How much longer can the US remain a superpower?

Article worth taking a lot at. Takes into account the opinion of many international relations heavyweights.

American international prestige and internal prosperity has been severely damaged by these past roughly eight years of George Bush as president. This upcoming election is huge. There'll be posts covering the presidential and vice-presidential debates as well as the current financial situation soon.

Lack of confidence in world leaders (but is there hope?)

Who's the best world leader?
Well, if UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is counted, then he's the world leader with the highest confidence rating — 35% — according to a new study in conjunction with the University of Maryland. As Newsweek reports,

On average, only 23 percent of foreign respondents express "a lot of " or "some" confidence in Bush, and only Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does worse (at 22). ... Then comes [Russian President[ Putin at 32 percent, [UK Prime Minister] Brown at 30, [Chinese President] Hu Jintao at 28 and France's Nicolas Sarkozy at 26. The results aren't much different if you tally them country by country: in only two states (Nigeria and India) do a majority of people express at least some confidence in Bush. Putin and Hu each come out ahead in just five nations, and Brown in just six.

Meanwhile, respondents from most countries in a separate Pew study seem to adore US presidential candidate Barack Obama. Let's hope that, come November, most of America will think the same of him.

Israel and Syria: Talking at last

A debate is brewing about diplomatic negotiations between Syria and Israel, who are technically still at war. In this situation, it's quite hard to see how talks could hurt. However the White House's policy on 'no talks with the enemy (lest we appease them)' seems to contradict its Mideast ally's approach.

NYT:

Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the Middle East, just became the latest example of a country that has decided it is better to deal with its foes than to ignore them.

The announcement that Israel has entered into comprehensive peace talks with Syria is at odds with the course counseled by the Bush administration, which initially opposed such talks in private conversations with Israelis, according to Israeli and American officials.
...
But in many ways, the Bush administration’s own policies appear to be at odds with his thesis.

Isn't this the same administration that took part in talks (albeit delayed ones) that resulted in the ongoing denuclearization of the North Korean state?

China and Sudan: bedfellows in evil?

In another piece of bad news coming from the Sudan region...

The Sudanese military is said to have renewed its aerial bombing campaign in the west of the Darfur region.
The joint United Nations African Union mission in Sudan, Unamid, said it had received reports of aerial bombings in the Jebel Moun area of the region.

A Unamid spokesman said there was grave concern for the safety of thousands of civilians in the area.

The reports came as China's envoy for Darfur, Liu Guijin, began a five-day visit to the country to push for peace.

China has come under increasing pressure to use its influence with Sudan to end the fighting.

Mr Liu will travel to Darfur on Tuesday, the fifth anniversary of the start of the conflict which has left 200,000 people dead and 2.5m homeless.

This visit comes after it was revealed that China sold more weapons — both light and heavy arms — to Sudan.

One can see China's influence within Sudan as the up-and-coming superpower tries its best to gain political support in the whole of Africa — in a way filling the void there — as well as taking advantage of the continent's energy resources. While China is helping development there, it is also overlooking major human rights abuses, and, in some cases, encouraging them.

Bejing's relationship with Khartoum, as well as its human rights abuses at home, has led such heavyweights as Stephen Spielberg to denounce China and call for a boycott of the 2008 Summer Olympics. Try as it may to play down human rights fears, but there are supporters of human rights just as stubborn as the abusers — i.e. the Chinese government — themselves.

It's time to get serous with China about its support of the genocidal Sudanese regime. However, powers such as the US should not isolate the emerging giant in its race for economic supremacy or they will find themselves in a tough spot once China has the upper hand.

America's troubling abstinence program in Africa

President Bush has been on a tour of Africa, where he maintains at least a modicum of popularity due to his aid programs there (although that aid sometimes makes things worse). Also on the American leader's agenda was dealing with China's growing influence in the region, fueled by its thirst for oil in nations such as Nigeria and Sudan.

The New York Times reported

Mr. Bush used a news conference to address the widespread suspicion that the United States planned to establish military bases in Africa as it expanded its strategic role on the continent. And for the first time, he suggested that he might consider dropping a requirement that one-third of AIDS prevention dollars be spent on abstinence programs — but only if he was convinced that the approach was not working.
...
Mr. Bush faced tough questioning from an African reporter about his administration’s requirement that one-third of the AIDS initiative’s prevention funds be spent on programs promoting abstinence.

The independent Institute of Medicine has said the abstinence requirement is hindering prevention efforts. Democrats in Congress, debating reauthorization of the initiative, want it dropped.

A president needs to be elected who won't require a certain amount of money be spend on abstinence programs. People will continue to have sex no matter what, and that means the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Contraception and overall sexual education should be one of the highest priorities for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Belief in abstinence-only programs —  confusing teachers, harming schools, and not properly educating people — is one of Bush's more dangerously irrational religious beliefs, which exists primarily to gain the support of the supposed millions of people who believe that condoms are the devil. Why do you think America has the highest teen pregnancy rate in in the developed world (see map)? In fact, "pro-life" people should like contraception, since it would lower the rate of abortions and terminations of unwanted pregnancies. America's domestic program of withholding important sexual information and instead supplying abstinence-only programs has been listed as a human rights concern by Human Rights Watch.

The US's foreign policy relating to aid for AIDS program not only needs more funding — one improvement this administration has brought about — but the abstinence requirement must be dropped. Who knows how many have contracted STDs and died because of lack of proper education of sex, and lack of options. There is nothing promiscuous about governments handing out condoms or information on contraception. Withholding those devices and that information is harmful to cause of most of us who want to stop the spread of AIDS and let a woman choose whether she wants to get pregnant.

An independent Kosovo

Angering Serbia and its allies, such as Russia, Kosovo, already a semi-autonomous province, proclaimed its independence from Serbia today, in a long-awaited move.

Kosovo's parliament has unanimously endorsed a declaration of independence from Serbia, in an historic session.
The declaration, read by Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, said Kosovo would be a democratic country that respected the rights of all ethnic communities.

The US and a number of EU countries are expected to recognise Kosovo on Monday.

Serbia's PM denounced the US for helping create a "false state". Serbia's ally, Russia, called for an urgent UN Security Council meeting.

To understand the reasons for the Kosovo divide, one must understand the problems the former Yugoslavia faced, and is still facing right now (i.e. the Kosovo War).

This will add to the strain in relations between Russia and the West.

America's commitment problem

Over this weekend, committal issues arose at the Bali climate change meeting in Indonesia.

The United States will come up with its own plan to cut global-warming gases by mid-2008, and won't commit to mandatory caps at the U.N. climate conference here, the chief U.S. negotiator said Saturday.
...
Watson's comments reaffirmed that the Bush administration views its own talks as the main event in discussions over climate change.

This is not only unfortunate for the UN's emissions cap plan, but shows how the Bush administration thinks: 'our talks are more important than the international ones'. Environmental groups say that Washington hopes to sideline and subvert international summits just as it stood alone as the only developed nation not agreeing to Kyoto.

Meanwhile the EU agreed to reduce emissions 20% by 2020...

Midway through the two-week Bali conference, many of the more than 180 assembled nations were demanding such firm commitments from Washington as well, as the world talks about a framework to follow Kyoto when it expires in 2012.

What can the Annapolis peace talks accomplish?

There are hopes that Annapolis will pave the way for a 2008 peace treaty between Israelis and Palestinians.

The US, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have voiced hope that a conference in Maryland could produce a starting point for serious peace negotiations.

Bush said that peace was 'worth it to try' and that he 'work[s] the phones' in the peace process.

This peace conference is the first of its kind since 2000. The US is actively taking a role in the talks, after sitting on the sidelines on many previous occasions.

Israel has argued that initiatives that have isolated the Palestinian territories are needed for its security. The general pattern of Israel-Palestinian skirmishes is militant fires rocket into Israel or attacks army, Israel responds with raids which result with civilian deaths, more rocket fire and retaliations by Palestinians, and collective punishment upon already-angry Palestinians by Israel. This is how it has been for years.

There are several firsts for this conference. Syria will be in attendance — a first for the dictatorial, terror-supporting-yet-marginalized (and under-utilized) nation. The country will, of course, be on the side of the Palestinians and is still pushing for the return of its Golan Heights from Israel. As a reminder, Syria is on President Bush's "axis of evil". This will also be the first big job for British PM turned peace negotiator Tony Blair. Lastly, Saudis and Israelis will be sitting at the same table — but Israeli diplomats beware: the Saudi representative has stated he will not shake hands with you.

A total of 40 countries are attending the summit in Annapolis, Maryland. Hamas, which rules Gaza, will not be coming. In fact, it wouldn't see the point in such a meeting as it neither recognizes Israel nor diplomacy as a good way to achieve results.

This is an odd, if possibly inappropriate, time for peace talks. Tensions are high over Iraq; the Bush administration faces hurdle after hurdle with shear incompetence and poor diplomacy. Perhaps Bush is making a last-ditch effort at setting the stage for the creation of a free and independent Palestinian state, an aspiration of his. Secretary of State Condi Rice may be vying for a good diplomatic spot in history, odd since she helped block former Sec. of State Colin Powell's attempts at a similar Mideast peace conference.

CFR's Richard Haass argues that one will have to wait for the time to be right before a real drive for peace can be effectively made. But talking in the meantime can't hurt. It isn't good to be impervious to reality just for the sake of optimism.

There is an overall mood of skepticism as talks get underway. The best and most realistic hope is that some progress can be made in bringing Israel and Palestine out of decades of conflict using diplomacy. Hopefully both sides will make valuable concessions, but considering Palestinian Authority President Abbas only has control of the West Bank, his options are even more limited. Seven years ago US President Clinton made a large effort at Mideast peace — it failed miserably. Even though I don't care at all for this White House or its historical legacy, I hope this summit's results aren't the same.

Pakistan's state of mayhem

So President Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency on 3 November, justifying the need to secure the state for his blatant repression of anything free in Pakistan (security over freedom). One might even call this a second coup. Needless to say, any deal with Benazir Bhutto is off the table. Her period of house arrest has ended, but other political opponents to Musharraf and human rights proponents have been jailed.

Meanwhile the United States government has been protecting Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Bad idea for a country on the brink of total instability, teeming with radical Islamic fundamentalists to have an unsecured collection of nuclear weapons, so I see the need for the US to do so. The US has urged Pakistan's leader to end his rule of martial law.

A less helpful foreign policy move has been America's friendly position with Gen. Musharraf in the first place.

Today Pakistan was again rightfully suspended from the Commonwealth.


I hope everyone who celebrates Thanksgiving had a nice one!

New global climate warnings

BBC:

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has challenged governments to act on the findings of a major new report on climate change.

That aforementioned report is the fourth major report the IPCC has released on global warming.

The panel suggests societies need to adapt to future impacts, as well as curbing emissions.

Without extra measures, carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise; they are already growing faster than a decade ago, partly because of increasing use of coal.

The IPCC's economic analyses say that trend can be reversed at reasonable cost. Indeed, it says, there is "much evidence that mitigation actions can result in near-term co-benefits (e.g. improved health due to reduced air pollution)" that may offset costs.

The panel's scientists say the reversal needs to come within a decade or so if the worst effects of global warming are to be avoided.

Recently there have been some new initiatives like CO2 trading and emissions caps, but the majority have either been weakened by politicians and industry, or not widely followed.

In early December, new climate change talks will begin in Bali. Hopefully America will take a more progressive and cooperative stance than it has in the past. Now that many developed governments seem to have a mandate by their general populations and the scientific community to get to work, there is no excuse in backtracking on such an important environmental, humanitarian, and, ultimately, economic issue as global warming.

Update: See here for more on cap-and-trade.

Bush warns of WWIII with Iran

And he calls Al Gore an alarmist?

New York Times:

Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, urged the Bush administration on Sunday to soften its statements about Iran while maintaining diplomatic pressure to halt the nuclear enrichment that could lead to the production of a nuclear weapon.

But American lawmakers appearing on Sunday television talk programs were divided on whether efforts to influence Iran had been helped or hindered by the administration’s tough talk.

“We cannot add fuel to the fire,” Dr. ElBaradei said on “Late Edition” on CNN. “I would hope we would stop spinning and hyping the Iranian issue.” He also expressed frustration about the Israeli bombing in September of a building in Syria that analysts say may have contained the beginnings of a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor.

“To bomb first and ask questions later,” he said, was decidedly unhelpful.

In an Oct. 17 news conference, Mr. Bush said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran had “announced that he wants to destroy Israel,” referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad’s comments that Israel “will disappear soon.” Mr. Bush also said he had “told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

World War III? Bush's rhetoric was extreme enough before, but this is going way too far. Equating the 'Axis of Evil' to the WWII 'Axis' may be a next step for the Bush administration, drawing more parallels between the fake 'war on terror' and the 'Great War', the Second World War. Russia and Iran both pose potential threats, but neither is close to harming America enough to beat the war drum for. Some people, especially Republicans, are beating the same drum as the president, and that is worrying. You'd think they would have learned their lesson in the years of needless war in Iraq since 2003.

Baradei is right: the hype echoing from the White House and elsewhere can only make things worse. As far as scaring Iran into submission, the US has pursued some form of that policy for years, and look how it has worked out. People are as riled against the United States as ever, and an attack against Iran would surely not only be disastrous, but counterproductive. As for Russia, Putin is primarily posturing — although Moscow's partnership with Tehran is worrying.

I don't know about you all, I do not want another war waged against a nation on false premises and neoconservative spin.

It's UN Day!

Today — 24 October — is the anniversary of the founding of the United Nations in 1945, UN Day.



The UN is an important actor in international affairs. While it has plenty of faults — e.g. corruption, ineffectiveness because of it's too tough not tough enough, lack of agreement among member nations and support from the world's peoples, lack of scope in missions — the United Nations has overall made the world a better and safer place.

Climate change will be its biggest, truly global challenge yet, spanning its political, humanitarian, and scientific (policy) realms. Capturing the hearts and minds of the public while managing bickering nations are among other major, continuing challenges. The organization is dependent on its members. America especially must not lose hope in the organization and it, along with other world nations, should increase funding, which the UN is short of.

Happy 62, UN, hopefully the state of the world will improve in the years to come.

Iran's diplomatic voice of moderation silenced

One semi-moderate hardliner (Larijani) is dismissed as another ultra-hardliner (Pres. Ahmadinejad) stands

Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, viewed by the West as a moderating influence in Tehran, resigned before crucial talks with Europe this week over Iran’s nuclear program, signaling that officials here may have closed the door to any possible negotiated settlement in its standoff with the West.

How will the resignation of Larijani affect the already-deadlocked negotiations between Iran and the West over its 'peaceful' — which UN Security Council veto-welder Russia troublingly believes it is — nuclear program. Will the Islamic state become more radical — and rogue?

A BBC News reader summed this all up best: "The Iranian president obviously feel[s] he holds the all the aces". When — if ever — will the ayatollah step in to help relieve the massive tension between Iran and the international community, as he has before (e.g. with the recent temporary release of a jailed scholar)? Has the tipping point for US-Iran relations come to pass, meaning a potentially successful one-on-one meeting is not a possibility whatsoever? (Stubbornness on both sides is to blame.)

Iran has been offered a huge amount of incentives by American and European diplomats; it has played games and refused to take the rational action. Ahmadinejad is probbaly just waiting out for a sweeter deal, as diplomacy is currently at a virtual standstill, similar to the one worked out with North Korea. But whereas N Korea had only nukes, Iran, which is still in the early stages of nuclear development, has plenty of something everyone wants: oil.

Is now the time for a Palestinian state?

Even as political tensions rise and the situation on the ground worsens, America seems to (finally) be pushing for an independent Palestinian state, if just in foreign policy rhetoric.

"Frankly it is time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," Ms Rice told reporters in a news conference which she held with the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

One unique thing about the Bush administration is that it has always expressed a wish for a Palestinian state, something even the Clinton-led White House wasn't willing to do in public. Rice's wish for a sovereign state conflicts with the very slanted policy the US has held in favor of Israel, especially under President Bush.

Israel has attacked Syria; Hamas has offered to at least try to kiss and half-heartedly make up with its rival Fatah — news, both good and bad, has been coming out of this area of the Middle East. In the midst of all of it, I am frankly surprised to hear such a bold, but not bad, statement from the American secretary of state.

Rice hopes for a diplomatic meeting between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on American turf. I don't know what to make of that idea. On one hand, there is a desperate need for a peace settlement that results from concessions from both sides. One the other hand, assuming the proposed talks fail is this just an excuse for the US to say, 'Well, we gave it a try'? Will important Palestinian factions be kept out of the meeting, thus further alienating many and helping the radicals? I neither want to be too optimistic nor too pessimistic. United States isn't the only external party in this diplomatic picture: the Quartet, of which it is a member, has acted incorrectly at the wrong times — where is it when it's most needed and why can countries not be more flexible?

This summer the major unresolved issue (besides security) that prevented any progress between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators was refugees; now it looks like land rights in Jerusalem, a holy city to both Muslims and Jews, is a central focus.

It is believable that the White House wants a Palestinian state; I do not doubt that their intentions are good. But after years of poor policy under this president and others, I do not see what can change at this point as long as America has a role in the change. It is time for a Palestinian state; but shouldn't stability and agreement on the basic issues come first?

Dreary Burmese days

China may have finally joined much of the world in condemning Burma's brutal regime for its recent actions, but the move is too little, too late. Is most hope already lost for the pro-democracy movement in the nation also known as Myanmar?

Following protests by monks and others, the military government jailed many religious figures and participants in the uprising. Now, nearly all major democracy activists have been arrested. Virtually no progress has been made in the area of human rights.

Sadly, it seems that mass protests don't always spark revolution, or even minor political change; but, if the protests are large enough, they do alert the world to the cause of the protesters. Protests can also be countered by pro-government rallies — there was a government-created rally held earlier today, in which tens of thousands participated.

Meanwhile, on the diplomatic front, the special UN envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, who visited Burma after protests heated up in September, is due to visit the country later this year. The nation's rich natural resources, especially its energy deposits, has allowed it to escape much pressure from international behemoths like China and India. The ASEAN bloc has been overly lax in its condemnation of the military junta, just as south African nations haven't put enough pressure on the deplorable state of Zimbabwe. The least that can be done internationally is ceasing the selling of arms to the nation.

Diplomatic progress with North Korea

North Korea has vowed to disable much of its controversial nuclear program following intense diplomatic work over the past few months.

North Korea has agreed to declare all its nuclear programmes and disable its main atomic reactor by the end of the year under US supervision, according to a six-nation agreement released Wednesday.

The deal -- the second phase of a long-running process aimed at ending the North's atomic weapons drive -- was immediately welcomed by US President George W. Bush, as well as other six-party participants Japan and South Korea.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who is South Korean, also welcomed the move and appealed to all the parties concerned "to step up their work for denuclearisation".

The United States recently pledged millions in food aid to the country, and last summer a main nuclear reactor was shut down, albeit not permanently. However, as we are dealing with often-deceptive North Korea, it's important not to become too happy about this perceived progress until the 'denuclearisation' is indeed accomplished. Diplomacy looks to be on the right track with North Korea, with even the US helping it along.

Even though skepticism should not be ceased at North Korea's motives, this latest move is one of great importance. Not only has North Korea made progress, but so have China and America, who have both learnt valuable lessons from this very long N Korea nuclear series. While it is not over yet, it is remarkable how progress was made so fast, and how far we are from one year ago. The most important thing in diplomacy, besides being open, diplomatic, and fair, is persistence. The New York Times praised the six-party diplomacy that resulted in the North Korean deal in an editorial today.

From the beginning, the North Koreans wanted two things from their nuclear program: not weapons to threaten the world or for power purposes, but money and financial incentives and leverage for getting those kinds of gains. Iran will want at least just as sweet a deal. Given its meddling in other foreign affairs, it will want to grandstand for as long as possible before it level-headidly sits down to the negotiating table. Oddly enough, the US will do roughly the same thing. But instead of painting itself as the best as Iran does, it will try to paint Iran in a negative light, and sound objective doing so (something which the Iranian hard-liners cannot do well).

However, people are wondering whether the same slow diplomacy that worked with North Korea will work with Iran in solving its nuclear weapons dispute. Still, a majority of experts believe that North Korea with nukes is far more dangerous than Iran, given its great poverty and lack of economic wealth (whereas Iran has oil); in addition, its regime is even more rogue and might be more open with giving nuclear information and technology to terrorists than even the notoriously terrorist-supporting Iran. North Korea is also far more advanced in its nuclear development than Iran.

The Korean peninsula was also in the news due to a much-awaited meeting between the leaders of North and South Korea. The meeting resulted in an agreement of mutual peace and cooperation today, which is probably more than most analysts were expecting (many viewed the meeting to be purely symbolic and more of a help to North Korea's dictator Kim Jong-il than South Korea's president Roh Moo-hyun).

A year ago North Korea was acting as rebellious and dangerous as ever, testing missiles and touting its nukes. Today, the situation has changed dramatically. China's use of influence and America's new-found diplomatic openness contributed to the successes of today. But the nuclear game with North Korea is not over yet.

Chavez makes 'socialism' into authoritarianism

Chavez: Castro wannabe
Stifling dissent in the media; making deals with ne'er-do-wells like Ahmadinejad of Iran and Castro of Cuba; stirring up hatred at America (with poor diplomatic results — see 'Bush is the devil' UN speech — and backward progress in, say, Colombia, as a result of hostility and petty stubbornness); performing possibly illegal actions to hold on to power; virtually stating himself as president for life; kicking out any company he doesn't like. These are the actions of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. He has also misused his country's abundant oil resources, often for his own political gain, something we've also seen with Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia (natural gas for the lattermost).

Hailed as an anti-American imperialism and crusader against evil foreign capitalism by the far left, and the epitome of anti-Americanism and collectivist populism in Latin America by the right, Chavez, reelected late last year, has continued his so-called Bolivarian socialist revolution with little concern for democracy.

...and he has followers
Chavez, a follower of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro, has his own populist allies in Latin America, Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua and Evo Moralas of Bolivia. Ortega made a paranoid and extreme speech against what he sees as US neoimperialism and the imposition of harmful capitalism — of course, like his Venezuelan pal he paints himself as his country's savior from that evil — at the UN, although Chavez was absent after the events of last year (the aforementioned calling Bush the 'devil'). Ortega, quite the radical, also spoke in defense of North Korea of all despotic regimes, defending its right to nukes!

How are these anti-American populists getting elected, one might ask? The failure of post-colonial governments, still largely dominated by the rich and controlled by America and Europe is one reason. The US's meddling in the Cold War did not help either. As moderate alternatives to people like Chavez spring up across the (should-be) flourishing region, one hopes they still stand a chance against their power-hungry rivals. It is time for America to be more fair with its neighbors too.

Burma's march for freedom continues

Following a dawn-till-dusk curfew yesterday, Burmese protesters braved bullets, tear gas, and police force as they continued their push for democracy today. 10,000 people — many of them monks — demonstrated that they aren't going to stop what looks to be the largest uprising in nearly two decades (see previous post).

As the international community gets more and more concerned and unsure, China, one of Burma's only allies, remains silent. America is urging China to talk some sense into the illegitimate, despotic government of Burma, also known as Myanmar. The UN is leading the campaign for talks on the issue, and has already sent an envoy to Burma — although it is not known whether he will be allowed into the nation.

Why are we so unsure about what will happen next in Burma? The military junta rules the country in secrecy; few know its workings and even fewer know its plans. These protests could result in positive change — but what will probably come out of them is either a brutal crackdown like the one in 1988 where thousands were killed, or a less extreme but still hostile response from the government. I doubt they would move to the negotiating table.

As far as international pressure goes, Russia and China are still insisting the events in Burma are internal matters. Interesting how two nations who intervene and meddle so much in other nation's affairs — mostly for their profit and often resulting in disastrous consequences — would be against using diplomatic force against the regime in Burma. I can understand the impulse some have against intervention, I often share those views, but not only would upholding human rights diplomatically not be a rash measure that disrespects national sovereignty; in today's globalized and interdependent world — where one collapsed state in one far region of the globe can affect the affairs of a nation a hemisphere away — nations need to insure that their neighbors don't collapse... for their own good! That is why we finally saw China move forward with North Korea. If they were too extreme in their punishment of their 'friend', there could be collapse; but if they let the regime go mad with nukes and provoke some of the world's largest powers, instability could also be imminent.

Self-interest aside, it is important to at least acknowledge the human rights struggle in Burma. China and Russia, two veto-welding members of the UN Security Council, are wreaking of hypocrisy, as we have also seen on the Iran issue and a medley of other geopolitical matters. The need for stability, but also human rights and political legitimacy, should be rallying cries for those who call for change in Burma, and the need for states like China to push for change. Perhaps if Russia and China were more democratic and free, their people could force their governments to not be so stubborn. Alas, the freedom of one nation's people can so easily affect the freedom of another's.

Global action on climate change (minus America)

The UN-led summit that concluded yesterday evening was the largest of its kind. Roughly 150 countries had delegations present and tens of heads of state were in attendance. Not surprisingly, the United States sat this and other major international climate change meetings out.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged action, stating that the there is now a consensus in the scientific community on global warming, and real action is needed. Britain's environment minister, Hilary Benn, gave a particularly inspirational statement on the matter (h/t FP Passport):

Nobody is really arguing about the science. Everybody acknowledges the cost of doing something is a lot less than the cost of doing nothing. Everybody acknowledges that each of us has a part to play.
...
This [global warming] is not just an environmental problem. It's an economic, it's a political, it's a migration problem. What are we going to do as a world, I would say, when people start fighting not over politics, but water? What are we going to do when refugees turn up on the shores of your country fleeing not political persecution, but environmental catastrophe? Economically, what are you going to do when the markets that maybe your constituents earn their living making goods to sell into are no longer there because they're too busy swimming for their lives because sea levels have risen? In other words, whichever way you look at it—because, the evidence is clear, in the end it's going to have impacts on all of us in lots of different ways. Now, that makes for a very strong moral and a practical case for doing something about it. And again, it's going to affect all of us wherever we happen to live.

While one should stay clear of hype and sensationalism, especially in a political or unscientific forum, it is important to educate yourself on the truly global issue of global warming. It's something we do have a direct affect on; no amount of money can undo the current and potential environmental damage humans impose upon their planet. I love my six-hour plane rides and stakes off the grill as much as anyone else, but should my luxury cost — whether now or in the future — the well-being of others? Do I have a right as a relatively rich (on global standards) American and human being to contribute to the destruction of my planet and the lives of others? (The same argument can be applied against smoking in public places, with public health substituted for environment.)

I know some people do not share my view that money and wealth are nothing compared to nature and the health of our environment — something you cannot put a price tag on. For those thinking more about money than anything else — including other people — just think about how much more money would be lost or have to be spent as a result of lack of action on climate change. $50 lost in preventing it now could save you $5,000 and the lives of a person or two 50 years from now. It's important to keep a clear head and not worry; but that does not mean apathy is the answer. As I've said in earlier posts, moderation is key.

To read more about United Nations action on climate change, see the UNFCCC website.

Burma protests for democracy

In a rare, albeit impressive, show of unity, tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets in Burma (aka Myanmar) over the weekend. One of the reasons these protests — a special occurrence in a state under such a despotic regime — took place is because many monks and nuns were among, leading in some cases, the march for democracy.More and more are joining in on the protests, as the number of people who feel they can finally display their discontent with the group — bringing less reprisal than it would if they acted alone — increases.

On Saturday, 1,000 monks visited the house of Burma's should-be leader and key democratic figure, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for years. Burma is one of those authoritarian states, unlike North Korea and Zimbabwe, that doesn't get much coverage.

With the world finally taking notice of what is happening in Burma, activists inside the country believe the international community must act if change is to come about. They have long called for the UN Security Council to take up the cause of the country's pro-democracy movement, calls that have been blocked by Russia and China.

These protests deserve news coverage. The military regime is much weaker than it was in 1988, when the last major uprising occurred. 20 years ago, the protesters were mainly students; the protests quickly quelled with excessive force. However, now the democracy movement has the weight of the nation's spiritual leaders — brave enough to stand up to the military junta and walk through rain-soaked streets to demand freedom for Burma's millions of impoverished people. As a Washington Post editorial stated,

The global response thus far has been lackadaisical. The U.N. Security Council held a briefing Thursday, but the U.S. representative emerged with no message of particular urgency. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's special envoy has yet to announce a date to visit Burma.

As with other cases involving democracy, but not related to the 'war on terror', the Bush administration has been firm in its rhetoric against Burma — and rightly so. However, it needs to act, particularly in the area of pressuring China. China has influence on Burma, as it does on North Korea, a card it played well when diplomatic sessions over that country's nuclear problems were stalled.

The fact that these protests took place and are continuing is amazing. However, things might turn ugly.

Burma's ruling military junta has warned it is ready to "take action" against Buddhist monks leading mounting protests, state media have reported.
...
Our correspondent says Monday's marches are a show of defiance unthinkable just a few weeks ago.

Increased fuel prices and anger over the military harming monks may have been the main causes of the protests, but this series of events has light shed on the freedom movement in the country (of course, another source of the protests) makes these protests all the more important. What started with the pro-democracy protests of hundreds in mid-August, which were quickly halted, eventually snowballed into a spectacular show of solidarity among the clergy and a way for the voices of the Burmese people to be heard, if only for a few days.