but as significant enough to rush the Al Qaeda in Iraq into a merger
with the Islamist jihadist cell. The merger was announced by Abu Bakr
Al-Baghdadi, head of the Islamic state in Iraq, who proclaimed: "We
announce the abolition of the Islamic state of Iraq's name and Jabhat
Al-Nusra's name and their amalgamation in one state under one name: The Islamic
state in Iraq and the Levant."[4]
The news stirred a wide
controversy regarding the armament of Syrian rebels, an armament pursued with
eagerness by Qatar and Co who cannot wait to see Assad regime falling apart.
Yet the issue of channeling the weapons to the right people is of little
concern compared to the chemical weapons acquisition. The weapons delivered to
the Syrian rebellion are of tactical use and have a low range of destruction,
aimed primarily at inducing small-scale, targeted damage, while the chemical
stockpile of the Syrian government contains primarily Sarin, a nerve gas agent
that can spread over large areas and induce quick death through inhalation.[5]
(The Tokyo subway attack stands witness to the deadly effect of Sarin that
claimed the lives of 13 Japanese in 1995).
The ambitions of Al Nusra
front, and of Al Qaeda de facto, to control and lay hand on chemical nerve
agents is no news, yet how close the group is to attain such goal is alarming,
and indeed helps explain the sense of urgency the intervention in Syria is
prompting in the corridors of the White House.
In a recent article in the
Telegraph, Colin Freeman writes:
The fight for al-Safira is no ordinary turf war,
however, and the prize can be found behind the perimeter walls of the
heavily-guarded military base on the edge of town. Inside what looks like a
drab industrial estate is one of Syria's main facilities for producing chemical
weapons - and among its products is sarin, the lethal nerve gas that the regime
is now feared to be deploying in its bid to cling to power.[6]
The prospects of the
Chemical weapons falling in the hands of extremist groups are recognized to be
not only a domestic threat, but also a severe security breach for all regional
actors including Israel and the Arab nations. Most probably the chemical
weapons would be directed towards the spots where Al Qaeda is mostly present
and where the odds for success are in the group’s favor. Iraq, with its weekly
ever rising toll of deaths and attacks, would be the first country outside of
Syria where the Sarin nerve agent would be deployed given the ability of the Al
Qaeda operatives to smuggle the stockpiles into the wrecked country. Securing
the chemical weapons is the priority of al Nusra front, and Syria as it stands
now is not a safe haven to safeguard the precious prize. The need to move the
chemical weapons to Iraq, if ever recovered by extremist cells, is apparent
since the deployment of Sarin gas doesn’t need to be in large proportions. The
rationing of the Chemical weapons into mobile portable loads carried by
individuals for targeted locations is the modus operandi Al Qaeda would adopt
given the restricted access it might have to the substance, and from then on
the branching out of the chemical agent would take effect until tracking the
initial containers becomes a futile intelligence efforts. The network of
dormant cells Al Qaeda manages throughout the MENA region and beyond makes from
the acquisition of nerve agent a true “game changer” in international
terrorism.
Although many would
recall the scandal of the “inexistent” Iraqi WMDs to refute the Chemical
weapons excuse to intervene in Syria, the difference today is that we are faced
with a situation where WMDs existence is not debated but held as a fact. The
Syrian Chemical weapon stockpiles and the omnipresence of Al Qaeda affiliates
in the battlefield is not debatable, and the recent battles ranging near
military bases harboring nerve agents production and stockpiling facilities
hint clearly to the possibility that a catastrophe situation might rise at any
moment, a catastrophe where later containment is not an option.
Many have started
calling for a more strategic approach towards supporting the Syrian rebellion,
and it is now more than ever critical to adopt such a strategy if we are to
avoid the unpleasant occurrence of a nerve agent attack in an Iraqi mall or a
Lebanese public square.
Judging from the
available mappings of Syrian chemical facilities, most installations trail
along the western border with Lebanon and the Mediterranean Sea. This
geographical occurrence is of high strategic importance: The necessity to
control these facilities is easier since most rebel secured areas lay on the
western part of the country, and a potential intervention from regional or
international corps launched from Lebanon and the Mediterranean shores will
allow a quick takeover of the chemical plants to secure and systematically
destroy the nerve agents. The establishments of no-fly zone partly over Syria,
and specifically over the Western border will enable a constant monitoring of
the facilities and an instantaneous response if hostile groups are seen
entering the bases.
Moreover, the
differing strength of Al Nusra group and the more liberal rebellious factions
suggests that the commanders in chief of the free Syrian Army should redirect
their efforts and progressions towards the Western border to help secure the
stockpiles of chemical weapons, leaving the battle for Damascus and the most
costly fights for Al Nusra faction in order to undermine the capabilities of
the group and let it bear most casualties and damages in an effort to overtake
it financially and logistically in the post-Assad Syria. The redeployment of the
free Syrian army fully in the Western part of the country, leaving the Deir
Ezor and eastern Aleppo area for the Al Nusra Group will help mildly separate the
two rebellious groups and facilitate the directed armament and logistical provision
to the Free Syrian army instead of blindly empowering both factions.
The Libyan downfall
and the following dispersion of vast amounts of artillery in the region have
had a direct effect on facilitating the Malian crisis emergence and AQMI rearmament.
Today we are faced with an even more devastating type of weaponry in an area
known for its high volatility. The consequences of Chemical weapons falling in
the wrong hands will inevitably set new standards for terrorist activities, and
will have far reaching impacts regionally and internationally. This is a “game
changer” whose significance the US administration and the Arab governments
understand very well, therefore the necessity for intervention has turned from
a debate into a consensual agreement whose first signals were the series of
meetings with Middle Eastern leaders in Washington, and whose ultimate ending
will be a dramatic military action in Syria; the road to the final action is
and remains convincing an ever skeptical public opinion, a conviction that
seems all too well settling down after a tragic set of events that shook the
public consciousness and laid a state of fear we have so many times encountered
before major military implications in foreign countries.
Mohamed Amine Belarbi
[2] https://medium.com/today-in-syria/b9e9411a7429
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22078022
[5] http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17917132-how-deadly-nerve-gas-sarin-kills?lite
[6] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10022753/Syria-Al-Qaedas-battle-for-control-of-Assads-chemical-weapons-plant.html
Friday, March 29, 2013
Time for business-executive politics in the MENA region
Time for the technocrats to take over in the Arab World
For decades Arab politics has been an easy ride for the
well-established circles that governed states and countries in the MENA region.
Whether it is by virtue of blood as in monarchies, money as in oligarchies or
simply heavily organized lobbies with a deceiving democratic penchant, the
politics our representatives and god appointed leaders engaged in, or lack
thereof, has not seen much trepidations or dynamics that would enact a
managerial paradigm shift.
Until the outburst of the Arab Spring…
Dictators ousted, oligarchs lynched and awry political
institutions brought to a demise, it is more than ever critical to rethink how
political engagement and leadership is meant to operate, not because it is now
a privilege the Arab societies can afford, but because a transition post Arab
Spring to liberal economies and democratic statehood cannot take effect in such
a rapidly changing world as the 21st century.
Many could argue that the MENA region is in a natural phase
of adaptation to the new realities the street pulse imposed, others would draw
the parallel with the French revolution and the consequential bloody transition
it endured before evolving into a democracy, yet that would have been the case
if we were witnessing a corporate-like adaptation to new consumerism behavior;
the reality is that we are now contemplating a damage-control and
crisis-containment situation instead of a painful transition forward.
Politics is deeply linked to economics as Karl Marx rightly
pointed out in his “Economic Determinism”, and in today’s world, this is even
more true given how international trade, politics, business and domestic state
management have all molded a unique and fragile system that can be impaired if
one of its component goes bust. What I am trying to explain is that the economic
environment the Arab Spring imposed on post revolutionary states has made any
attempt for democratization unsustainable and non-viable in the short run. Economic
recession, plundered foreign currency reserves, soaring unemployment rates and
foreign deposits withdrawal are all a deadly recipe that hinders political
success and sends approval rates down the pipes. It might seem as if economic
troubles are a core part of a democratic transition, yet in a world where
economic development is scoring a two digit growth in most parts of the
developing world, financial hurdles coupled with political instability just
makes it impossible for a country to recover and catch up in time with the
speeding train. The public opinion is strikingly showcasing such phenomenon in
Egypt and Tunisia where the economics didn’t add up for the casual citizen,
bringing the masses from protest to protest with no clear vision of when it
will all work as planned when the uprising was structured in the popular
consciousness.
The stigma of political affiliation is not making things any
easier for recovery. The ideological identity of the various representatives
and institutions makes it hard for the public opinion to objectively assess the
actions of the leadership, and to allow the state management to take due
course. Whether it is the Muslim brotherhood, the seculars or the old regime
affiliates, labels are not failing to bring down political efforts to wrap up
the mess left behind the uprising. This leads to a state management that focuses
not on credentials building, but on active defense of reputations and records
from the stinging criticism of the public and from rapacious political
opponents who capitalize on the failures of the state.
This allows us to formulate an understanding of the
challenges the post Arab Spring imposes, and the potential nature of the
solutions that can address such impediments.
The identity stigmatization is best resolved by the adoption
of a technocrat system of governance that strips the decision makers from any
political or ideological affiliation. A technocrat, not tied as much to
approval rates, ideological bias or future political ambitions, can indeed
channel more efforts into drafting legislations and tackling the nation’s most
pressing issues. Technocrats also have the ability to better resolve the
ongoing crisis given their expertise in their respective fields and ability to
exploit their professional networks to stir solutions based on third party
involvement and contribution. The educated businessman can indeed reach out to
the business community and lay a framework for investment that is not tied to a
certain political favoritism. The technocrat also, if drawn from the new school
of business executives can take choices that lift the economy, education and
health upwards regardless of the short-term discontent it creates. The
technocrats in short do their job because they are cashing on managerial
efficiency, not on political gaming.
Many see the necessity for well-established frameworks,
figures and institutions as a pre requisite for state management, yet the
importation of the business executives modus operandi to legislative decision
making can prove to be a successful undertaking given its enormous impact on
actually achieving results, regardless of the ethical reasoning one might have
about its collaterals. What the Arab world needs right now are parachuted
technocrats, business minded executives who will not stem from the political infertile
cultivation fields, but from the likes of Harvard Business school or NYU stern.
What the people want and will always look for is not decent
political etiquette, but rather palpable results that can ensure the growth of
a prosperous middle class and thriving investment and entrepreneurial ecosystem,
although both tend to converge at a certain point. Dubai is a good example of
how business minded state management and state capitalism does lead to a
prosperous society. Nothing ensures stability and socio economic development
like beaming business confidence. If a country knows how to conduct business,
then investments, international loans, deposits, economic growth and foreign
currency reserves beautifully play along.
Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and hopefully Syria, when the massacre
comes to an end, ought to follow the governance trend that is driving the
developing world into a surge of growth and progress.
Politics today means business, and those who still want to
run countries in the old fashioned way are doomed to a slow and painful death. The
train of development doesn’t wait for political reform or ideological fights
over power; neither does it choose which stations to stop at. The most critical
part is that todays’ train is not the old steam powered vehicle of yesterday,
but is a supersonic piece of engineering that cannot be caught up with if
missed. What seems to be a right and virtuous struggle for political justice in
various Arab countries is an economic suicide in the making, because if one
cannot afford a job that puts a piece of bread on his table, little would he
earn from going to the street protesting his right for political inclusion in
the decision making. There is a moral in labor division, and that is
efficiency. If we cannot let the people most qualified for a job take on their
responsibilities, and attempt to indulge in fields we have no credentials for,
then all we are doing is luring ourselves into a big deception. Stigmatizing
technocrats as neo-oligarchs, heartless businessmen, financiers or top down
executives is a hobby most of us are good at, but getting the job done is duty
we fail at terrifically.
It is time for politics to be conducted like a business, not
like a Machiavellian art of alchemy that needs not to be stained with modern
world ways of operating. It is time for politicians in the Arab world to go out
from their ivory towers and excel in public speaking, pitching, business
planning, languages mastery and deals closing the same way their western
counterparts are doing… Because those who write bills are Bain Capital, Exxon
and JP Morgan, not some old Winston Churchill smoking a cigar and gazing at a
massive globe next to his desk.
Mohamed Amine Belarbi
Friday, March 15, 2013
Reforms or Continuity? Pope Francis says Amen to both!
Roman Catholic Church on the crossroads of Continuity and Reform:
With
the announcement of the new head of the catholic church, now is the time to
reflect on what are the signals the Vatican is giving to its followers and
observers through the new appointment, and what are the policies that will be
enacted in order to seal a new chapter in the long turbulent history of the 1.2
billion adepts strong borderless empire.
The
start of a new page in the life of the Catholic Church cannot be discussed
without a quick review of the period preceding it, namely the numerous scandals
that rocked the very foundations of the Vatican. From the sex scandals
involving priests and cardinals, to the financial fraudulent transactions
undertaken by the “Bank of God”, to the shady disclosures of the relationship
between the Vatican and Mussolini, the Catholic Church has had its share of
downturns that didn’t go without impacting its credibility and reputation. It
is thus understandable that a radical change was a critical necessity to re-brand
the Church, and that the best way to go about such venture is to ultimately
change the very icon of it: the pope. This reminds the casual observer of a
similar undertaking in the US, where the election of a new African American
president with an appealing charisma to the minorities, the Muslims and the
East in general helped reconcile the US with the international community, and
allowed it to regain its attractiveness on the world stage.
The
difference between the US presidential election and the papal appointment is
that, unlike in the US, the pope indeed exercises vast power and command over
the policies of the Roman Catholic church, with not much constraints posed by
the complex of cardinals and priests scattered inside the Holy See or
throughout the globe. It is thus uncontestable that the election of a new head
of church is not an aesthetic change but a true shift in the direction of the
Christian Institution, a shift that will ultimately reflect the hopes, fears,
beliefs and ideological biases of the new pope Francis.
A
quick look at the background of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio already sends a
wave of disappointment among the advocates of a 21st century liberal
Church. The Argentinian cardinal’s position on same sex marriage for example
leaves the growing numbers of Christian reformists with a bitter taste for the
future of their God appointed government. In a letter dated June 2010, the
cardinal doesn’t hide his resentment for the changing legal meaning of
marriage, extended to include homosexual marriage, and makes it clear to his
network of churches and priests in Argentina that fighting the popularization
of the LGBT rights ought to be a divine quest.
The New York Times correctly pointed out the conservative nature
of the Pope Francis in a recent article:
“A
doctrinal conservative, Francis has opposed liberation theology, abortion, gay
marriage and the ordination of women, standing with his predecessor in holding
largely traditional views.”[1]
The background check, led by various
journalists, does unveil more about the convictions and deeds of Pope Francis. Not
only isn’t the new pope a great fan of homosexuals, but he isn’t either a fan
of human rights delegation if we believe the rumors and the article Hugh
O'Shaughnessy wrote in the Guardian in 2011. Pope Francis, according to the author, allegedly participated in hiding political prisoners victims of the “Dirty War” from a
visiting commission of human rights.
Although
Pope Francis’s past might convey a gloomy picture, it is nonetheless
irresponsible to make precipitated judgments on the likelihood of the path the
new pope will drive the church into. The papacy will ultimately affect the
stances of the new pope given the enormous responsibility it imposes on its
leader, and given the growing liberal aspirations of the Church followers
without whom the Holy See would be pointless, and note, go bankrupt.
The
decision of the conclave to elect Jorge Mario Bergoglio is indeed a reflection
of the new image the Vatican is trying to paint to the world, and what better
way to do that than to appoint the first non European, Latino pope in the
history of the Roman Catholic church?
Prior
to the decision, the very resignation of the pope Benedict was a clear sign of
the new currents unraveling in the Vatican, and his emphasis on “so many rapid
changes” and “shaken” in his resignation speech streamlines the life crisis the
Catholic Church is going through:
“I am well aware that
this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not
only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in
today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep
relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and
proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength
which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have
had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to
me.”[2]
It
is thus unmistakable that the reformative prophecy Pope Benedict envisioned for
his institution had to be enacted in order to preserve the “relevance” of the
Vatican in today’s world. This relevance was sustained through the election of
a Latin American cardinal, sending a strong message that the Church values its
adepts in the South, which accounts for a great deal of the Christendom. This
point didn’t go unnoticed, and even Obama made sure to reiterate its relevance
and importance in a congratulatory note to the pope:
“As the first pope
from the Americas, his selection also speaks to the strength and vitality of a
region that is increasingly shaping our world, and alongside millions of
Hispanic Americans, those of us in the United States share the joy of this
historic day.”[3]
The
internationalism of the Roman Catholic Church reverberates a strong belief that
the Vatican is now stretching its appeal beyond the European fortress, and is
indeed enlarging its reach in a geographical spot where loyalty to the Catholic
Institution was challenged by various evangelical churches. This not only
boosts the influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Latin America, but also
attends to its financial crisis that pushed its bank along Banco Ambrosiano to
fall prey to the appeal of fraudulent activities linking it to money laundering
and early financial entanglement with the Italian Fascist leader Mussolini.
Another
signal the pope Francis sends to the world is the cutting with financial
elitism inside the walls of the Vatican. The speculated wealth of the Holy See,
its banking activities, its corruption scandals and the excessive luxury and
overspending charges against its personnel didn’t fail to create an outrage
against the Catholic Church, an outrage that the Humble and modest Francis will
surely silence given his background, and surely his name significance.
All
in all, the conservative approach of the pope Francis to sensitive matters,
along with the grand reformative, if not strategic vision that his election bears
to the outside observer sets the Roman Catholic Church in an interesting path
of Continuity and reforms. Amen.
Mohamed Amine Belarbi
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/world/europe/cardinals-elect-new-pope.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[2] http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b4d86704-743b-11e2-80a7-00144feabdc0.html
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/14/world/europe/cardinals-elect-new-pope.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)