Catarina's World

Saudi Arabian businesswoman Lubna Olayan has been on Fortune magazine’s “Global Power 50 Women” list from 2004 to 2009. Forbes named her to its “World’s Most Powerful Women” list in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and Time Magazine listed her among the “Top 100 Most Influential People in the World” in 2005.

Saudi Arabian businesswoman Lubna Olayan (in the middle) debating at The World Economic Forum in Davos this year.

Several Saudi women are executives at Prince Alwaleed’s Kingdom Holding Company. The Prince has long been a champion of Saudi Arabian women and even has a female Saudi pilot.

Lubna Olayan and the Saudi Arabian women who work for Prince Alwaleed are just a few examples of capable and successful women in the Kingdom. There are more of them but they usually keep a low profile.

Saudi women sitting on $11,9 billion

Now it has also been revealed that a large portion of the Kingdom’s wealth is in the hands of its women who are believed to be sitting on cash totaling $11.9 billion. They are in other words controlling a substantial portion of the country’s wealth.

Women constitute almost 45 percent of the population and have a literacy rate of 79 percent. But only 65 percent of them are employed, despite the fact that 78.3 percent of unemployed women are university graduates.

Women in Saudi Arabia hence account for a substantial pool of human and financial capital with the power and ability to bring about significant social and economic change. It is hence beneficial to the kingdom to give them the same opportunities their sisters enjoy in other Arab nations, which is currently taking place.

King Abdullah championing women’s rights

“This comes at a time when we are witnessing a rapid and increased investment in our country’s human resources and economic development,” says Princess Adelah bint Abdullah, King Abdullah’s daughter. “Fundamental to this is regulations that encourage greater involvement of women in our work force. The impact of this support can be seen through the growth, productivity and innovation of Saudi Arabia’s women-owned businesses.

The princess explains that Saudi law already permits women to run a business without the guardianship of a man, but added, “Often this law is not enforced. Some people in the government prevent its implementation. They either do know about it or are opposed to it.

On the mixing of men and women, Princess Adelah added: “I do not see why men and women should not maintain respectful relations in the workplace, as they do in hospitals or during pilgrimage to Mecca. It will come gradually, once people become accustomed to it and laws against harassment are passed.”

Female entrepreneurs on the rise

Women in Sweden are still not being paid as much as a man carrying out the same job ,despite the fact that women have been allowed to vote since 1919. So things are moving faster for Saudi women. Considering that I’m the only Western woman ever who have held a senior management position in a 100% Saudi owned company in Riyadh, I feel a bit like “a Mrs Pankhurst of Saudi Arabia”. Would be delighted to go back to the Kingdom and help female Saudi entrepreneurs build up successful companies.

Know a lot of capable Saudi women, not least my friend Lubna Hussain that had her own talk show on Saudi Television already in 2008. Should be noted here that in the US Barbara Walters wasn’t allowed to be more than a co-host of a TV show until the 1980s.

Positive changes are coming for Saudi women and it will not take as long as it did in the West. There are plenty of capable women in the Kingdom and they will make a positive contribution to the development and diversification of Saudi Arabia. Not only will they work very well, channeling their huge funds into enterprises and investment activities will earn profitable returns as well as boost money supply.

King Abdullah wants to expand women’s role as active members of society and workforce. So let’s see how long it takes for Saudi women as a whole to personify the King’s vision of capable women bringing honor to the family? How long do you believe it will take? Will we see more women, like Lubna Olayan, leading Saudi businesses say, ten years from now? Or do you believe it will take longer?

(photo: World Economic Forum – Flickr)

Just days after President Barack Obama voiced willingness to talk to Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed 9/11 had been trumped up as an excuse for the United States to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

If necessary, could the Saudis, again, in the interest of the world succeed in making Teheran opt for peace?

He said there was no evidence that the death toll at New York’s World Trade Center, destroyed in the attacks, was as high as reported. “They created and prepared public opinion so that everyone considered an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq as (their) right,” he said in a televised speech.

No “Zionists” were killed in the World Trade Center, according to him, because “one day earlier they were told not go to their workplace.” That there is a published list of Sept. 11 dead from more than 90 countries available online, was conveniently ignored.

Ahmadinejad accused the US government of exercising more media censorship than anywhere in the world. And, again, talked about the Holocaust never happening. Obviously having a go at Israel again.

The Iranian president leaves a lot to be desired but no matter how much we disapprove of him he is not an idiot. If he was, he wouldn’t have succeeded to get elected the first time (unlike the last election which was obviously rigged). He knows what he is doing and he has the Mullahs approval. Considering that Iranian elections are rigged they don’t need to show Iranians that he is capable of standing up to the West. They already know that.

What does the Iranian regime gain from sable rattling?

Begs the question of why they keep on provoking Israel and the US with his statements? Maybe the timing is not a coincidence since only 50,000 US soldiers will soon be left in Iraq? The current Israeli government is also more likely to be provoked to strike Iran than the previous one. Maybe he and the Mullahs would like that to happen to give them an excuse to strike back? Or worse, start a war with Iraq that could lead to an all out war in the Middle East? The Mullahs would love to control Makkah and Medina and Iran has caused trouble there in the past which the Saudis luckily managed to handle.

Tehran says it is refining uranium only for electricity and medical treatments. But it’s not out of the question that they already have been supplied with enough uranium for a few missiles from North Korea or Pakistan? Whatever their reason they are hiding something when it comes to their nuclear capacity.

Iran has already caused enough problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Afghanistan. That the current regime would like to be more prominent in the Middle East is no secret. So is Ahmadinejad, just like he accused the US of doing, trumping up an excuse to invade Iraq or attack Israel? After all the best thing an unpopular regime can do is unite the people behind an outside enemy.

Doubt that Teheran would attack Iraq unless the US were involved in a strike against them. But then again Israel would be using US equipment and that might be enough of a provocation?Do believe that it’s questionable if the Iranian regime would dare to attack Israel or Iraq without having an excuse to do so. So hopefully no strike on Iran will take place?

Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states have for years been worried about Iran’s behavior because a strike against Iranian nuclear sites would spread radiation across the whole region. Or worse lead to an all out war in the Gulf between Shias and Sunnis. Don’t need to tell you what that would do not only to the region but the world economy.

So maybe it’s time for the Saudis to, again, make Teheran opt for peace? King Abdullah sent Prince Bandar to Teheran in 2006. The result was that Teheran ordered Hezbollah to stop fighting Israel in Lebanon, which effectively ended that war. Considering King Abdullah’s effort recently regarding Lebanon, maybe it’s no coincidence that the Hezbollah isn’t yet playing an active part in the border incidents?

When it comes to Iran the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel and, most likely, the majority of the Iranian population are on the same side. Actually most of the citizens of the world is. If we all need to unite against Ahmadinejad and the Mullhas probably depends on how badly the Mullas and Ahmadinejad need to unite the Iranians against an outside enemy. Hopefully it will not come to that, but if it does it wouldn’t be the first time the West has been wrong about Iranian intentions.

(photo: The White House – Flickr)

The day I stop learning I’m dead. And even when that day comes I will not know everything there is to know.

The day I stop learning I'm dead.

Nobody does, even Einstein said he is not an expert on anything, merely curious. Did you for instance know that sweating leaves produce electricity? Neither did I until I came across that revelation.

Everybody has problems, the richest man in the world as well as the poorest. It’s just a question of what problems. The important thing though is what we learn from them. The easiest is to blame everybody else but that approach will just assure that the same problem happens over and over again. The smart, and interesting, way is to take responsibility for what happened, learn and move on.

In Saudi Arabia you learn a lot. KSA is, in my opinion, the most interesting country in the world because almost every day something happens that you have never experienced before. Life in the kingdom hence enriches you enormously, provided of course, that you are not stuck in your ways or intolerant. We are all different, and that’s what makes life beautiful. How boring it would be if we were all alike.

If you have a curious mind and constantly learn you can succeed with anything. Don’t know how many times I have been asked to do something I have never done before in different parts of the world. So I just found out, learnt and did it.

Sometimes I think people are afraid of learning and developing. It’s not only laziness but also easier to take the option of doing nothing since, they could, after all, fail. And society sometimes reward people for towing the line as opposed to learning and developing. It’s not unusual that even top positions are filled with executives who will just preserve the status quo. That’s all very well, but how will companies develop with that kind of mind-set? Sure control is important but surely not at the expense of the company learning, developing and improving results? And how can they do that unless they start looking at new and different options? Besides I don’t understand the contradiction since I have always followed company policy and at the same time learnt, developed and improved results.

For me acquiring new knowledge, behaviors, skills, values, preferences and understanding is vital. To be broad-minded and curious is probably one of the key, if not the key, aspect of life. And how would that be possible without constantly learning? I know more today than I did yesterday and will continue to do so for the rest of my life. I really enjoy living and am not afraid of dying but anything in between I’m simply not interested in. And isn’t that how we end up leading our lives if we stop learning with all that entails? Or maybe Oscar Wilde had a point when he said: “Everybody who is incapable of learning has taken to teaching”? Joke aside, at least that’s how we sometimes felt when we were at school.

(Photo: PhotoXpress giuseppe porzani)

It’s not a coincidence that most successful Western corporations were founded last century. Then it was still possible to build up a highly profitable company in the West. Nowadays however, that’s easier said than done. Western tax authorities, led by Sweden followed by America, are tightening any loopholes there are.

Multinational corporations have already made arrangements to pay as little as possible to the taxman in the West. So they will not be much, if at all, affected by this. However the vast majority of companies are small and medium sized. And for them it isn't always possible to do what the big players do.

In the developing world however, companies can still do what used to be done here which gives them the upper hand. Cannot understand how tax authorities have been allowed, actually instructed, by politicians to hand out all the aces to competitors overseas? You have to play with the cards you have and with the odds stacked against them, Western companies have their hands tied.

Private sector companies generate the main part of taxes and fees that pay for government and the public sector. Hence cannot understand how Western governments can implement taxation laws that slowly but surely make Western corporations unable to compete on the global market? Where is the money going to come from to fund Western authorities? Obviously the problem is that politicians main priority is to be re-elected. They hence take opportunistic decisions to gain short term benefits. But how about keeping the West competitive in the long run? A lot of famous Western brands, such as Volvo, Rolls Royce and Range Rover, have already been sold to the developing world.

Where is the money going to come from to keep the West wealthy when companies are being taxed out of business? Tax authorities in the West are getting more and more militant and EU and US politicians are cooperating to make sure they squeeze as much taxes as possible out of companies. The justice system in Sweden is hence so twisted you are actually better of murdering someone than committing severe economic crimes since your jail sentence will be shorter.

The jobless recovery illustrates the tax problem very well. Many jobs lost will not be replaced, more likely outsourced or moved overseas. Most manufacturing has already moved to the developing world, not because companies wanted to move, but had to in order to be competitive. Fair enough since most Americans and Europeans are not keen on such jobs anyway. Catch is that all countries have a population of everything from brilliant to stupid people. What are Westerners with a low IQ going to do in the future? Non-skilled jobs are in the developing world but how many labourers in the West are prepared to start working in, say, a factory in China? Or Africa for that matter, because some experts believe manufacturing will start moving there since they provide cheaper labour than Asia.

Multinational corporations have already made arrangements to pay as little as possible to the taxman in the West. So they will not be much, if at all, affected by this. However the vast majority of companies are small and medium sized. And for them it isn’t always possible to do what the big players do. So weather they like it or not, they have to start thinking about moving their company head quarters to other parts of the world. Or, like IKEA, transfer ownership to a trust abroad.

Unfortunately politicians are not the do-gooders they ideally should be. Politics is a profession. And like the corporate world they are looking for short term gains. That companies do is one thing, but surely US and European politicians should have the long term welfare of their own countries at heart? Throughout history empires come and go. And the US and European empires are no exceptions. We all know that China, India and Saudi Arabia/the Gulf will take over. But what I cannot understand is why Western politicians are actually speeding up the end of their empires? Wouldn’t it be better to try to remain the leading powers for as long as possible by keeping the good cards? Apparently not since the West seems to be undermining its strenght from within without taking into account what this will do to future generations.

(photo: 427 – flickr)

Am pleased to note that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are likely to lead recovery in the Gulf. Their proactive government support and spending have been instrumental in helping banks maintain relative stability. Can’t help reflecting how interconnected the world is.

We all know how the markets work, but isn't it incredible that Saudi Arabia on the other side of the world got hit by a global crisis made in the US? Shows how interconnected the world is, doesn't it?

Understand how the markets work, but isn’t it incredible that a financial crisis made in America can even hit Saudi Arabia. Not only is the kingdom on the other side of the globe, it also has more money than any other country in the world. Actually the Gulf banking sector as a whole faced a challenging 2009 with most countries facing limited or negative GDP growth, reduced liquidity, lower business volume, and a drop in asset values, representing a significant deterioration in banks’ operating environments. Mainly because of what started far away in the United States.

We are so interconnected what happens is sometimes crazy. Another example is the Swedish currency being hit by the problems in the Euro zone, despite the fact that Sweden’s budget deficit is next to none. At the same time foreigners investors have since the beginning of the year moved $21 billion into Swedish government bonds. And let’s not forget how North Korean sable rattling negatively impact markets world-wide.

Understand perfectly well that almost anything that happens can have an impact on the financial markets. However, what happens as a result is sometimes ludicrous. Where is the logic in Kim Jong-il being allowed to have a negative impact on anything, let alone the markets, outside of North Korea? The fact that he has gives him power he shouldn’t have. What are the chances of China lining up behind Pyongyang to start World War III? But financial markets all over the world still worry about it, which only plays into the hands of the little North Korean dictator.

For global markets, the renewed military tension on the Korean peninsula apparently came at a particularly sensitive time. The threat to South Korea’s fairly big economy — its GDP is four times larger than Greece’s — adds to the markets getting the impression of a world out of control. But why? Sincerely, there have been wars throughout history and we will have wars until the end of time, unfortunately. So why do the markets have to panic because of Pyongyang threatening to start another one? It’s all out of proportions. Not least since although the South Korean economy is bigger than Greece’s, it just accounts for 1,5 percent of global GDP. Europe on the other hand contributes 22 percent.

Maybe the markets impression that the world is out of control isn’t so far fetched? I’m truly international and would like to see the whole world becoming much more global than it is. But some of the negative effects are alarming. Thankfully Wall Street will now be regulated, but if the rest of the world doesn’t follow suit they will just start handling derivatives and other high risk financial products from offices elsewhere in the world.

Just read that until a few months ago, the governments, which had responded so powerfully to the financial crisis, were a comfort to the markets. But weak and wild policies around the globe are now suddenly undermining their conviction. Simply cannot comprehend how the markets could be unaware of the huge government budget deficits? Even I was aware of that escalating problem not only in Europe but also in the United States. How come the markets closed their eyes? And on top of it they suddenly decided it was a problem which wiped a few billion off the markets.

That the Euro slides against the dollar and investors head for the safety of gold makes perfect sense. But that while the Euro goes down European shares rebound sharply doesn’t make sense. Seriously I know this is how the markets work, but it’s crazy. The markets really are out of control. Or is it the whole world?

Photo: Patrick Q – Flickr

Middle class spending is crucial for economic growth. So now, with Western middle classes in debt and distress, many economists look to the new emerging-market middle class as the foundation for a new era of global prosperity.

Middle class spending power per capita in the Gulf is, for some reason, often overlooked by Western companies.

Last year 70 million people in developing countries joined the middle class, with incomes between $6,000 and$30,000. It is estimated that within 20 years they will surpass their Western pears when it comes to global spending power. The focus is mainly on Asia and it is estimated that in about a decade they will pick up the slack left by overspent America. Emergency market spending is in fact already bolstering the balance sheets of many Western firms.

Needless to say the worlds is focusing on China and India due to its huge populations as well as rapidly rising economies and middle classes. Correct if you look at the amount of people. But by looking at the issue that way we overlook a very potent and prosperous group of people.

When it comes to per capita spending I’m certain that the middle classes in Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries not only earn more but also spend far more than their Asian counterparts. It’s not for nothing many middle class Indians chose to work in the Gulf, despite the fact that they are paid less than the locals. Salaries are higher and you pay no income tax in the Gulf.

Shopping is a top leisure activity and when the weekend starts the malls are filled with people who literally shop until they drop. A woman who works in a Chanel shop in the area told me an average customer spends an absolute fortune every time they come to the shop. And the same goes for more expensive items like cars, jewellery and electronics. Considering the importance the Chinese put on saving money, I would be very surprised if middle class people in China, with the exception of some mega rich, spend that much.

The world, certainly multinationals, are already managing the economic spending shift to Asia very well. But quite a few Western companies are forgetting about Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, which in my opinion could prove costly especially for companies selling expensive consumer goods.

A large amount of Asian and Middle Eastern households have incomes today that position them just below the global middle class threshold and so increasingly large numbers of them are expected to become middle class in the next ten years.

Emerging-market leaders know that the Western system created the worldwide boom of the last quarter century that ended when Lehman Brothers collapsed 18 months ago. Now the boom has moved to emerging markets, and their leaders will increasingly choose to alter Western models to suit their countries. Consequently the fact that all eyes are on Asia and the Gulf forgotten could turn out to be a fatal mistake. The new emerging middle classes are supporters of globalization but highly nationalistic. And there is a vast difference between nationalism in China and, say, Kuwait.

Back to emerging middle classes in general, we can conclude that the Chinese bought more cars than Americans last year, and that India has as many Internet users as the U.S. Also it is estimated that by 2030, more than nine out of every 10 mobile phones will be owned by people in the developing world. Coca-Cola actually forecasts a doubling of worldwide revenues to $200 billion over the next decade, thanks to another 1 billion people expected to join the middle class by 2020. So Western companies who haven’t yet focused on developing countries middle classes should jump on the band waggon swiftly and not overlook the Gulf.

(photo: flickr – Lars Plougmann)

Progress is defined as generally moving forward and if we look at it in that sense it’s interesting to ponder upon where in the world progress is taking place?

My friend Lubna Hussain has her own chat show on Saudi Television.

Sometimes it seems to me that Europe’s “getting old” and many people have stopped trying because they are content with the way things are. The welfare state plays a big role in the lazyness that has set in.

Am not a feminist, but after realizing that women in the EU, even in Sweden, are paid less then men for the same job, I am frankly stunned that more progress hasn’t been made during the last twenty years. Have told people all over the world numerous times that in Sweden there is complete equality between men and women. But men in the EU are still on average paid 15 percent more than women for exactly the same job. And these differences still exist even in public sector jobs, such as teachers. What we are looking at here is actually stagnation, which is the opposite of progress.

In Sweden the highest pay gap is in the finance sector where women are actually paid 18 percent less and with only 1,7 percent difference female staff working in architectural firms seems to have made the best choice. Most likely the lack of progress in this respect has been helped by the fact that people in general don’t talk about how much they earn? But the main reason is that people are too content and lazy to make an effort.

The Arab world on the other hand is making progress when it comes to equality between men and women:

Amal Soliman, Egypt’s first female marriage officer was appointed last year and the UAE followed suit and appointed Fatima Said Obeid as their first female marriage officer

Eva Habil is Egypt’s first female mayor for Komboha in the south

Egypt has 31 female judges

Kuwait has female members of parliament

My friend Lubna Hussain has her own talk show on Saudi television

Barbara Walters in the US actually wasn’t allowed to more than co-host a TV show until about ten years ago.  How many Americans would have thought that  Saudi Arabia would follow suit that swiftly?

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal is appointing Saudi women to top positions and even has a female Saudi pilot. And there is an increasing number of work places in KSA that are mixed.

These are just some examples of progress has taken place within the last few years in the Middle East. But in Europe nothing much has been happening for the last twenty years or so.

Constant progress is, in my opinion, essential for development and I believe that the future belongs to the parts of this world that are still trying and hence making progress.

Or as Einstein put it: “Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving”. Is the balance in this world moving towards the Middle East and Asia? Most likely because having a dream facilitates progress. In the Middle East and Asia more people are dreaming and making an effort to make their dreams come true. Equality between men and women is just one example. Or as Eleanor Roosevelt once put it: “the future belongs to those who have a dream”.

(Re-published on popular demand)

Most of us are delighted with the change of tone out of Washington since the new administration took office. But does that really justify giving the Nobel peace prize to Barak Obama? There is a huge gap between his words and accomplishments. The logic behind the Norwegian Nobel Price Committee seems to baffle the world, not least President Obama himself, who feels he is undeserving.

If King Abullah of Saudi Arabia had been Western he would probably have been awarded the Nobel Peace Price instead of Obama.

Presumably the committee is hoping that by awarding him the Peace Price they will encourage him to accomplish feats that will, in due course, justify the price? If that works, maybe it would be a good idea to make the North Korean leader the next recipient?

Am aware that all US presidents are routinely nominated for the peace price. Actually, so is even Osama bin Laden. But doesn’t there have to be some kind of logic behind the Norwegian committee’s decision? By giving it to Obama they may have just shot him in the foot and made sure he is not re-elected? The world’s expectations may now be raised so high he can not possibly live up to it? He has already discovered that it’s easier said than done to reverse the Bush administration’s national security policies. The same day he was awarded the price he had a meeting with his national security team about escalating the war in Afghanistan. Not because he wants to but because it may be the only alternative unless the world is prepared to accept another failed state.

Getting the Nobel peace prize gives a signal to the world that has a positive impact on the recipient’s ability to exercise power. Don’t think the US presidency needs a helping hand in that respect. Ridding the world of nuclear weapons, stopping global warming and bringing peace to the Middle East is easier said than done even for an American president. Too many vested interests that can not be ignored will work against him. If he has the courage to go against them he will, like George Bush senior, discover that he will not be re-elected.

There are many people in the world that it would have made much more sense to give the peace prize to. Morgan Tsvangirai, the PM of Zimbabwe, is just one example. He has been almost beaten to death several times and been to prison in order o bring peace to Zimbabwe.

Personally I would have liked King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to get it. No other Arab leader has done more than him to try to restart the Arab-Israeli peace process. The King’s peace initiative giving Israel recognition by Arab countries if they return to the 1967 borders has been lauded internationally.

Saudi foreign policy has been remarkable in its consistency and reliance on diplomacy to mediate inter-Arab disputes. After all, the peace settlement that ended the Lebanese civil war was mediated in the Kingdom and King Abdullah even attempted to mediate Saddam’s grievances against Kuwait in the fateful summer of 1990. The Kingdom never resorted to military force in its various territorial disputes with countries such as Iraq, even though KSA boasts one of the most formidable high-tech weapons arsenals in the region.

The 2006 war between the Hezbollah and Israel was stopped when King Abdullah sent an envoy to Teheran with a message that actually made the Iranians tell the Hezbollah to back off.

But the Norwegian committee would not have dreamed of giving it to him simply because he is the king of Saudi Arabia. Instead they seem to be gripped by the Obamafever that is so prevalent in Scandinavia. But by lumping Obama with the likes of Nelson Mandela and Lech Walesa, the Nobel peace prize judges have already managed to infuriate conservative US commentators, making sure there will be no peace for Obama on the home front. Wouldn’t it have been better to wait until he had achieved more? If their decision contributes to making Obama’s task harder, maybe it’s time to have a look at who the judges are to assure they have a positive impact on peace in the world? As it is, the prestige of the price is beginning to disappear. And I’m sure that’s not what Alfred Nobel had in mind.

(Photo: xxxsnsxxx, Flick)