Spiderman teams up with the UN

The United Nations has teamed up with comic book producer Marvel in order to use popular comic characters such as Spiderman to promote its humanitarian mission, starting in 2009.

When critics attack the United Nations, they often accuse the world body of being a web of bureaucracy.

Considering the UN's lack of popularity in the US and elsewhere, this could be a good idea. At least its a unique way to inform children about the mission of this vastly under-appreciated international behemoth.

The latest 'crime against humanity': biofuels

Last week, a UN official declared that biofuels result in worse effects than their fossil fuel counterparts.

The UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Jean Ziegler, said he feared biofuels would bring more hunger.

The growth in the production of biofuels has helped to push the price of some crops to record levels.

Mr Ziegler's remarks, made at the UN headquarters in New York, are clearly designed to grab attention.

He complained of an ill-conceived dash to convert foodstuffs such as maize and sugar into fuel, which created a recipe for disaster.

Food price rises

It was, he said, a crime against humanity to divert arable land to the production of crops which are then burned for fuel.

He called for a five-year ban on the practice.

Within that time, according to Mr Ziegler, technological advances would enable the use of agricultural waste, such as corn cobs and banana leaves, rather than crops themselves to produce fuel.

As the world's population grows, and nations develop at record rates, more food and energy is needed. Sadly, many people are too short-sited to see the affects of the use of ethanol and the over-use of other energy sources as counterproductive and harmful. I hope that the ethanol bandwagon crashes soon, because at least here in the United States we are already seeing the negative economic effects of corn biofuels. Bio-waste fuels make far more sense.

Is waiting five years too much to ask? Or is our thirst for energy too great? We still have plenty of oil left, and currently using corn ethanol takes more energy to create than it releases, and is thus neither environmental nor economical. Sadly the politicians in capitols like Washington are all-too-eager to appease the agricultural special interests.

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.

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.

Semi-rare find: good news about the world!

According to the UN, global child mortality has dropped dramatically to a record low in recent years, thanks to initiatives against diseases like measles and malaria in developing countries. Sub-Saharan Africa still remains the worst region for child mortality, but things are improving.

The number of children dying around the world has fallen below 10 million a year for the first time since records began in 1960.

Figures released today by Unicef showed that global deaths of children fell to an estimated 9.7 million in 2005, down from nearly 13 million in 1990.
...
The most important advances, according to Unicef, included:
· vaccination drives cutting measles deaths by 60% since 1999
· women breastfeeding rather than using dirty water
· babies sleeping under mosquito nets
· babies getting vitamin A drops which reduce the risk of measles, diarrhoea and malaria

Of the 9.7 million children who die each year, 3.1 million are from south Asia, and 4.8 million are from sub-Saharan Africa. West and central Africa have the highest rates of child mortality, with more than 150 deaths per every 1,000 children under five, which compares to six per 1,000 in North America, western Europe and Japan.
...
Dr Salama estimated that the global community would need another £2.5bn in order to achieve the UN's millennium goal.

UNI: UN in Iraq

While Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) remains a strong negative — albeit over-hyped — actor in the country, maybe the UN will be a positive one.

A united force in Mesopotamia?
About time the Security Council took action to widen the United Nation's reach in Iraq...

With a show of 15 hands, resolution 1770 was adopted unanimously at the UN Security Council, paving the way for a wider, political role for the UN in Iraq and a bigger presence inside the war-torn country.

The number of staff will only increase from 65 to 95 - a small but very symbolic step for the world body, which withdrew most of its 600 staff from Baghdad four years ago, in the wake of a massive attack on its headquarters.

Under the new resolution, sponsored by the US and the UK, the UN will now be authorised to help the Iraqi government to promote national reconciliation and regional dialogue on issues such as border security, energy and refugees.

It will also help settle disputes over internal boundaries - all tasks in which the US is seen to have failed so far in Iraq.

The Iraqis have welcomed the resolution, but said they realise the onus was on them as well.

This is relatively good news for Iraq. Borders, energy, and refugees are some of the biggest issues facing Iraq. They're also complex and often multinational issues that need to be dealt with on an international level, not by an incompetent occupier seen as imperialistic and out to steal Iraq's oil wealth (I think that notion was disproven long ago). Iraq's borders is a matter of security; foreign extremists and terrorists are seeping in through the borders daily to worsen the situation in Iraq. Energy is a political and economic issue. Iraq has many refugees; more and more flee the country every day and they are becoming a major focus for humanitarian groups.

Terrorists crossing Iraq's borders into the country, a lack of economic progress and energy insecurity, and the instability in Iraq and bordering nations caused by refugees (which also breeds extremism) all combine to make a very volatile and dangerous Iraq. All three fuel Iraq's civil war and each has its own area: security, economy/politics, and humanitarian. There is no magic fix, but the UN will certainly be able to work those issues out better than America. In addition, nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran launching proxy wars in Iraq and supporting terrorist movements may be dealt with better by the international diplomatic community — in conjunction with involved parties — than by the US.

Some questions about this symbolic move:

Will it increase international support and legitimacy for the US-led occupation?

Will the US really do its job in protecting the UN staff; will fighters target it or let it be to help their own political image?

Is it really as important symbolically as it seems?

Will it pave the way for more diplomatic progress on war-torn Iraq?

Will there be more expansion?

Are peacekeeping operations coming soon? Whose backing would they have? Is there enough support, money, and troops for an effective peacekeeping force? (The best case for the above question would be if peoples who Iraqis feel little animosity towards took a large role in the operations. Muslim-majority states like Indonesia were apparantly open to the option a while back, but since the situation on the ground in Iraq, especially Baghdad, has worsened, and America remains defiant of its occupation, that option is shrinking.)

Will Sudan weasel out of this one?

Late last month, the United Nations Security Council finally agreed to send UN peacekeepers to Darfur, in Sudan. In the western region of Darfur, what some (including me) call genocide has raged on since 2003, resulting in the deaths of a minimum of 200,000 people and the rape of many more. Millions have exited Darfur, seeking refuge, and the conflict appears to have spread to neighboring Chad, destabilizing the region.

HELP!
Khartoum has remained defiant, as I've blogged about, and the current AU force there is unable to do its job because of the government's undermining tactics. Although a hybrid UN-AU force was agreed upon earlier this year Sudan's government has been doing everything possible to prevent it from helping its people — pressure from China was essential for the plan to go through.

Compromised operation
Resolution 1769 was passed unanimously. It has been called weak by some, probably because the need to placate China, which has a permanent seat on the Security Council and has ties to the Sudanese government (Sudan has what everyone wants: oil). However, it's better to have some than none and sometimes, even on humanitarian issues, concessions are needed to see the plan through. Diplomacy's all about compromise; China's vote was needed for this resolution and the people of Darfur have waited and suffered long enough.

BBC News:

The mandate for the 26,000-strong force was watered down to appease critics and it will only be able to protect civilians deemed to be under threat.

The new UN-AU mission head welcomed the move but urged a political solution "as there needs to be a peace to keep".

The warring factions in the four-year conflict are due to meet on Friday.
...
The mission, to be known as Unamid - the United Nations African Union Mission in Darfur - is expected to cost up to $2bn (£1.1bn) a year and will be world's largest peacekeeping force.
...
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon described the mission as "historic and unprecedented".
...
The new force will not have the right to disarm the militias and it does not have the powers to pursue and arrest suspected war criminals indicted by the International Criminal Court.

Rebels
In a recent update:

Most of Darfur's rebel groups have agreed on a common position and want "final" talks with Sudan's government within two or three months.

A political solution is needed, though, and the Darfur groups rebelling against the government know that. The rebel groups often shift positions following agreements so this is by no means a final accord.

Resolution lacking resolve (?)
This new international force will be able to actually use force and defend local citizens and the foreign workers there from state-backed rebels and even state forces themselves (a key reason humanitarian work there has been stinted). It will number around 26,000 and, as stated above, consists of United Nations and African Union peacekeepers. The first of the troops should arrive in October. Everyone but the leaders in Khartoum have been pushing for a peacekeeping force in Darfur — the civilians, the aid agencies, the rebels, foreign governments. The Darfur rebel groups seem to be content with the resolution.

Sanctions — which were suggested by the Bush administration a while back (all talk, no action) — have been taken off the table with this resolution. So what leverage does the peacekeeping force have over Khartoum? Next to none, it seems.

The fact that it is fueling the genocide aside, isn't it reprehensible that the Sudan is keeping even the most basic and essential aid from reaching its own citizens? In the end of all this, who will get off scot-free, and who will have to face justice?

'Redouble' or bust on Darfur

US Secretary of State Condi Rice attended a French conference on Darfur. On Sunday she urged the countries of the world to "redouble" their efforts on ending the horrendous conflict in Sudan's Darfur region.

Ms Rice said they could not "continue to sit by", after an international conference in Paris on the violence that has left some 200,000 people dead.

Officials from the US, Europe and the Arab League discussed how to speed up the deployment of UN troops to Darfur.

But Sudan said the talks were premature as it had already agreed to the force.

The Sudanese Foreign Minister, Lam Akol, told the BBC that his government was in complete agreement with the composition of the peacekeeping force, its command, the nature of its operation and its mission.

"The ball is actually in the court of the United Nations to expedite the operation."

As soon as the still-limited hybrid AU-UN force is created, no doubt Sudan will find another way to wrangle itself out of the situation, either by playing the 'neo-imperialism' card or another excuse. Or maybe it will just hinder any sort of peacekeeping operations like it has been doing since there has been one. In reality one of the reasons it's taking so much time is that the African Union is very short of troops. These kinds of things also take some time and planning.

'Sanctions' was a word Rice used often at the conference:

"Sudan has a history of agreeing to things and then trying to condition or change them or to backtrack and say, 'Well no, we didn't really agree to that,'" Rice said

Rice is sounding hasty. If the Bush administration would have focused on Darfur earlier, instead of loosing credibility and respect fighting international terrorism in its own special way, the conflict would not have gone as far. Is it just a coincidence that the White House notices and talks about Darfur only after a Save Darfur album becomes popular earlier this year? Sounding more, well, diplomatic is Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general.

"We have lost a lot of time while agreements have been made that have not been kept," Rice added. "We can no longer afford a situation in Darfur where agreements are made and not kept."

The U.N. chief, Ban Ki-moon, insisted at the meeting that "slow but credible and considerable progress" has recently been made to resolve the crisis.

This time I disagree with Ban. "Credible and considerable"? How about half-hearted and dismal. But it's his job to keep the slow process of diplomacy on track and looking as positive as it can within reason.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the world must be "firm" with Sudan. "Silence is killing" is one of the better quotes from the conference.

Sanctions may be a solution, but they are a solution China — a major business partner of Sudan — is unlikely to be happy with. China is thursty for oil and Sudan has it. China also has a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, which comes with veto power. US President Bush pushed sanctions last month; and the result remains to be seen.

So far any agreement on Darfur has come with little promise of real results; and if the international community won't get its act together, Khartoum sure as hell won't either. Sudan's government backtracks on ending the conflict in Dafur, but then when it is threatened with real action it accepts whatever meager steps are being proposed. Progress on Darfur is like running a marathon with an anvil tied to one leg (note: the Sudanese government is the leg with the anvil tied to it, the free leg represents the people who want the genocide to end).

So why isn't more action being taken by the international justice or human rights organizations of the United Nations? To safeguard national sovereignty, the UN — not counting the Security Council — has a basic rule: don't help unless asked by the government. This just cuts the UN-phobe's 'anti-soverignity international malevolent government' argument to pieces. Individual nations, however, can take actions like, say, invading a country against the will of its government, and they can have the blessing of the UN. But the UN's meddling in a country's affairs is often limited to just-a-piece-of-paper resolutions, and every now and then sanctions or other serious actions by the Security Council.

Up to 300,000 have been killed and 2.5 million made refugees, in addition to countless raped, since 2003. The Sudanese government is suspected — and practically confirmed — of aiding and assisting Janjaweed militias instigating the genocide. It's one of the worst human rights disasters of the still-young 21st century and receives less than 1% the attention as Paris Hilton.

Fresh sanctions on Iran

Iran is receiving more punishment by the international community over its stubborn diplomacy and inability to halt its un-inspected nuclear (weapons) program.

The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously Saturday to approve a resolution that bans all Iranian arms exports and freezes some of the financial assets of 28 Iranian individuals and entities linked to Iran's military and nuclear agencies.

The 15 to 0 vote came one day after President Mahmoud Admadinejad canceled plans to travel to New York to confront the Security Council, leaving his foreign minister to speak in his place. It unfolded as 15 British sailors and marines seized by Iranian naval forces were transferred to Tehran, escalating diplomatic tensions between the two countries.
...
The measures adopted Saturday fell far short of the punishing trade, travel and military sanctions initially proposed by the United States and its European partners. But they insisted they were pleased with the outcome.

More penalties may be coming in 60 days unless Iran allows IAEA inspectors to examine its program and provide proof it is not developing a weapons program — a common belief among... well everyone. When will the straw (sanctions) break the camel's (Iran) back? President Admadinejad is already facing enough political pressure over economic and nuclear issues at home. Like US President Bush, I think he will push the envelope of presidential arrogance and defy the public and other branches of the government for as long as possible.

Even though the situation is worsening diplomatically, the EU insists the door is still open for further talks. Whenever it is presented with a good deal, Iran turns it down. However, the US also needs to be less stubborn in its diplomacy; opening the channel of dialogue on Iraq is a step in the right direction.

Are sanctions accomplishing their goals? It's anybody's guess. With Iraq under Saddam, sanctions made everything worse, and argably made Saddam even more powerful while killing many of his people. Some experts think Iran is feeling the pressure of financial sanctions, though. Remember many Iranians are young and globalized; many like their western goods too.

Iran is more likely to go the way of North Korea and accept a deal. Like with N Korea, the world will just have to wait until Iran has enough leverage to get what it wants. Diplomacy is slow, often tedious process, but it is better than, say, the policy the United States held for Iraq. Personally, I would rather have a proto-nuclear state than a failed state whose conflict could spill out of its borders and breed international terrorism. Experts view the Iran threat as somewhat hyped-up too.

By the way, the Iranian capture of 15 British soldiers off of its coast has to be one of the dumbest political moves its made in recent history. The capture is unwarranted and stupid anyways. The UK is a UNSC power with ties to all the other great powers; Iran is not. Now the UK may join the US in having harshly negative feelings for Iran, only worsening the diplomatic measures on several fronts.

Happy Christmas (?)

Present to the needy [in the nearly forgotten genocide]:
-— Sudan 'to accept UN Darfur force'.
This is a possible beginning of UN peacekeeping forces in Darfur, After so many years, is a bright light finally looming on the horizon for those suffering in the Darfur genocide — that much of the US media has basically ignored? Let's hope this positive step may help.

Present to the world [of foreign policy]:
-— End of the core of the traditional neoconservative movement in the US [for now]. About time!

Present to the deserving and distraught [Palestinians]:
-— Palestinians get a little Christmas present: some of their tax money back from Israel — with one usual hindering caveat.
-— Some good news for West Bank residents.

Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz has announced an easing of restrictions on Palestinians, including dismantling roadblocks in the West Bank.

Present to the global balance (or, rather, imbalance):
-— Iran gets slammed with sanctions by UN Security Council. See, it can happen. Iran got what was coming to it, and the government knew that. Ahmadinejad rejects the sanctions. What else is new?

Present to NYT op-ed/free speech/transparancy/news source haters:
-— CIA redacts parts of New York Times op-ed piece by former government employees. Redacted information was sources available to all (e.g. news articles available online) say the op-ed writers. Interesting, nearly Orwellian news. Just to clarify, the article went through a publishing review process that exists to censor out classified information. In this case the information taken out was seemingly not classified at all. The piece was on Iran and the US policy with Iran. The authors' explanation of the redaction was also published.

National security must be above politics. In a democracy, transparency in government has to be honored and protected. To classify information for reasons other than the safety and security of the United States and its interests is a violation of these principles. It is for this reason that we will continue to press for the release of the article without the material deleted.

Present to the Daniel Denett, Sam Harris, et al of Britain:
-— Religion more bad than good, poll says. perfect news for the holidays.

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.

The UK is much more liberal in a cultural and religious sense than the United States — which has seen an increasing rise in far right-wing religious politics. In the US, about half are religious in the traditional sense and believe in creationism (i.e. the Earth was created by God about 6,000 years ago; men lived alongside dinosaurs; humankind started in an enchanted garden with a talking snake). Also, about one forth of Americans are evangelicals, quite conservative Christians backing the religious right.

Present to death [penalty advocates]:
-— Saddam Hussein to be executed 'within 30 days'. His appeal had failed as expected (see background).
-— Japan executes four on death row; first executions since new prime minster Shinzo Abe took office. ( See this and this post. Correction to previous posts: Japan and US two developed capital punishment countries; US not sole industrialized nation that has capital punishment.)

technorati tags: christmas, holidays, merry+christmas, presents, news, iran, christians, religion, united+states, united+kingdom, britain, america, saddam, saddam+hussein, death+penalty, capital+punishment, japan, politics, in+the+news, current+affairs, current+events, darfur, sudan, UN, united+nations, palestine, israel, gaza, west+bank, neocons, op-ed, nyt, media, news+media, CIA

Bush rhetoricizes Iraq strategy; Annan preaches US

Well, after the much talked about Iraq Study Group (aka Baker-Hamilton commission) report, many expected President Bush to announce a change in Iraq strategy, and for him to replace the warn out "stay the course" catchphrase. Wrong again, everyone. The Decider is going to do it his way: delay until everyone forgets — or he forgets, whichever comes first. Remember that history 'will judge' him 'well' (sarcasm). Washington Post:

President Bush said today he has rejected "some ideas that would lead to defeat" as he considers a new Iraq strategy, and he vowed not to be "rushed" into a decision.

Asked if he has heard "any new ideas" that would change his thinking about a new strategy for Iraq, Bush said, "I've heard some ideas that would lead to defeat. And I reject those ideas: ideas such as leaving before the job is done; ideas such as not helping this [Iraqi] government take the necessary and hard steps to be able to do its job."

What exactly is defeat at this point? I mean, how low can you even go? He does not want to be "rushed" into "defeat", why did he ever give Paul Bremmer the green light with the the CPA? That was the perfect way to further ruin a recently invaded nation.

There looks to be absolutely no strategy change, and whenever a "change" is announced, it will just be recycled rhetoric. Now I am even more inclined to get the Frank Rich book on the Bush administration's PR, ranging from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, this president is the undisputed king of rhetoric. King George, fancy that...


Selections from the BBC News article reporting on the Annan speech:

Kofi Annan has made his final speech as UN secretary general, calling on the US not to lose sight of its core principles in its fight on terror.

"No nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over others," Mr Annan said, urging the US to respect human rights in its "war on terror".

The speech has been interpreted as a sharp rebuke of President Bush.

[...]Mr Annan again raised objections to the Iraq war, a war he has already condemned as illegal.

"When power, especially military force, is used, the world at large will consider it legitimate only when convinced that it is being used for the right purpose - for broadly shared aims," he said.

In the address, he urged the US to embrace its natural and historical role as responsible global leader and warned that no nation can make itself secure by seeking supremacy over others.

But he also said that "that lead can only be maintained if America remains true to its principles - including in the struggle against terrorism".

"When it appears to abandon its own ideals and objectives, its friends abroad are naturally troubled and confused."

Mr Annan also stressed that Washington's current position in the world gives it "a priceless opportunity" to entrench the principles of democracy at a global level.

He ended with an appeal for a shift in US policy, saying "In order to function effectively, the system still cries out for far-sighted leadership in the Truman tradition."

"I hope and pray that American leaders of today and tomorrow will provide it."

The speech was held at the Truman presidential library in Missouri; Truman was a champion of the UN as Bush is a dissenter.

From Guardian Unlimited's Comment Is Free:

The UN secretary general used his farewell speech to take revenge on his persistent critics from the US administration.

I see it less as vengeance and more as truthful commentary, saying what needed to be said about recent United States policies. Whether it be about military or human rights, the US has gotten schooled plenty, but this is a well-needed slap in the face by a very powerful man: outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Too bad Annan did not show this sincere charisma when dealing with UN reform or things such as the oil for food program scandal. He will leave office on 31 December 2006, after being the head of the international body since 1997. Annan's successor will be South Korean diplomat Ban Ki-moon.

technorati tags: bush, dubya, w, george+bush, annan, kofi+annan, ban+ki-moon, united+states, united+nations, UN+secretary-general, USA, UN, comment+is+free, guardian+unlimited, washington+post, rhetoric, frank+rich, PR, iraq, iraq+war, isg, baker-hamilton, iraq+study+group, james+baker, paul+bremmer, stay+the+course, cut+and+run, iraq+situation, news, in+the+news, politics, opinion, blog, in+perspective, clearthought, current+affairs, international

Bolton leaves as UN ambassador; Gates to come as secretary of defense

Departure
Thank goodness now-former United States ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, resigned from his position. His track record [as a diplomat only by title] at the UN fares no better than his work before the highest position in American diplomatic service. He was never even confirmed by Congress — as is the requirement — but President Bush put Bolton up to the post anyway.


Arrival
Robert Gates, favored as the next US secretary of defense, responded, when asked whether he thought the American war in Iraq was going well, “No, sir”.

BBC News:

US Defence Secretary nominee Robert Gates has told a Senate committee that the US is not winning the war in Iraq.

Maybe this man, who worked with the more realistic and down-to-earth (but still not great), George H.W. Bush (41st president), will knock some sense into this administration’s thinking on defense and foreign policy. Wishful thinking considering almost anyone with common sense in this White House has been shut out. This hits on the central question featured on the cover of Newsweek this week: "Will he [Bush] listen?". (Although that article relates to the Iraq Study Group, whose full report is set to come out tomorrow, the question stands.) Gates will probably replace Donald Rumsfeld, whom I can safely say I don’t admire. Just as a final note, Gates was voted for 24 to null in a Senate Armed Services Committee vote earlier today.

On the bright side for those in the West Wing, at least one out of two of the recent nominations (Bolton's was stalled) looks like it's going to be a green light.

technorati tags: rumsfeld, gates, robert+gates, donald+rumsfeld, secretary+of+defense, bush, george+bush, Iraq, news, politics, united+states, usa, bolton, john+bolton, ambassador, un, united+nations, clearthought, in+perspective

Warming, warming, warming...

Global warming and climate change: the inevitability, the issue, the danger, the scenario, and the crisis.

I may have missed out on analyzing the Stern Review**, but this latest climate change study is totally new to the news.

The Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year.

While I think the carbon emission market set up in Europe is a brilliant idea, it has been hard to implement and there have reportedly been misunderstandings and loopholes in enforcing the principles of the project — which is like a carbon dioxide (CO2 is one of the leading greenhouse emissions) stock market. The United States is by far the number one polluter of greenhouse gasses, and shows no sign of letting up soon.

At the recent United Nations climate summit in Nairobi, a number of delegations, including those of Britain, Australia and the US, pointed out that they had managed to grow their economies without significant increases in carbon emissions.

Proof enough, or just that nasty UN getting on the righteous "freedom"-loving Americans again? Who needs stupid diplomacy? .

Coming up right behind the US is rising power China, expected to take the number one spot in a while. America has yet to show any promise, with no help to the news media (versus the near-ample coverage British media has given the scientific issue of climate change). Any time that global warming has potentially been tied to something regular people can associate with (e.g. 2005's Hurricane Katrina hitting the US gulf coast), that smidgen of credibility and sensibility is knocked off the table by the media that does talk about global warming and possible implications blowing things like hurricanes out of proportion! Therefore, you have the groups of: sensible educated people who believe in scientific climate change (that's me), those who don't believe it at all [because they are narrow-minded or otherwise], those who believe it because of the hyped version that links global warming to temporary things (unseasonably summer heat, hurricanes — yet to be proven tied to the kind of climate change we are really talking about), and those who don't believe in global warming because of the sensationalized version they get.

The United States may have left the building of realism of impending ecological disaster for now, but at least there are international consortiums — such as the IPCC (see aforelink) — working on this serious matter.

**: From 1 Nov.

Check out the latest global warming report commissioned by the British Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, the Stern Review. It shows that climate change could easily and greatly devistate the economies of the world very fast. The more we wait, the higher the economic, humanitarian, and environmental toll will be.

technorati tags: news+media, media, climate+change, ecology, environment, science, stern+review, global+warming, greenhouse, international, united+states, USA, china, UK, hurricaine, weather, katrina, un, united+nations, diplomacy, IPCC

US shields Israel from condemnation...

See this post for info on Palestine's new hope; this post for how Israel is often being just plain insensitive to human life, is using much of the feat tactics that the US uses in its "war on terror", and gets away with it.




The US is so protective of Israel, it shields it from any blame for an attack that was — to say the least — a humanitarian disgrace. Even Israel condemned itself.

Reuters article:

The United States vetoed on Saturday a UN Security Council resolution urging an immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and condemning an Israeli attack there that killed 19 Palestinian civilians.

...

But the "no" vote cast by US Ambassador John Bolton — his second since he arrived at UN headquarters in August 2005 — was enough to kill the resolution.

The Hamas-led Palestinian government said the veto showed that the United States backed Israel's action.

Who does Hamas think Israel got much of their weaponry and funding for weaponry from? (Hint: the United States.)


Song currently stuck in my head: John Lennon's "Imagine".

technorati tags: united+states, usa, israel, gaze, bolton, john+bolton, un, united+nations, un+security+council, gaza, palestine, hamas, news, in+perspective, clearthought

Disunited Nations

Oh that devil! I am talking, of course, about the President of the United States, recently labeled by populist Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez as 'the devil' (what will he think of next) during a meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City. Of course, the Democrats refuse (by the way, that last link to a CNN article seems to be biased well against Chavez, liberal press my ass) to let Bush, their nemesis (if you will), get pummeled. while some international delegates applauded Chavez's comments, many US politicians, pundits, and other figures fumed.

My favourite quote:

You don't come into my country; you don't come into my congressional district and you don't condemn my president....
If there's any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not.

--Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York

The UN seems to be a hot topic the past few days. Fred Kaplan wrote a good article in Slate about Bush's recent UN speech.

technorati tags: bush, chavez, politics, news, hugo, president, united+states, Venezuela, usa, un, united+nations, general+assembly, slate, rangel, new+york, kaplan, CNN, democrats, news, politics, current+affairs