doakonsult

Consulting.Philosophy.Travel

  • There are three types of people in the world, those who don't know what's happening, those who wonder what's happening and those on the streets that make things happen.

Posts Tagged ‘conflict’

Part 2: Corporate Acquisition 101: Inspired by Niccolo Machiavelli

Posted by Raunak Mahajan on October 24, 2012

“When states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there.”

Niccolo Machiveli, The Prince

I was reading one of my earliest posts and wondered how it would be if Machiavelli’s golden words could be applied in present day and age. Would it help if President Barack Obama sets up residence in Baghdad and spends three months in a year there? What if the probable next President Mitt Romney builds a million dollar mansion in Kabul and runs the American Empire from there? (no comments allowed on the use of “next president 🙂

I think they should. If the strategy worked in medieval times, I see no reason why it cannot now. Superpowers are capitalist empires driven by economic motives. American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of territorial conquests, and seeing how much tax payer money has been spent in these wars, it would only make sense to continue in these new acquisitions and get a worthy Return on Investment. I would not expect anything less from such a risky venture.

Below is an excerpt from my previous post. Replace “Corporate Acquisition” with “Territorial Acquisition”, “CEO” with “President” and “employees” with citizens and the message is clear.

Now here lies a lesson for all those consulting or undertaking Corporate Acquisition, especially one where entities from different countries or cultures are involved. Just replace “states” with “companies” in the above quote and the message is clear: The CEO or Chairman or Decision Maker of the company that makes an acquisition overseas, must move his office to the acquired company and run his business from there until Integration of the two entities is truly complete.

Further he wrote, “Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they are heard of only when they are great, and then one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince; thus, wishing to be good, they have more cause to love him, and wishing to be otherwise, to fear him.”

Proximity to employees of the acquired company will go a long way in allaying their fears and insecurities. Needless to say, this is of utmost importance when you wish to leverage the resources of the acquired firm to the fullest.

As always, comments welcomed.

Posted in Political Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Joke of the Day: Of Nobel Peace Prize

Posted by Raunak Mahajan on October 14, 2012

In 2009 I thought that the Nobel Committee was on the verge of insanity when it awarded Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. I was not a member of the blogging world then, hence I have no recorded remnants of my reasoning at that time. Now I am, and with no hesitation do I say that the Nobel Committee has completely and absolutely lost it!

Which brings me to the joke of the day.

“This year’s Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the EU.”

Justification:

European Commission President Manuel Barroso said on Friday it is a “tremendous honour” for the European Union to be awarded with the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. It is the “strongest possible recognition of the deep political motives behind our union: the unique effort by ever more European States to overcome war and divisions and to jointly shape a continent of peace and prosperity,” he said in a statement in Brussels.

My Response:

Are they nuts! Did they really think that nuclear powered countries like France and Germany would go to battle again! Please kill me, if they truly believe that the EU was formed only to avoid military conflicts and give peace a chance. So the selfish economic motives of Germany and France had nothing to do with forming a bloc that would allow free trade, expand the market for German and French manufactured goods, create an illusory sense of prosperity for the smaller countries, pump money into Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy so that they could buy German and French goods and services and in turn, pile on a heavy debt!

What did the EU countries do when right in their neighborhood, the Balkans were burning? Ask the common Greeks how much love they have for their EU counterparts. Remove all the weapons from the EU and open the borders allowing a free for all, hand to hand brawl. Then lets see how much peace remains between the EU citizens.

The Euro zone too was a result of France feeling jittery over the German Mark’s rising influence. The only way to counter it was to push for a common currency. Its funny how the German constitution did not require a referendum to shun the Deutsche Mark and adopt the Euro. Soon enough, we had a zone that had a common monetary policy, but no common economic and fiscal policy. This was a disaster and yet no one did anything about it. Why? Because it was in France and Germany’s interest to keep it like this. It allowed them to exploit the smaller countries in the EU to fill their own coffers. Had they formulated a strict fiscal policy, countries like Greece, Italy and Spain would not have been able to borrow as heavily as they did. This would have reduced their ability to buy German and French products and in turn reduce the latter’s revenues. While Greece is being blamed for its fiscal indiscipline, the truth is that Germany and France wanted it to be like that.

People of Europe have always been for peace with each other. All wars and conflicts have been results of political and economic greed and opportunism. Similarly, peace too is slave to political and economic opportunism. The minute peace ceases to be politically or economically beneficial, EU leaders will show no hesitation in resorting to violence. If the Nobel Peace Prize is deserved by the citizens of the EU, then every citizen of the world has an equal claim to it.

As always, comments welcomed.

Posted in News, Political Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 23 Comments »

Can Iran be Won?

Posted by Raunak Mahajan on October 1, 2012

No.

About a month back I published a post presenting an argument for the outcomes of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In it I applied Machiavelli’s thoughts to these countries. Let’s see if we can predict the outcome of an attack on Iran.

The Islamic Republic of Iran, erstwhile Persia, is for all practical purposes, ruled by the Supreme Leader and a Guardian Council that consists of twelve members nominated by the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The official religion is Shia branch of Islam and 90-95% of the population belong to this religion.

After the Supreme Leader, the Constitution defines the President of Iran as the highest state authority.The President is elected for a term of four years. Presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council prior to running in order to ensure their allegiance to the ideals of the Islamic revolution.

So why do I think Iranian authority cannot be overturned?

Firstly, Iran is one of the few Arab countries where the ruling authority belongs to the same religion as the majority of people. Iranians hold the Supreme Leader in very high regards, almost divine. His authority is absolute and justified by God. The members of the Guardian Council do not hold sway over any territory or any clan of people. So, the Supreme Leader’s authority is unquestionable and does not depend heavily on his ministers. To defeat such a system is difficult.

Secondly, people of Iran are religiously connected with the Supreme Leader. An attempt to overthrow the Iranian authority will be perceived as an attempt to overthrow the Supreme Leader. This is completely unacceptable to a big majority. The religious string that is used by the Supreme Leader to rule Iran is stronger than the heavy handedness Saddam used to rule Iraq. An attack on Iran will be perceived as an attack on Shia Islam. The Iranians will not revolt against the Supreme Leader. I repeat, the Arab Spring type revolt will not happen.

And lastly, the provision to have a democratically elected President is a “clever” ploy in the Constitution. All ills of the society including a poor economy can be blamed on the President. This ensures that people never raise their fingers towards the Supreme Leader and his Guardian Council. A lot of the Iranian anger is diverted towards the President and abated by giving Iranians and illusory hope that they possess a democratic right to change the President in the next elections.

Hence, I do not think that Iranian authority can be overturned by force.

Comments welcomed.

 

 

 

Posted in Political Philosophy | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: