The Fiduciary Responsibility test - Broken regimes
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 13th Oct. 2014
With the nascent regimes breaking down in several oil rich countries, their bankers will be on test to fulfill their Fiduciary responsibilities towards their clients. The war zones have and are converting several people into nomadic tribes. Quite a few erstwhile power brokers have been reduced to 'dust' as new sheiks rise on the horizon. As the battle to wrest controls of key organization hot up, the action of bankers where these organizations banked with, will be put to test. On whether such bankers, have a process that ensures sanctity of transactions done by people or whether such bankers are in cahoots with 'individual power brokers', who were at some stage also ridiculed as 'mischief makers or their kin' in some of the countries. Although, the kind of democracy that most of the emerging market democracies have, with nepotism & corruption gives little credibility to democratic set ups, but nevertheless they still need to have an opposition, howsoever fragile that may be. Many of the countries in disarray are ones, where there is no opposition who could rally people and bring back some order to the chaos. Evolution of a popular leader takes a lot of time and often it is difficult to be achieved under the prevailing violent conditions.
It is yet to be seen which powers would rise again to establish order in the troubled parts and the kind of 'order' that will be acceptable to people, as due to lack of democratic polity, there is an absolute lack of known and trustworthy faces who were 'independent' of the rulers. As of now, the people face the militia and guns whose ultimate control is not known since there is no one is following the tracks of money trail or the 'gun powder trail', though we are regularly told that some adventurous journos are still holding out and will hopefully report something that will help establish peace once again. As of now, we have very limited knowledge about the people shooting these guns with no idea how they are managing to hold for so long. That an army or militia survives on food and not bullets is a fact that is generally not reported as people are supposed to understand this fact on their own.
One of the highlights of the present problem is sudden Flagg ration of events that fast turn into a systemic meltdown though some of the problems may have been simmering beforehand and were left unattended by the powers that be, in the hope that they will be cured with passage of time. However a small spark simply turns into a huge people mobilization event of the proportion that can consume the regimes. This phenomenon remains unexplained by the scholars and sociologist.
We also have armed forces being deployed but no blockages or restrictions on banking as of yet. Neither is the warring armies restricting food supplies or exerting controls of food supplies restricting them to civilians and gives them a leeway to identify and capture the militia or force them to surrender. I would agree that some of these may be theoretical arguments however a curiosity is that why the west which preaches that 'eye for an eye be abrogated' seems in no hurry to apply its preaching on itself for the war zones, though it may be admitted that they do try the same in case of epidemics elsewhere. They principle should work or at least have some positive impact if there is a consensus among a large number of countries especially those who are influential in the region and are genuinely for peace. That there is no doctrine of UN on fiduciary responsibilities to be carried out for banking transaction to and from war zone or originated by people belonging to war zone is certainly a thing to ponder. So is the point of doctrine of trading or logistics to & from war zone. Perhaps it time that world ponders over such gaps rather than leaving it 'tactical' decision making since we are witnessing an increase in number of conflagrations. The proposals are more civilian order set ups that sanction for armed interventions so should be rather well received.
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 13th Oct. 2014
With the nascent regimes breaking down in several oil rich countries, their bankers will be on test to fulfill their Fiduciary responsibilities towards their clients. The war zones have and are converting several people into nomadic tribes. Quite a few erstwhile power brokers have been reduced to 'dust' as new sheiks rise on the horizon. As the battle to wrest controls of key organization hot up, the action of bankers where these organizations banked with, will be put to test. On whether such bankers, have a process that ensures sanctity of transactions done by people or whether such bankers are in cahoots with 'individual power brokers', who were at some stage also ridiculed as 'mischief makers or their kin' in some of the countries. Although, the kind of democracy that most of the emerging market democracies have, with nepotism & corruption gives little credibility to democratic set ups, but nevertheless they still need to have an opposition, howsoever fragile that may be. Many of the countries in disarray are ones, where there is no opposition who could rally people and bring back some order to the chaos. Evolution of a popular leader takes a lot of time and often it is difficult to be achieved under the prevailing violent conditions.
It is yet to be seen which powers would rise again to establish order in the troubled parts and the kind of 'order' that will be acceptable to people, as due to lack of democratic polity, there is an absolute lack of known and trustworthy faces who were 'independent' of the rulers. As of now, the people face the militia and guns whose ultimate control is not known since there is no one is following the tracks of money trail or the 'gun powder trail', though we are regularly told that some adventurous journos are still holding out and will hopefully report something that will help establish peace once again. As of now, we have very limited knowledge about the people shooting these guns with no idea how they are managing to hold for so long. That an army or militia survives on food and not bullets is a fact that is generally not reported as people are supposed to understand this fact on their own.
One of the highlights of the present problem is sudden Flagg ration of events that fast turn into a systemic meltdown though some of the problems may have been simmering beforehand and were left unattended by the powers that be, in the hope that they will be cured with passage of time. However a small spark simply turns into a huge people mobilization event of the proportion that can consume the regimes. This phenomenon remains unexplained by the scholars and sociologist.
We also have armed forces being deployed but no blockages or restrictions on banking as of yet. Neither is the warring armies restricting food supplies or exerting controls of food supplies restricting them to civilians and gives them a leeway to identify and capture the militia or force them to surrender. I would agree that some of these may be theoretical arguments however a curiosity is that why the west which preaches that 'eye for an eye be abrogated' seems in no hurry to apply its preaching on itself for the war zones, though it may be admitted that they do try the same in case of epidemics elsewhere. They principle should work or at least have some positive impact if there is a consensus among a large number of countries especially those who are influential in the region and are genuinely for peace. That there is no doctrine of UN on fiduciary responsibilities to be carried out for banking transaction to and from war zone or originated by people belonging to war zone is certainly a thing to ponder. So is the point of doctrine of trading or logistics to & from war zone. Perhaps it time that world ponders over such gaps rather than leaving it 'tactical' decision making since we are witnessing an increase in number of conflagrations. The proposals are more civilian order set ups that sanction for armed interventions so should be rather well received.