By James Petras | Sabbah Report | www.sabbah.biz

Introduction:

Asian capitalism, notably China and South Korea are competing with the US for global power. Asian global power is driven by dynamic economic growth, while the US pursues a strategy of military-driven empire building.

One Day's Read of the Financial Times

Even a cursory read of a single issue of the Financial Times (December 28, 2009) illustrates the divergent strategies toward empire building. On page one, the lead article on the US is on its expanding military conflicts and its 'war on terror', entitled "Obama Demands Review of Terror List". In contrast, there are two page-one articles on China, which describe China's launching of the world's fastest long-distance passenger train service and China's decision to maintain its currency pegged to the US dollar as a mechanism to promote its robust export sector. While Obama turns the US focus on a fourth battle front (Yemen) in the 'war on terror' (after Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan), the Financial Times reports on the same page that a South Korean consortium has won a $20.4 billion dollar contract to develop civilian nuclear power plants for the United Arab Emirates, beating its US and European competitors.

On page two of the FT there is a longer article elaborating on the new Chinese rail system, highlighting its superiority over the US rail service: The Chinese ultra-modern train takes passengers between two major cities, 1,100 kilometers, in less than 3 hours whereas the US Amtrack 'Express' takes 3 ½ hours to cover 300 kilometers between Boston and New York. While the US passenger rail system deteriorates from lack of investment and maintenance, China has spent $17 billion dollars constructing its express line. China plans to construct 18,000 kilometers of new track for its ultra-modern system by 2012, while the US will spend an equivalent amount in financing its 'military surge' in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as opening a new war front in Yemen.

China builds a transport system linking producers and labor markets from the interior provinces with the manufacturing centers and ports on the coast, while on page 4 the Financial Times describes how the US is welded to its policy of confronting the 'Islamist threat' with an endless 'war on terror'. The decades-long wars and occupations of Moslem countries have diverted hundreds of billions of dollars of public funds to a militarist policy with no benefit to the US, while China modernizes its civilian economy. While the White House and Congress subsidize and pander to the militarist-colonial state of Israel with its insignificant resource base and market, alienating 1.5 billion Moslems (Financial Times – page 7), China's gross domestic product (GDP) grew 10 fold over the past 26 years (FT – page 9). While the US allocated over $1.4 trillion dollars to Wall Street and the military, increasing the fiscal and current account deficits, doubling unemployment and perpetuating the recession (FT – page 12), the Chinese government releases a stimulus package directed at its domestic manufacturing and construction sectors, leading to an 8% growth in GDP, a significant reduction of unemployment and 're-igniting linked economies' in Asia, Latin America and Africa (also on page 12).

While the US was spending time, resources and personnel in running 'elections' for its corrupt clients in Afghanistan and Iraq, and participating in pointless mediations between its intransigent Israeli partner and its impotent Palestinian client, the South Korean government backed a consortium headed by the Korea Electric Power Corporation in its successful bid on the $20.4 billion dollar nuclear power deal, opening the way for other billion-dollar contracts in the region (FT – page 13).

While the US was spending over $60 billion dollars on internal policing and multiplying the number and size of its 'homeland' security agencies in pursuit of potential 'terrorists', China was investing $25 billion dollars in 'cementing its energy trading relations' with Russia (FT – page 3).

The story told by the articles and headlines in a single day's issue of the Financial Times reflects a deeper reality, one that illustrates the great divide in the world today. The Asian countries, led by China, are reaching world power status on the basis of their massive domestic and foreign investments in manufacturing, transportation, technology and mining and mineral processing. In contrast, the US is a declining world power with a deteriorating society resulting from its military-driven empire building and its financial-speculative centered economy:

1. Washington pursues minor military clients in Asia; while China expands its trading and investment agreements with major economic partners – Russia, Japan, South Korea and elsewhere.

2. Washington drains the domestic economy to finance overseas wars. China extracts minerals and energy resources to create its domestic job market in manufacturing.

3. The US invests in military technology to target local insurgents challenging US client regimes; China invests in civilian technology to create competitive exports.

4. China begins to restructure its economy toward developing the country's interior and allocates greater social spending to redress its gross imbalances and inequalities while the US rescues and reinforces the parasitical financial sector, which plundered industries (strips assets via mergers and acquisitions) and speculates on financial objectives with no impact on employment, productivity or competitiveness.

5. The US multiplies wars and troop build-ups in the Middle East, South Asia, the Horn of Africa and Caribbean; China provides investments and loans of over $25 billion dollars in building infrastructure, mineral extraction, energy production and assembly plants in Africa.

6. China signs multi-billion dollar trade and investment agreements with Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru and Bolivia, securing access to strategic energy, mineral and agricultural resources; Washington provides $6 billion in military aid to Colombia, secures seven military bases from President Uribe (to threaten Venezuela), backs a military coup in tiny Honduras and denounces Brazil and Bolivia for diversifying its economic ties with Iran.

7. China increases economic relations with dynamic Latin American economies, incorporating over 80% of the continent's population; the US partners with the failed state of Mexico, which has the worst economic performance in the hemisphere and where powerful drug cartels control wide regions and penetrate deep into the state apparatus.

Conclusion

China is not an exceptional capitalist country. Under Chinese capitalism, labor is exploited; inequalities in wealth and access to services are rampant; peasant-farmers are displaced by mega-dam projects and Chinese companies recklessly extract minerals and other natural resources in the Third World. However, China has created scores of millions of manufacturing jobs, reduced poverty faster and for more people in the shortest time span in history. Its banks mostly finance production. China doesn't bomb, invade or ravage other countries. In contrast, US capitalism has been harnessed to a monstrous global military machine that drains the domestic economy and lowers the domestic standard of living in order to fund its never-ending foreign wars. Finance, real estate and commercial capital undermine the manufacturing sector, drawing profits from speculation and cheap imports.

China invests in petroleum-rich countries; the US attacks them. China sells plates and bowls for Afghan wedding feasts; US drone aircraft bomb the celebrations. China invests in extractive industries, but, unlike European colonialists, it builds railroads, ports, airfields and provides easy credit. China does not finance and arm ethnic wars and 'color rebellions' like the US CIA. China self-finances its own growth, trade and transportation system; the US sinks under a multi trillion dollar debt to finance its endless wars, bail out its Wall Street banks and prop up other non-productive sectors while many millions remain without jobs.

China will grow and exercise power through the market; the US will engage in endless wars on its road to bankruptcy and internal decay. China's diversified growth is linked to dynamic economic partners; US militarism has tied itself to narco-states, warlord regimes, the overseers of banana republics and the last and worst bona fide racist colonial regime, Israel.

China entices the world's consumers. US global wars provoke terrorists here and abroad.

China may encounter crises and even workers rebellions, but it has the economic resources to accommodate them. The US is in crisis and may face domestic rebellion, but it has depleted its credit and its factories are all abroad and its overseas bases and military installations are liabilities, not assets. There are fewer factories in the US to re-employ its desperate workers: A social upheaval could see the American workers occupying the empty shells of its former factories.

To become a 'normal state' we have to start all over: Close all investment banks and military bases abroad and return to America. We have to begin the long march toward rebuilding industry to serve our domestic needs, to living within our own natural environment and forsake empire building in favor of constructing a democratic socialist republic.

When will we pick up the Financial Times or any other daily and read about our own high-speed rail line carrying American passengers from New York to Boston in less than one hour? When will our own factories supply our hardware stores? When will we build wind, solar and ocean-based energy generators? When will we abandon our military bases and let the world's warlords, drug traffickers and terrorists face the justice of their own people?

Will we ever read about these in the Financial Times?

In China, it all started with a revolution...

* James Petras is a retired Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, SUNY, New York, U.S., and adjunct professor at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. He is the author of 62 books and over 560 articles. He has published over 2000 articles in nonprofessional journals such as the New York Times, the Guardian, the Nation, Christian Science Monitor, Foreign Policy, New Left Review, Temps Moderne, Le Monde Diplomatique, and his commentary is widely carried on the internet. He is winner of a Life Time Career Award of the American Sociology Association, Marxist Section.

Note: James Petras' latest books, Global Depression and Regional Wars (Atlanta, Clarity Press, 2009) is the third in a series, including Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2008) and The Power of Israel in the United States (Atlanta, Clarity Press 2006), analyzing the influence of militarism and Zionism in American foreign policy.

Recommended by one of my blog readers, if you have couple of free hours today, it is a must see video. Otherwise bookmark it for you weekend.

Learn how money is made. Find out if the world is heading to economical disaster.

This video will try to answer so many questions, many of us asked themselves several but never got (satisfying) the answer. Questions such as:

Who controls world's debt and reserve, and why?
Are we salves? If so, to whom?
Are we living new Empire age? Who is the emperor?
Why do we have inflation, interest, globalization, capitalism, World Bank, terrorism, corruption, corpotacrcy, drugs, opium, free trade, etc...
What is "Modern Money Machine?"
What's the difference between Fascism, Socialism, Capitalism, Communism, etc...?
What is Monetary-ism?
What is Scarcity theory and where it comes from?
What is Venus project?

And a lot more questions and facts.

Personally, I found this video to be one of the best of all documentaries I've seen this year. It might be offending to religious people and believers of any/all religions, but it does not harm to learn something new.

Last but not least, after watching this documentary, I look forward for the launch of The Zeitgeist Movement website (http://thezeitgeistmovement.com/) to learn more about this very interesting plans.

Now here is the 2 hours video. Enjoy it!

by Sam Bahour and Iyad Joudeh
July 30, 2007

The Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are Israeli occupied lands that have brought despair to all involved. The most recent chapter in this historic saga was the overrunning of Gaza by Hamas militants. As the world contemplates how to deal with this latest episode, one thing is for sure, June 2007 will go down in history as a turning point in the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Understanding whether this turning point will bring about a serious improvement toward real stability in the region can only be determined if a serious shift takes place in how donors deal with supporting Palestinians and how the international community deals with continued Israeli constraints to Palestinian development. Center stage in this analysis should be the Palestinian private sector which is the only place where sustainable development can be realized. As such, an integral part of every donor intervention should include support to the Palestinian private sector.

Britain's outgoing prime minister, Tony Blair, wasted no time in landing his next job - special envoy for what's called the Middle East Quartet, a group made up of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. He could not have picked a larger challenge or a more volatile conflict at a more sensitive time. Fresh in everyone's minds is the failure of the last person who held the job, former World Bank President James Wolfensohn. Wolfensohn was a person of international stature, untainted by the Iraq war fiasco, a practical hands-on person, who entered the conflict on an evangelical-like mission to break the historic stalemate in the status quo and get things moving toward reviving the Palestinian economy. It took Israel merely one year to frustrate and marginalize Wolfensohn, which led to his resignation in humiliation. Blair's path forward is definitely uphill, but windows of opportunities may be pried open if a new approach is taken, an approach based on sustainability and not only subsistence for Palestinians.

Ever since the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip over 40 years ago, Israel systematically linked the occupied territory's economy to its own. Before the Oslo Peace Accords, this forced linkage was most apparent in Israel's restriction of Palestinian business and its controlling the freedom of movement for Palestinian labor. For nearly a decade prior to Oslo, Israel issued work permits to tens of thousands of Palestinian workers to allow them to enter Israel to find work. Palestinian labor was found in Israeli construction, agriculture, hotels and the like. Dealt with as a second class labor force, Palestinian laborers were exposed to working conditions that allowed Israeli businesses to benefit from offering lower wages without having to stringently apply Israeli Labor Law. Many Palestinians workers even found themselves building the illegal Israeli settlements that were threatening the existence of Palestinian communities. For Palestinians, being able to work, anywhere, while under Israeli occupation, was a matter of survival.

The Israeli occupation authorities also levied taxes on the occupied people and used a portion of those taxes to flood the Palestinian areas with Israeli made infrastructure and goods. This created further Palestinian dependence on the occupier's economy.

Contrary to the obligations embedded in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, the signatories of this key Convention -- the U.S., UK and Russia (previously the USSR) included -- allowed for Israel, the occupying force, to create a structural economic dependency of the Palestinian economy while at the same time applying a maze of restrictions on Palestinian ability to become economically viable. Instead of demanding from Israel the application of international law, these countries, and others, continued reporting, year after year, the Israeli violations of international law while simultaneously footing most of the costs of occupation.

When the Oslo Peace Accords were signed in 1993, an economic arrangement followed called the Paris Economic Protocol. Just as the Oslo agreement itself kept intact the ultimate Israeli control over all key aspects of Palestinian life, the Paris Economic Protocol institutionalized the occupier's economic interest in this bilateral agreement with the Palestinians.

After the Oslo agreements, state donor's role in funding Palestinians' "development" turned into an international underwriting of the Israeli occupation, reducing, and many times removing, the financial costs of military occupation from Israel. In short, knowingly or not, donor funding had an accomplice-type role in allowing the situation to reach where it is today.

For the most part, the Palestinian private sector is a recent phenomenon. From 1967 until the Oslo agreements the business community was nascent and deeply connected with Israeli suppliers, the only suppliers Israel would allow to have direct contact with the Palestinian community. The number of private Palestinian companies was low and the depth of know- how was shallow. Export-focused thinking was non-existent given Israeli restrictions and constraints. Nevertheless, the seeds of the locally grown private sector, which was able to maintain itself while the entire world was turning a blind eye, became the foundation on which the Palestinian business community was built.

With the advent of the Oslo Peace Accords the Palestinian private sector took on a new dynamic, one that was much more complex. A handful of investment firms were established that facilitated a flow of capital into the economy. With the newly created hope that the Oslo process was going to result in the end of Israeli military occupation, many Palestinians came to Palestine to work, which injected in the market new skills and expertise. This new professional class was global in scope and diverse in know-how, since their skills came from all four corners of the world, where the Palestinian Diaspora is scattered.

As new private sector firms started to be established -the first Palestinian telecommunications company, new hotels, and an information technology sector - Palestinian students began focusing on the new skill sets needed to be absorbed in the labor market. The Palestinian economy, although tiny, was a rapidly shifting economy, moving from traditional practices to modern ones, from an agricultural base to a service sector and export-orientated one.

As firms started to realize that they had common interests and concerns, especially with regards to dealing with the newly formed Palestinian Authority as well as the continued Israeli structural constraints that were still being applied, trade associations started to be formed. The majority of these associations were created in a dynamic that merged existing sector players and know-how with the newcomers that came from a different vantage point to economic development. Yet other associations brought firms and people together for the first time to establish brand new sectors in Palestine, such as the Palestinian Information Technology Association. All of this redefined the Palestinian focus on economic development and enriched the engagement of these sectors with the local environment and the dynamic of donor interventions which were driving the bulk of business activity.

Although donor money was the gas allowing the Palestinian economy to chug along, at no time did donors view the development of the private sector as the highest priority in building a viable Palestinian society. Donors assisted in the creation of sector associations and provided firm level assistance to some extent, but a strategic approach to the private sector never materialized. Many in the international community were quick to criticize the growing number of the Palestinian public sector workers, but few, if any, had the foresight to see that a strong Palestinian private sector was the only way to provide an alternative to public employment.

The international community collectively and closely followed the Israeli adoption of a policy of separation, which was publicly declared in a speech by past Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made in a conference at the Herzliya Conference in December 18, 2003. Then Prime Minister Sharon said: "If there is no progress toward peace in a matter of months, then Israel will initiate the unilateral security step to disengage from the Palestinians." This unilateral separation policy immediately materialized in a drastic reduction of Palestinian labor allowed into Israel, from more than 160,000 in the early 1990's to nearly 20,000 in 2003. Israeli officials also publicly announced that they intended to reduce the number of Palestinian workers allowed into Israel to zero by 2008. While the most visible indication that Israel was strategically changing gears was the acceleration in the building of the Separation Barrier on West Bank lands, there are realistic expectations that the separation concept will soon materialize in many other areas such as health, trade, banking services, telecommunications, transportation and many others. With the absence of any strategic alternatives, the unilateral Israeli implementation of separation can only lead to total collapse of the nascent, but already exhausted, Palestinian private sector.

All the while Israel was bulldozing forward, the Palestinian private sector buckled down and took the brunt of the Israeli pounding of the Palestinian community. Being, for the most part, dealt out of the developmental paradigm, the Palestinian private sector was left on its own to deal with the Israeli effort to force Palestinian society to its knees. After being structurally linked to the Israeli market for decades, Israel's decision to unilaterally separate, or ‘disengage' as it was called, from the Palestinians came at a time of utmost instability. The elimination of Palestinian labor that was employed in Israel increased the unemployment rate in the West Bank and Gaza overnight. The Separation Wall's land grab separated farmers from their lands, causing strains of enormous magnitude on Palestinian agriculture. The Israeli military and political actions to weaken the nascent Palestinian central ‘government' left the economy in a free fall. With security and economic conditions becoming intolerable, Palestinian emigration, or desire thereof, peaked. Palestinians held elections in hopes of getting things back on track. As a reply to the election results, Israel installed a policy of denying entry to foreign nationals, Palestinians and otherwise, which forced many skilled workers out of the country and stuck a severe blow to the education sector, which employed many foreign nationals. The list of Israeli actions to weaken Palestinian society goes on and on but all with a clear purpose: to stunt Palestinian development and prohibit Palestinian steadfastness, economic or otherwise.

Now, after the events in the Gaza Strip last month, we hope the international community has understood a key lesson: that the Palestinian private sector's role in sustainable development is not a side show, but rather the only concrete platform that can create a viable Palestinian society. On average, donors annually injected $350-450 million into the Palestinian Authority from 1994-2000. From 2001-2007, the amount averaged about $650 million annually. This amounts to over $7 billion, more per capita than anyplace in the world except for Israel, which is heavily subsidized by the U.S. Of those funds, less than 5% were invested in private sector development. Even with this meager donor support, the private sector has proved its stamina and resilience in the face of crisis. Palestinian private sector achievements may be found in every sector and many seeds of a stable economy have been planted, but now need nurtured. Productive economic sectors have been organized, firms are now experts in crisis management, and a greater understanding of the limitations of economic growth while yet under Israeli occupation has been internalized.

The word "viable" has been used and abused in trying to define what a Palestinian state should be. Even President Bush's new found interest in realizing a Palestinian state comes with the requirement for it to be "viable." What does "viable" mean to Palestine? The viability of any future Palestinian state must come within the context of a sustainable private sector, one that can create sustainable job opportunities, develop competitive products and services for the local market first, and an export market as well. The Palestinian private sector must be able to absorb Palestinian university graduates and by establishing a knowledge-based thrust in our economy while also absorbing the tens of thousands of construction workers that Israel abruptly pushed into unemployment after forcing them to be linked to the Israeli economy for decades.

Viable development must be seen through different lenses than that of relief. On December 7, 2006 twelve UN agencies together with 14 NGOs operating in the occupied Palestinian territory launched an emergency Appeal for $453.6 million to help meet increasing Palestinian humanitarian needs in 2007. This is the largest appeal for emergency humanitarian assistance ever launched in occupied Palestinian territory and the third largest in the world. The backdrop of this appeal was summed up by Kevin Kennedy, the UN's Jerusalem-based Humanitarian Coordinator who said, "Two-thirds of Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are now living in poverty. Growing numbers of people are unable to cover their daily food needs and agencies report that basic services such as health care and education are deteriorating and set to worsen much further." This was all before last month's events in Gaza, which are only exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.

With no political horizon with the Israelis, and after suffering the shock, and bleak aftermath, of recent events in Gaza, the private sector in Gaza must not be forgotten at this crucial moment. Gisha, an Israeli Legal Center for Freedom of Movement, just released shocking data about Gaza's economy, post-Hamas overrun. They state that:

"75% of Gaza's factories have shut down because of the closure of the borders. The rest of the factories are operating on a limited basis, on borrowed time, until the stocks of raw materials are exhausted.

85% of Gaza residents are already dependent on food aid - and the number is growing.

There is a serious shortage of raw materials, including flour and sugar for household and industrial consumption, and prices of raw materials have risen between 15% and 34%.

Approximately 30,000 factory workers stand to lose their jobs (factory employees constitute 10% of those working in Gaza, and on average, each worker supports a family of seven. In Gaza, unemployment stands at 35%);

Israel erased from its computers the customs code used to identify goods entering Gaza and issued orders not to allow any imports into Gaza, with the exception of humanitarian goods, such as donations of food, medicine and medical equipment."

Gisha concludes, "This policy is destroying the business sector, creating a new welfare regime in Gaza, and turning growing numbers of Gaza residents into dependents on international welfare agencies and religious charities. As of today, 87% of Gaza residents live below the poverty line. The opportunity to earn a living with dignity and to build a properly-functioning society is disappearing. According to the chairman of Israel's Association of Industrialists, Shraga Brosh, "the economic boycott on the Gaza Strip ...will result in a humanitarian disaster, fueling flames and leading to deterioration of the security situation - a situation that will be destructive to the Israeli economy."

The situation is volatile. Internal Palestinian politics are being put in the limelight as if the continued Israeli military occupation is an innocent bystander in creating the conditions for the Palestinian social collapse. The donor community has a historic responsibility to Palestinians, especially after so many years of observing the Israeli occupation from afar and a decade of footing the bill as Israeli actions continue unabated. The challenge to donors today is to convert assistance to the Palestinians to sustainable assistance, equal in priority to relief and humanitarian assistance, but sustainable in a way that creates an enabling environment allowing the private sector to assume its natural role of becoming the foundation of a future state.

- The writers are Sam Bahour (sbahour@palnet.com) and Iyad Joudeh (ijoudeh@solutionsdev.ps), Managing Partners of Applied Information Management and Solutions for Development Consulting, respectively, and based in Ramallah.

Michael Jackson is negotiating a position as a consultant with a Bahrain-based company that plans to set up theme parks and music academies in the Middle East.

Bahraini businessman Ahmed Abu Bakr Janahi, said it wanted to hire the 47-year-old Jackson to give advice on setting up entertainment businesses. [Hat Tip: El-Oso]

According to the annual report of the Arab Economic Unity Council, the Arab GDP is improving.

Her is the summery:

• Arab gross domestic product reached $860 billion in 2004 compared to 746.1 billion the year before.
• GDP growth ranged between 1.2 and 6.5 per cent while the GDP per capita rose to $2879 in 2004, compared to 2572 in 2003.
• The report exempted Egypt from the recorded rise in per capita income, where it dropped by 7.6 per cent as a result of the fall in the exchange rate of the Egyptian pound and inflation.
• Bahrain ranked first among the Arab states in containing inflation that reached 0.40 per cent in 2004, compared to 2.2 per cent the year before, while Sudan recorded the highest inflation of 17.1 per cent. In Egypt, it dropped to 4.1 per cent from 4.6 per cent.
• Inflation also rose in Kuwait, Jordan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Morocco, Mauritania and Yemen.
• Value of Arab exports increased to $397.4 billion last year, or by 30.4 per cent, from 304.6 billion in 2003. Arab imports posted a growth of 34.2 per cent, rising to $241.9 billion in 2004, compared to 194.8 billion in 2003.
• The European Union came first as a trade partner of the Arab states, receiving 28.2 per cent of Arab exports in 2003, compared to 29.2 per cent in 2004. Exports to the US rose from 8.4 per cent to 10.2 per cent, to Japan from 17.1 per cent to 18 per cent.
• The share of the Arab exports to Southeastern Asian countries fell by 13.3 per cent to 12.4 per cent, while the inter-Arab export compared to the overall Arab exports dropped from 8.4 per cent to 8.1 per cent.

17 women contesting alongside 54 male candidates for the first time in the history of Saudi Arabia.

Women's participation in the elections is expected to grab attention worldwide.

Women members will vote today and tomorrow and businessmen will vote on Monday and Tuesday at the chamber's Sheikh Ismail Abu Dawood Hall.

Hmmm... separation here? What will they do if a woman got elected? Will she be forced to bivouac in the parking?

Even if all women candidates lose the election, the biggest winner will still be the principle that allowed them to contest side by side men.

Tololy just inspired me to jot these words. As a senior manager for the last ten years in my carrier, I always had to face this question from some employees. Why are we implementing a dress code? Well, to be honest at start I had a hard time explaining why. But with time and experiences I formed a sort of manual of FAQ to answer this.

So, Why are we implementing a dress code?

Depending on the company policy that I worked at, here are two points of views:

First View: In companies with a great deal of interaction with the public like telecommunications, image is very important. Many people will be turned off by staff members who dress sloppily or wear clothing with potentially offensive images or words. This type of dress can also have a serious negative impact on employee performance as well. If a coworker proves to be a distraction, the other employees will have a hard time concentrating on their work.

In companies where the staff only interacts with other employees of the same company, improper attire can project a negative image as well. If the staff does not dress as well as coworkers, there will be some resentment. At the very least, the staff needs to dress as well as the customers of the company in a corporate setting.

Having said that, if there are problems with a particular employee dressing badly or not maintaining proper hygiene, the option of setting a dress code for all staff members is an easy, non-confrontational way of solving a problem. Many employees have an aversion to possible conflict in the workplace and want to avoid any possible altercations. While this is not an optimal stance for a manager to take, we must face the fact that this is so. It can be said that establishing a dress code is an overreaction or a show of cowardice in this situation, but it can be a relatively pain free method of dealing with this problem as well as eliminating this predicament in the future.

Second View: Establishing a casual dress code is an inexpensive way to improve the morale of employees. The casual dress code is appreciated by most employees in its own right, but it also serves as a symbol of management's attitude toward meeting employee needs.

There is one strong argument against casual clothing at work, and it only applies to specific employees. Certainly, employees with client contact should wear business attire, as should those who can be seen by clients in the course of everyday business. Casual dress codes only should apply to employees who cannot be seen, or who rarely are seen, by clients. Professionalism is paramount when it comes to client contact.

It is difficult to find a strong argument in favor of non-client-contact personnel being forced to wear formal business attire. The success of companies such as Microsoft, who have casual dress codes, shows that formal dress is not necessary for success.

If management allows casual attire, it may be viewed as being more caring about employees. Allowing employees to wear casual attire at work may send one or more of the following signals to employees:

• Flexibility on the part of management,
• A willingness to do things the "new way,"
• Management does not seek to "control" employees,
• There is a system of promotion in place that does not favor those who have had the good fortune to be born in the more affluent classes.

This last point may be somewhat less obvious than the first three. By allowing employees to wear casual attire, management signals that one's social status is not a factor in promotions. Proper business dress is an acquired (and expensive) skill; one that is more easily acquired if one has an upper class background. Casual clothing becomes an equalizer in this regard.

Management may be shooting itself in the foot by not allowing casual attire. We are beginning to encounter quality people who say they will refuse to apply for a job at a company that does not allow casual clothing to be worn. Such employees may gravitate toward a firm's competitors, potentially placing the firm at a competitive disadvantage.

One final note -- a casual dress code does not mean that employees should look sloppy. A casual dress code can be specific with regard to the type of clothing allowed.

I personally prefer the second policy. However, it all depends where you work at. While I was living in Jordan, I went through both situations. The bitty thing is that in both companies while they had the policy set, however no one could explain it to employees. they just adopted a dress code without really having the effort of providing a sound reasoning to their employees. If we have some problems in business sector in Jordan, I would blame it on "Human Resources" departments; if they exist. In all companies that I worked at in Jordan, while they all had HR department, but none of them really fulfilled the word "Human Resources." In both cases they were more of a policing department. Contrary to were advanced HR departments are today. I think our business sector in Jordan needs a real overall restructuring. HR is a great deal of the success of any company, and that is obvious because employees are #1 "Resource" of any company, product and services are #2.

At present, I work in a company which understands deeply this problem, and they have one of the most advanced and successful HR policies in the Middle East, if not in the world. Staring with company structure, the company invented an "Open Flat Company Structure", where there are no barriers for any employee from any level to reach and meet any other staff, staring from a "one day junior" to the "CEO". And believe it or not, this policy (and many more) played a great deal in the success of a company that launched within less than 6 months from the day we got the license, and with 80% of employees being "fresh graduate", and now within less than two years in operation have over than 30% of market share.

Anyway, I guess I can tell endless success stories of good HR policy, but that's not the subject today :-)