The Blue State

Island nations on global warming: Stop talking and start doing

Countries and businesses alike are making contingency plans for the next 30 years.  Global warming is a serious problem -- whether it is natural, man-made or a little bit of both.  With the sea level expected to rise significantly over the next generation, island nations raised concerns this week at the United Nations:

"The international community has convened numerous conferences andsummits at which it has agreed on wide-ranging plans and programs ofaction," Foreign Minister of the Maldives Abdalla Shahid, told the U.N.General Assembly. "However ... all too often the reality ofimplementation has failed to match the ambitious rhetoric."

Hewas speaking just days after the world body convened its first-everclimate summit which sought to put new urgency into global talks toreduce global-warming emissions.

We can talk and talk and talk until we are all blue in the face.  Though, the reality is that island countries and coastlines all across the world will not be prepared until we get prepared.  That means coming estimates on food rationing, disease control and methods to keep track and affect the flow of refugees away from the coastline.

On a personal note, next year I will likely start my graduate school career in the field of International Relations.  Until just a few months ago, I was dead-set on pinpointing my studies on the issue of conflict management in the Middle East.  But in all likelihood, the most urgent conflict management over the next 50 years will be needed in places such as Africa and Southeast Asia.  Global warming will affect habitat -- leading to crop shortages, and in the end, starvation.  Food shortages can often lead to wars.  Wars lead to refugees.  Refugee camps lead to the increased risk of disease.  I am for the most part convinced that the number one challenge this century will come from the continent of Africa.  To be quite blunt, the threat of global warming does not help.

Al-Sadr controls five ministries and 30 members of parliament

Interestingly, this news came from the Wall Street Journal's Bartle Bull, who intended to write a column this morning about how the US has succeeded in bringing democracy to Iraq.  He cited the fact that Moqtada al-Sadr, instead of boycotting the government, is now working within the democratic system to gain power:

As for Mr. Sadr, I reported thefirst hints of his democratic conversion in 2004 when a member of histop political committee told me Mr. Sadr was going to start a politicalparty and contest the elections when they came. He still has not formedsuch a party, but as I saw up close when I later spent five weeks ofthe December 2005 election period embedded in Sadr City with his MahdiArmy, he embraced electoral politics with subtlety and enthusiasm.

Of course he did: He is the leaderof the country's biggest popular movement. Today, controlling fivemajor ministries and about 30 members of Parliament (one of the twolargest blocs in the government) he underwrites the pluralist projectin Iraq as he has done since late 2004.

But just because someone works within a democratic system doesn't make what they are doing more pure.  After all, it was Hitler that worked within the Weimar Republic to take power.  Once he got that power, he dissolved the democracy.  In other words, the Hitler example reminds us of how someone can use the democratic system with the intent of destroying it.

The columnist is missing the point if he thinks that al-Sadr has "converted" into a believer of democracy.  He only uses the existing system to gain power.  And what happens after that is anyone's guess.

It's about judgment ...and management

In a country whose Prime Minister is even more socially conservative than George W. Bush, the citizens reject the United States' ability to manage foreign conflicts.  In 2001, the same Australian public thought much different:

The research was conducted by the US Studies Centre atthe University of Sydney and it's found our attitude has deteriorateddramatically over the past six years.

66 per cent of thosesurveyed in 2001 had confidence in America's ability to manageinternational affairs, that number has almost halved to 37 per cent in2007.

Remember, this is the exact same Australian electorate whose pro-war Prime Minister said this about Barack Obama:

“If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq , I would put a circle around March 2008  and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats.”

So if our Aussie friends are questioning our judgment on foreign issues, that really says something.

These companies fund genocide in Darfur -- please divest!

You may have seen this commercial on television.  The group SaveDarfur.org released a creative television ad that asked point blank: are you funding genocide?  If so, take responsibility:

As listed on the Save Darfur web site, these are the companies that are funding the genocide there:

PetroChina, A Chinese oil company, is one of the worst companies in funding the genocide. With PetroChina's help, the government of Sudan uses its oil revenue to provide arms and funding for the genocide, rather than economic development for its people.

Of US-based investment firms, Franklin Templeton, JP Morgan Chase, Capital Group/American Funds, Fidelity, Vanguard, have the largest holdings in PetroChina.

I strongly encourage all of you to check your portfolio and divest from these companies ASAP.  Here are their stock symbols:

• PetroChina (PTR)
• Franklin Templeton (FEMDX)
• JP Morgan Chase (JPMCP.PK)
• Capital Group/American Funds (multiple)
• Fidelity (multiple)
• Vanguard (multiple)

Obama: Eliminate all nuclear weapons worldwide

In a speech today, Democratic candidate Barack Obama will call for the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons:

Mr. Obama, according to details provided by his campaign Monday,also will call for pursuing vigorous diplomatic efforts aimed at aglobal ban on the development, production and deployment ofintermediate-range missiles.

“In 2009, we will have a window ofopportunity to renew our global leadership and bring our nationtogether,” Mr. Obama is planning to say, according to an excerpt ofremarks provided by his aides. “If we don’t seize that moment, we maynot get another.”

Rejoining the nuclear nonproliferation and test ban treaties would be a start.  Those are just two of the many international treaties that the Bush Administration has dropped from over the last six years.

Arms dealing to developing world out of control

If the Bush Administration is serious about global security, at least start reducing the amount of arms we sell to developing countries -- weapons that can often end up in the hands of terrorists.  According to a Congressional study out this morning, the United States is the number one military supplier to the developing world:

In 2006, the United States agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weaponsto the developing world, or 35.8 percent of these deals worldwide,according to the study. Russia was second with $8.1 billion, or 28.1percent, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8 percent.

Pakistanconcluded $5.1 billion in agreements to buy arms in 2006. That totalwas followed by India with $3.5 billion in agreements and Saudi Arabiawith $3.2 billion in deals.

The combined value of arms salesworldwide to both developed and developing nations in 2006 reached$40.3 billion, a decline of nearly 13 percent from 2005.

As you might have guessed, the bottom line is not global security -- it is money.  Money drives most decision-making in Washington.

Snipers Instructed to 'Bait" and Kill

Army snipers in Iraq are instructed to "bait" Iraqis and shoot tokill when they pick up the 'bait'.

From Military.com

'U.S.Snipers 'Bait' Iraqis' - WASHINGTON - Army snipers hunting insurgents inIraq were under orders to "bait" their targets with suspiciousmaterials, such as detonation cords, and then kill whoever picked up the items,according to the defense attorney for a Soldier accused of planting evidenceon an Iraqi he killed. Gary Myers, an attorney for Sgt. Evan Vela, saidMonday his client had acted "pursuant to orders." Readon...

This is reminiscent of the AbuGhraib scandal. Tell the soldiers what to do then let them take the fall.Now That's surely the way to "support the troops"!!

I understand war is full of "things" and "missions" thatneed to be done in a certain way, but think about it this way. A poor Iraqi father is walking down the street two days after his city, village, street or housewere bombed, he looks down and sees what appears to be rope or wire (maybe even pinkplastic explosives that appear to be meat?), anyway, he bends down to pick it upbecause he needs something to tie his door back up that was ripped from it'shinges or rewire something from the explosions....BANG, daddy and his rope are gone. Now on theother hand it could be an insurgent that knows exactly what it is, and needs itto kill the good guys...my point? Mission wasn't accomplished ; there was NOplan ;we were continually lied to ;it becomes worse as each day goes by, andit's one helluva quagmire. 

An "Under the circumstances" possible solution": Watch theindividual (when possible) and apprehend him and see if he leads you to a hungryNON-insurgent family, or a weapons cache. Anyone that thinks "this willonly put our boys in harms way", I say "Exactly!". Thank goodnessthere not there already. And to think about the relationships that are deterioratingdue to the deployment stays.

Excuse me while I get sick and continue to realistically support the troops,but not the war.

Editorial: Ahmadinejad benefited from Iraq war

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in the United States next week -- no, not to meet with George W. Bush.  The Iranian ruler will give an address at the United Nations in New York City, and will be greeted by throngs of protesters.  Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is calling on the United Nations to expel Ahmadinejad from the global body of nations.

Then again, maybe people like Mitt Romney should consider the impact that the Iraq war is continuing to have on Ahmadinejad's ability to hold onto power despite a struggling Iranian economy.  Before the US invaded Iraq, it was assumed that the right-wing religious government in Iran would be overthrown by the young, liberal, pro-democratic movement, which is strongest on college campuses in that country.

But the threat of war with Iran, including the fact that foreign (US) troops are just miles from their border, has increased nationalist sentiment among Iranians, giving Ahmadinejad an excuse to purge the government of all political opposition.  It is less likely, more so than before the war, that Ahmadinejad will be overthrown.  Maybe that is something Mitt Romney needs to think about.

Blair took orders from Bush to until the very end

Between now and the end of the year, a significant number of British soldiers stationed in Basra will leave Iraq.  But what many people did not was that the Brits were originally supposed to begin their withdrawal earlier this year.  According to the BBC, President Bush stepped in and talked Blair out of it:

The withdrawal of British troops from Basra wasdelayed by five months due to political pressure from the US, a UKmilitary commander in Iraq has said.

Brig James Bashall told the Daily Telegraph that apull-out in April "would have been the right thing to do but politicsprevented that".

He said the exit from the Basra Palace base was held up because the "Americans asked us to stay for longer".

An MoD spokesman insisted the move took place when conditions were right.

It reinforces the suspicion of many British citizens that Tony Blair never had his own foreign policy, and allowed himself to be manipulated by US special interests, even to a fault.

John Edwards' multilateral counter-terrorism policy

What many of us are looking for is new ideas.  Old, ideological ideas got us into this current foreign policy mess.  During a speech today in New York City, John Edwards gave a speech on counter-terrorism.  Stressing the importance of multilateralism, Edwards called for the creation of a Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization:

CITO would be made up of nations committed to sharing financial,police, customs and immigration intelligence that would enableauthorities to track and shut down terrorist cells, he said.

“We saw the promise of a new multilateral approach just a couple ofdays ago in Germany,” Mr. Edwards said, referring to the arrests ofthree men there who were suspected of plotting attacks on Americaninterests. The arrests were made possible through close cooperationbetween American and German authorities.

“We must be able to coordinate similar operations throughout theworld—in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and anywhere in the world theterrorists may attack,” Mr. Edwards said. He clarified that membershipin CITO would be contingent upon the willingness of each nation toactively combat terrorism.

Mr. Edwards also spoke of the need for a new “foreign policy ofconviction.” He used the example of U.S. relations with Pakistan tocriticize the Bush administration for what he had earlier described asa “foreign policy of convenience” that “regularly turns a blind eyewhen our allies wrongly fail to cooperate.”

Great idea!  And not only do we need intelligence-sharing between countries, but between federal agencies right in this country.  Six years after the attacks on 9/11, and the Administration has chosen not to engage in serious intelligence-sharing with other countries.  The only intelligence-sharing that exists is done on back channels.  If we had an infrastructure set up that could enable this kind of shared cooperation, then that added communication could plug some of the current security holes.