Not Just A Greek Problem

With the Euro hitting a 14 month low, and with pressure from both Washington and Tokyo, the European Union (EU) finally acted in support of the Greek economy, as well as pledging aid to other Eurozone economies facing massive debt burdens. The 16 members of the single currency bloc will have access to 440bn euros of loan guarantees, and 60bn euros of emergency European Commission funding, along with another 250bn euros from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The level of interconnection of economies not only in the Eurozone, but also around the world led to fears that the Greek debt crisis could have caused a world wide tumble as economies across the globe are starting to recover from the previous economic melt down. The stability package has eased fears of a collapse of the euro, and stock markets have reacted favorably to the news. However, there will be long term ramifications across Europe, and there is no guarantee that this package alone will ensure long term stability.

The Greek Government racked up an impressive amount of sovereign debt, by 2009 it was more than 13% of its gross domestic product (GDP), to the point that their credit rating was downgraded to junk last month. The large budget deficits were caused by excessive spending on social programs, defense and on the government itself. By some estimates the government was spending more than 50mn euro per year on pensions for civil servants that were eligible to retire in their 40s, and even their defense spending was mostly on staff and administrative costs. Furthermore, the inflated government bureaucracy has been infected with widespread corruption. For years Greek economy has been stymied because the best job to get is a government job, which generates no economic activity, and just drains the government coffers, while cheap credit and a strong euro did nothing to curb the excessive spending.

The 143bn loan from the EU and IMF is enough to stem the immediate crisis in Greece, and stabilize the euro for the rest of the EU, however, that money alone can’t fix the Greek economy. The government has already instituted an austerity package which has been incredibly unpopular even though most Greeks agree that something has to be done. Reductions in civil servants bonuses, social security payments and military expenditures have all been proposed, as well as increase in the value added tax, and taxes on fuel, cigarettes and alcohol will all be increased. The public reaction has been visceral, and in country where political and economic stability has been in short supply, it may be to much for the government to handle, there has been a bombings and protestors have been killed in violent protests. The IMF will monitor the governments headway, and try to enforce benchmarks for progress, but a protracted economic downturn unlikely. However, the Greece was not the only EU country living beyond it’s means, the crisis hit Greece earlier because it’s economy is one of the weakest of the single currency bloc.

Ireland, Spain and Portugal all could be as threatening to the euro, in some cases more so than Greece. Spain is in trouble because it’s economy for the last decade has been riding a housing boom that fueled the construction sector. That boom has collapsed, and unemployment has soared to over 20%, meanwhile the 2009 budget deficit spiked to 11.2% of GDP. Spain is one of the largest owners of Greek bonds, which led them to be the strongest supporters of the stability package. Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has presented an economic savings and reform plan, containing similar measures to the Greek austerity package, which has not been received well. Meanwhile, there hasn’t been any progress on restructuring the economy, which will be hard to do under a strict savings plan. Portugal is suffering from an ineffective minority government that has been unable to implement any austerity measures, and has in fact passed spending measures that will increase the national debt, which was already at 9.3% of GDP in 2009. With no movement by the government, and a rapidly increasing debt to GDP ratio, Portugal looks to be as much of a problem as Greece. Ireland’s 2009 budget deficit was 12.9%, but Ireland has already implemented the type of austerity measures that these other countries are only beginning to address, although Ireland’s banking sector has struggled to recover.

The political ramifications of the stability package are already being felt in Germany, the country that will shoulder the greatest burden of any of the EU countries. German chancellor Angela Merkel‘s Christian Democrats lost an election in North Rhine-Westphalia, which no longer gives the party a majority in parliament’s upper house, leaving the government in limbo until a ruling coalition can be formed. The most contentious issue was the Greek bailout, which happened only days before the election, polls indicated 21% of voters would change their vote because of the bailout. Many Germans believe the 28bn euros German contributed should be used to ease the financial tightening at home. While the bailout has made the internal politics of EU nations tumultuous, it has also created tensions between the EU nations that are driving the economic recovery and those that are dragging the EU down.

The EU average for debt to GDP ratio is over 70%, and many of the EU member states are running budget deficits well over the 3% limit set the by the Stability and Growth Pact. Italy is not in immediate danger of economic collapse, but it’s debt to GDP ratio is 115%, has a budget deficit of over 5% and has a projected to hover around 1% GDP growth for the foreseeable future. If it wasn’t for a relatively strict banking oversight system, Italy would be in real trouble, and even so, the future doesn’t look very bright. After a disastrous 2009 and an tumultuous start to 2010, future growth is going to be slow at best, with France, Germany and the United Kingdom being the only strong economies, and even they have economic problems. Across Europe there is going to have to be a sea change in domestic policies to reduce spending to at least lower budget deficits under the 3% threshold, before every Eurozone country is carrying a burden of debt like Italy’s. Those changes are going to be incredibly unpopular, and while the public reaction might not be as violent as it is in Greece, but strikes and protests will certainly be common place as governments curb benefits and raise taxes. Nevertheless, fiscal responsibility is the only sensible way governing, but with many countries suffering from incompetent or corrupt governments the EU may be afflicted by a series of economic crises.

The War On…

There has been an on going debate in Washington concerning the treatment of the numerous captives the US has acquired throughout the war on terror.  Much of the debate is semantic, centered upon the terminology the US Government uses, and the legal variations depending on how these captives are classified.  While Washington is torn over the legal ramifications of what definitions they choose to use, they are missing the fact that these words, their words, are characterizing are struggle against terrorism.  The choice of using the word war has drastic implications, by calling it a “War On Terror” or even worse “War On Muslim Extremism”, it forces people to choose sides.  Furthermore, terror is an intangible thing, there is no way to conduct a war against it.  It also empowers the people whose influence the US Government should be trying to mitigate.  Osama Bin Laden is a criminal, he is not representative on any state or body of people, he is not the general of an army let alone a soldier in a regular army, he is part of an international criminal conspiracy.  Osama Bin Laden has more in common with Don Corleone than he does with Nikita Kruschev, heads of state are not found on the FBI most wanted list like Bin Laden is, he is much smaller and less deadly than he is often portrayed.  However, when he is described in the context of an existential struggle, that the fate of the US hinges upon stopping this one man, it makes him far more powerful than he really is, and makes is that much easier to recruit people into his criminal enterprise.  It also builds him sympathy in the Muslim world that he might not enjoy if he were painted as a criminal, a murderer.  But as the war has continued, leading to the unjustified war in Iraq, his narrative of a War against Islam gains more credence, especially as our footprint in the Muslim world increases, with US forces conducting military operations in a greater number of countries.  The US has used the phrase “war on” repeatedly, most often in regards to internal struggles, and it has cause the same polarizing effect.  The War On Drugs and The War On Crime in the 1980’s rapidly devolved into a war on African-Americans, with a significantly higher arrest rate among African-Americans, and stiffer penalties being placed on drugs associated with poor African-American communities.  The result is an us versus them attitude, African-Americans against the police, by characterizing it as a war is very rapidly becomes one, once a line is drawn in the sand, even if you are a law abiding citizen, when an outside force is kicking down doors, and looking to arresting African-American men, you are going to be inclined to side with your community even if you don’t agree with what they are doing, and even today there are inner city areas across the US that local police call war zones, that urban militant attitude has survived.  The equally unsuccessful War On Poverty pitted the poor against powerful business interests looking to profit from urban development projects that simply redistributed the poor as opposed to lifting anyone out of poverty.  Anytime something is characterized as a war it becomes one, so when a phrase like “Global War On Terror” is used, it has a cacophonic effect on the world, and when the a phrase like “War On Muslim Extremeism” is used, it resonates across the Muslim world.  Those words are actually promoting an existential war between the US and Islam, and arguably the US Government has done more to aid Al Qaeda than any of the grainy videos Bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have released.  We are fighting a war in Afghanistan, the Taliban is a political entity that we are engaged with, prisoners in Afghanistan should be treated under the Geneva Convention, not packed into cages in Bagram, where people will on become more isolated and radicalized.  In Iraq it is much murkier, US forces are going to be drawn down this year, and their combat role has significantly been reduced, and mostly the Iraqi’s are handling their own prisoners.  However, when a terrorist is apprehended outside of these battlefields they must be treated like criminals, tried in courts, and serve prison sentences in actual civilian prisons.  There is no need to paint these criminals as anything more threatening than they really are, it only serves their interests, isolates us from the international community, and forces Americans to compromise the laws that are designed to protect everyone.

The One State Solution

Earlier today European Union foreign ministers agreed that Jerusalem should be the capital of both Israel and the future Palestinian State. The ministers decided to drop the idea of East Jerusalem being the exculsive capital of a Palestinian State, as proposed by the Swedish EU presidency. Furthermore, the EU ministers’ statement said that the EU would not recognize any changes to Israel’s pre-1967 borders. The statement was welcomed by the Palestinian leadership, but was rebuked by the Israeli government. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been pushing for more EU involvement, since the United States has largely been disengaged from the middle east peace process over the last few years, and even when the US has participated is has seldom pressured Israel on key issues. A recent meeting between Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama yielded no results, despite both Obama and Secretary of State Clinton’s attempt to stop illegal settlements. About two weeks ago Abbas petitioned the EU to recognize a Palestinian State at the UN, similar to what the EU did recently for Kosovo, because he felt his negotiations with Israel had reached an impasse. It was a risky move because Israel has threatened to nullify past accords if the Palestinian Authority made a unilateral move toward independence. The EU declined to recognize a Palestinian State, but apparently it has pushed them to take a more proactive role in the peace process. Unfortunately the statement in and of itself will do little to change Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians. The mayor of Jerusalem, Nir Bakat, wrote a letter to the EU foreign policy chief, saying that Jerusalem should not divided between Palestinians and Israelis, and he’s right. The EU statement does not exclusively says that Jerusalem should be divided, and it shouldn’t, but it doesn’t belong in any way more to the Israelis or the Palestinians. There’s no reason why they can’t share the city as their capital, and beyond that, there isn’t any good reason why Jews and Palestinians need to have separate states. The two state solution is decades old, and hasn’t progressed beyond the preliminary stages. During that time Israel has settled more and more of the land that is supposed to part of a contiguous future state of the Palestinians. Furthermore, the concept of “separate but equal” is an absurd notion, it has never worked before, and certainly wouldn’t settle the antagonism toward Israel in the Arab world. If Israel really wanted a two state solution, they could have made it happen, they are literarily holding all the keys and guarding all the doors, there is no will to create a viable Palestinian State. In some sense they must feel that the policy of occupying the West Bank is essential for their security, but an economically viable and politically stable Palestinian State would do far more to ensure Israel’s security. However, to create such a state would need concessions of territory from Israel, and a great deal of financial investment by the Israelis into creating a environment where stable society could develop, things which Israel seems unlikely to do. Meanwhile, they spend millions not only on their defense forces that occupy the West Bank, but also fill the coffers of politicians around the world, especially in the US and UK. The amount of Israeli settlement in the West Bank makes it impossible to envision a two state solution, which means that there inevitably will be a single state. Israel decided that Gaza wasn’t worth the hassle, forcibly removed Jewish settlers, and sealed it off in something that it reminiscent of Manhattan in John Carpenter’s Escape From New York. The West Bank will be slowly incorporated into Israel top form a single state, which will slowly turn into a South African Apartheid, which the occupied territory already eerily resembles. Israel does not have a constitution, and does not have a separation of church and state. The Israelis don’t want to bring in the Palestinians as citizens because it would drastically change Israel’s demographics, Israel already has Arab citizens, but only have minor impact on the Israeli political process. Ultimately, this is why Israel’s decision to drag its feet on a Palestinian State will back fire, Israel’s Jewish population is declining, while it’s Arab population is growing, in Israel’s political sphere it’s known as the “demographic threat”. The best case scenario for everyone involved would be the end of the Jewish State, and the formation of a new country, with a constitution, a bill of rights and a separation of church and state. It’s the only way to guarantee a free and fair society for the entire population, and shield Jews from the retribution that may be inflicted upon them by an Arab Muslim majority. However, it is much more likely that Israel will follow the path of colonial powers in South Africa, Algeria or Rhodesia, slowly descending into more extreme behavior as the inevitability of the situation weighs ever heavier upon them. The Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem existed in one form or another for almost one hundred years, and just like Israel, it’s short history was full of a great deal of violence, and the demographics were against them as well, Jerusalem inevitably fell back into Muslim hands when it was sacked by Saladin. The two state solution is dead, and if a one state solution that is acceptable for all can not be reached, the violence will continue, and in all likelihood will escalate. Israel has existed for sixty-one difficult years, and unless they radically reassess their policies, the future of Israel will be just as dim as the future of a Christian state in the holy land.

Israel and the Islamic Republic

The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to enrich uranium for the purpose of generating energy for domestic consumption. The Iranian nuclear program dates back to the era of the Shah, when it was supported by the United States, but after the Islamic Revolution the program has been closely scrutinized by the international community. The legitimacy of Iran’s claim that their nuclear program is for entirely peaceful purposes is dubious, while it appears that the Iranians are not currently attempting to produce any nuclear weapons, they have in the past had designs on developing a nuclear bomb. Iran’s first atomic power plant, in Bushehr, has been completed, and is undergoing final testing before going online sometimes early next year. The Bushehr plant was originally part of the Shah’s nuclear program in the 1970s, and was to be built by the German companies, Siemens and Telefunken, but construction was stopped after the overthrow of the Shah. In 1995 Iran contracted Atomstroyexport, a state owned Russian company, to complete the plant with only a single nuclear reactor. This plant will undoubtably only be used for civilian purposes, and since Iran has uranium deposits, their desire for nuclear energy is not unnatural. The nuclear program has been around for decades, and the opening of this plant will be seen as a great national achievement. However, there are a variety of other sites in Iran that are tied to their nuclear program that are substantially more clandestine. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulates nuclear power programs to ensure safe and secure use of atomic power for peaceful purposes, and they have had trouble verifying that Iran is in compliance. The United States through United Nations sanctions has tried to leverage Iran into complying with the IAEA, but have had little success. Iran is following the model of North Korea, and is trying to string out negotiations as long as possible, which is one of the reasons why there is so much concern over the potentiality of Iran developing nuclear weapons just like North Korea has. Furthermore, the Iranian Republican Guard has taken control of many elements of the nuclear program, as well as many other key institutions, in the wake of the popular dissidence in reaction to the fraudulent Presidential election earlier this year. Every totalitarian regime wants the bomb, as a foreign policy tool it is invaluable, as a weapon of last defense. The Iranian leadership has reason to be worried about existential threats, President George W. Bush threatened to uses nuclear weapons against them, and under his administration invaded two of Iran’s neighbors. However, an attack from the United States is extremely unlikely, especially when the US is bogged down in two other wars already. While there has been something of proxy war between the United States and Iran inside of Iraq, there hasn’t been any sign of escalation, but Iran has been engaged in a proxy war with Israel for years. Israel is a very tangible threat to Iran, and vice versa, one of the biggest reasons for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is Israel’s unconfirmed nuclear arsenal. Beyond the endless anti-Israeli rhetoric that comes out of Iran, there is an active campaign to fund terrorist and non-terrorist groups that actively combat not only the Israeli occupation of Palestine, but also ultimately want to eliminate Israel entirely. In the summer of 2006 this proxy war flared up, Hezbollah, one of the terrorist groups that Iran backs, launched a campaign of unguided rocket attacks in an attempt to goad Israel into attacking Lebanon, which Israel ultimately did. The Israeli Security Forces decimated Lebanon with a fierce bombing campaign that destroyed most of Lebanon’s infrastructure, but did not eliminate Hezbollah or its leadership. The war ended in somewhat of a stalemate, and it appears that the two sides were mostly just testing each other, although Hassan Nasrallah claimed a hollow victory for Hezbollah. Israel has publicly stated that it will not allow Iran to develop a Nuclear Weapon, and there is nothing cryptic about what they are willing to do. In 1981 Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak, which they did without any approval from either the United States or United Nations, but incidentally was done with cooperation of Iranian intelligence. Israel has conducted military drills that have been designed to imply they are prepared to make such a strike in Iran, and in response Iran has performed repeated missile tests probably simulating the Iranian response to such an Israeli attack. In 1981 Iraq was embroiled in a war with Iran, and lacked an substantial ability to strike back at Israel, but did lead Saddam Hussien to develop retaliatory measures against further Israeli aggression. Iran has the ability to defend itself, although most of technology is late cold-war era, they have a substantial air force and limited missile capabilities. Further complicating this is the 169,235 sq miles of air space over Iraq that lies between the two countries, and is currently controlled by the United States. While the international community dithers about, trying to use the carrot approach to lure Iran to negotiating table, the tension between these two countries continues to simmer. Iran seems convinced that Israel’s stance is mostly bravado, but with Netanyahu back as Prime Minister in Israel, Iran should not underestimate Israeli resolve, and should not ignore the great length they have been willing to go to in order to eliminate existential threats. Russia has been Iran’s strongest ally, and their business partner for their nuclear ambitions, not only was the reactor completed by Russians, Rusatom, another state owned company, supplies the fuel for the reactor. The United States has tried to push Russia to use that leverage to force Iran into compliance with the IAEA, but Russia refused unless the United States scraped the European Missile Defense Shield, which they knew the Bush administration would never do. However, the Obama administration has already scraped that program, but it is dubious that Obama has curried enough favor with President Medvedev in order for him to strain his strategic partnership with Iran. If Russia can not be convinced to pressure Iran, then the United States and the European Union should walk away from the negotiating table and continue with sanctions because the Iranian economy can not hold out for long with the high expenditures made by the current regime. Any attack or threat of armed intervention will spike energy costs, which ultimately, short of developing a bomb, is the only leverage the Iranian Government has over the west. Even if Iran reaches a deal, and complies with the IAEA, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the Israeli’s will be satisfied with a regulated nuclear program. In 1981, while there were doubts about Hussien’s intentions, the Iraqi reactor was French designed, not capable of producing uranium for a bomb, and was monitored by the IAEA. If Israel stays steadfast on a policy of a non-nuclear Iran, Jews and Persians could end up waring against each other with the Arab world caught in the middle, and considering the fragile state of many of these countries, the importance of oil to the world economy and the monstrous US presence in the region, that simply can not be allowed.

To Late Today

Today there is little debate that climate change is occurring, all over the world there are tell tale signs that the Earth is getting warmer. In a matter of years all of the mountain glaciers will be gone, and there will be no polar ice during the summer in the Arctic. Populations of humans and animals alike are being displaced due to drought, and in some cases simply because the land is being consumed by the sea. As of right now most of these effects are only being felt in the most desolate and poverty ridden parts of the world. Naturally people who live on the brink of subsistence will feel the effects first and most severely, but it’s only a matter of time before climate change will drastically effect us all. There is no doubt that humans will adapt, and our existence is probably not in peril, but what the future will hold for humanity is being decided today not tomorrow. The first global meeting on climate change was in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, a meeting that President H.W. Bush threatened to boycott, which was prompted by the 1990 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stating that human behavior was effecting the climate. In fact, in 1898 Swedish scientist Svante Ahrrenius warned that carbon dioxide emissions could lead to global warming, and scientists had been gathering data to support that theory since the 1970’s. However, the Rio convention did not yield any commitments to combat climate change, with many developed and developing nations claiming that drastic changes in their behavior were not economically viable. Five years later in Kyoto, Japan a second climate change summit was held, in which actual emission reduction goals were set. Al Gore signed the Kyoto Protocol, agreeing to a 7% reduction of US emission levels in 1990 by 2010, but it was never sent to the Senate to be ratified. 187 other countries signed and ratified the treaty, but only the United Kingdom and Sweden will meet their targets by 2010, the other 36 EU countries may be able to reach their targets by 2012. During this period US emissions have increased by 20%, and emerging powers India and China have both increased their emissions by over 100%, overall world emissions have increased by 38%. In the last two years there have been successive climate change talks all over the world, and under the previous administration the biggest obstacle in any new binding agreement has been the US. The Bush administration and republicans have always pointed to the developing countries, saying that they needed to be included in emission reductions, but in Bali, Indonesia in 2007 the developing world agreed to participate, and the US were finally forced, clearly against their will, to join the agreement, and this was only a non-binding “roadmap” for a future agreement. The targets set by the Kyoto Protocol were modest at best, and further more drastic cuts need to be made in order to reverse the rapid warming trend. A worldwide reduction of carbon dioxide and other related greenhouse gases in the range of 80% by 2050 are needed in order to curb global warming, if these cuts are not made the results will be dire. Next monday in Copenhagen the world will once again come together to discuss climate change, the US, India and China have pledged to make significant commitments to help combat global warming, but such statements have been made before without any serious results. Even if a binding agreement is made, it will require huge changes from its signatories, and that will be much harder than putting a signature on a piece of paper, which Al Gore did more than a decade ago. Most scientist agree that if emissions continue to climb in the next ten years, many effects of global warming will be unavoidable, and the climate will changed drastically for years and years to come. There problem is so huge, many people can’t really wrap their minds around it, but the problem isn’t as hard to grasp as the solution, and that’s why little to nothing has been done. The most abundant fuel in the US is coal, half of all the electricity is generated by coal, here in Ohio almost all of our electricity is generated by AEP coal plants. AEP and other energy companies have been pushing “clean” coal which will sequester carbon dioxide underground, however, no tests of this technology have been done, and furthermore carbon dioxide is a deadly gas. Even if it can be found to work and work safely its cost will be absurdly high. Natural Gas burns much cleaner than coal, but there isn’t enough to replace the baseline energy load that coal provides. The same goes for nuclear power, which has no carbon emissions, there isn’t enough fissile material on the planet to support human consumption for more than a few years. Bio-fuels are essentially a joke, more energy goes into producing fuel out of grain and corn than comes out, sugar based fuels have had success in Brazil, but sugar for fuel is probably only practical for use in vehicles, and only at a severely reduced rate of consumption. Solar power is much more feasible than wind, but again it will be expensive, and the amount of energy you can generate would require drastic cuts in the amount of electricity we consume. The silver bullet may be hydrogen fuel cells, a technology that uses hydrogen and oxygen to produces electricity with water as the only byproduct, oxygen is in the air and easily available, but hydrogen despite being the universe’s most abundant element, is not readily available as an independent element on earth since it easily bonds with everything. However, energy companies, despite the huge advertising campaigns the contrary, are only spending a tiny fraction of their profits in alternative energy technology, while they are spending billions of dollars to find new oil and natural gas resources. Shell, Exxon and BP plan to burn every ounce of fossil fuels that exist on this planet, and invest in technologies that may be able to artificially create fossil fuels using algae and bacteria. Thus the only feasible way to reduce emissions is to reduce consumption of everything that creates greenhouse gas emissions. The catch is that essentially everything you do has direct impact on carbon emissions. Greenhouse gases are not only emitted from power plants, and cars, it will take more than energy efficient light bulbs and appliances, and more than hybrid cars and electric lawnmowers, it will take a change in our attitude toward plundering the planet. The process of making concrete and steel both create large amounts of carbon dioxide, and those are the basic components of construction, new ways of building must be developed. Wood which was the fuel of choice for thousands of years is also used in construction, but deforestation is a huge problem. Trees are nature’s carbon scrubbers, they inhale and store carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, but when trees are cut down they release the carbon they have stored inside them. Trees need to be traded as a commodity just like oil and natural gas, only then will developing countries begin to protect the forests that developed countries have already demolished. Consumption of food will need to change as well, raising animals for slaughter is both energy and water intensive and animal farming creates greenhouse gases. Furthermore, any waste of resources ends up costing energy, using disposable products, bag, bottles, paper, etc, require energy to make more of a product that will simply end up in a landfill. Consumers must change their energy intensive style of consumption. The changes in the everyday life of an American and operation of American corporations are so drastic that they can not be implemented voluntarily, the stakes are to high for there to be non compliance, tax policies must be changed to foster change. Rationing of resources is going to be a part of the future of ever country in the world, not only energy, but also water and other commodities. The sooner that the United States begins a program of conservation the less severe the rationing will be, but there is substantial resistance to any such program. All the industries that will be affected have powerful lobbies that finance most if not all of our elected officials, and they are all getting incredibly rich off of the system as it is, the fact that people’s lives are as stake has never slowed the greedy machine of capitalism. There isn’t enough political will in Washington to overcome the will of the CEO’s, who in essence dictate the terms of policy in this country, and their interest is always their stockholders, not the public welfare. Today as the polar ice cap melts due to global warming, oil companies are lining up to drill for oil on the sea floor that they now have access to, profiting off of the destruction they have inflicted on the environment. Last year an energy bill, introduced by Joe Lieberman and John Warner, that featured cap and trade was stalled by Mitch McConnell, and died without a vote. If reasonable measures are not taken at the Copenhagen Conference, then we start to face dire responses to rising temperatures. As life dwindles in the ocean, we may be forced to dump huge amounts of algae in an attempt to pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The sky may need to been darkened by pumping particulates into the air in order to reflect sunlight to keep temperatures down. However, drastic steps like these would effect everyday life on this planet far more than the simple steps of conservation. The livelihood of some communities is being destroyed by climate change, and they are not the ones who are the cause, for them its already to late. The people who have the power to change the world’s consumption will be the last to be effected, and so we can’t wait for them to react because by then it will be to late for all of us.

The Dahiya Doctrine

South African Judge Richard Goldstone was sent by the United Nations on a fact finding mission into Israel’s 2008 war on Gaza, which killed 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis. The Palestinians had alleged that Israel was guilty of war crimes, and purposefully targeted civilians. Israel’s full fledged assault was a reaction to Hamas militants launching small untargeted rockets into Israel from Gaza and the surrounding area. Goldstone’s report found that Israel had deliberately targeted civilians, industrial sites and water installations, and used “disproportionate force” to destroy civilian property and infrastructure. The releases of the report at the UN drew a sharp rebuke from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who claimed the report portrayed the conflict unevenly, and that it denies Israel it’s right to self-defense. Unfortunately, due to the vehement protests not only from Israel, but also the US, France, and the UK, the report has been relegated back to the Human Rights Commission, and further action against Israel will not be debated by the Security Council. Richard Goldstone is himself Jewish, and has been part of many human rights investigations in his own country as well as Yugoslavia and Rwanda were he was the chief UN Prosecutor. The findings in the Goldstone Report are consistent with other reports on the Gaza War, with other Israeli abuses in past conflicts, and with the treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory. Furthermore, Israel itself has declared war on civilians in what is known as the Dahiya Doctrine. The Dahiya Doctrine essentially asserts that arabs should be accountable for their leaders’ acts, which means every Palestinian in Gaza is accountable for the actions of Khaled Mashaal, and every Iranian is responsible for Ahmadinejad. The Dahiya Doctrine also asserts that civilian infrastructure is also a legitimate target because in Gaza it’s controlled by Hizbullah. The Godstone Report should be treated more seriously, and dismissal of the Report is disappointing, but not at all surprising. Then in a stunning move the US House of Representatives voted 344-36 to condemn the Goldstone Report, and called for the President “to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the `Report”. The Israeli lobby is incredibly potent in the United States, and their financial support for many US politicians certainly effects the consistent level of US protection of Israel. However, the rabid dismissal of the Goldstone Report not only by the US, but the other major players on the UN Security Council has a lot to do with their own war crimes. If Israel is guilty of war crimes, then the US is essentially an accessory to war crimes because the US supported, funded and armed Israel during the Gaza War, as it also did in the 2006 war on Lebanon. Many of the weapons that were used illegally by Israel were purchased from the US. Beyond implications of collusion there is the fact that many of Israel’s tactics are frequently used by the major powers in the world. The United States is guilty of many of these abuses and more in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians too are guilty of human rights violations in Chechnya and Georgia. None of the established or emerging world powers want to obey the rules of engagement in the new age of combat. The Dahiya Doctrine has become a part of modern warfare, uniforms have become antiquated relics, and in insurgent conflicts civilians are part of the battlefield, so the line between civilian and combatant has become incredibly blurred. This is no more self-evident than in the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu proposed that the War Crimes Laws need to be changed to reflect the state of the world today, and he is not alone, in fact that is one of the reasons the the US does not participate in the International Criminal Court, even though they assert that everyone else should. But what’s most important about the Goldstone Report is that it outlines a consistent behavior of the Israeli Defense Forces toward the Palestinian people, and that abuse indicates that Israel does not want a fair peace with a sustainable Palestinian State. If Israel wanted that they wouldn’t be invading and destroying their neighbors on a regular basis. The Same could be said for the US, many people around the world think the US is at war with Islam, and maybe they’re wrong, but it would be a more convincing argument if the US wasn’t killing Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. When you read about Predator drones killing civilians, and private contractors murdering and raping it’s very hard to believe that the US is waging a just war of peace. The reaction to the Goldstone Report is a strong indicator of how powerful it’s message is, not only about Israel, but also the other war mongering powers in the world.

Walls

Today leaders from around the world gathered in Germany to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The fall of the Berlin Wall was a momentous event, and became a symbol of the slow demise of soviet power, and served as a place marker separating the 1980’s from the 1990’s. Since reunification Germany has emerged as the powerhouse of Europe, and has been a driving force behind the success of the European Union. However, there are still many walls around the world used to divide one group of people from another, and almost 3000 km away there was another celebration. In the town of Qalandiya in the occupied West Bank used a truck to tear down a two meter section of the Israeli security wall, about 50 activists were involved, but Israeli security forces quickly dispersed the crowd with tear gas. Palestinian activist are planning to conduct similar protests in the west bank all week, in honor of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and also to draw attention to the walls that divide Palestinians from Israelis. Five years ago the International Court of Justice ruled that the barrier was illegal and should be taken dow, but construction has continued, and Israel shows no sign of compliance with International Court. When it’s finished it will may be more than 750 km long, and it’s path will divide Palestinians from territory that should be part of the West Bank. Unlike Gaza, the West Bank is occupied territory controlled by Israeli Security Forces. The Security wall like other wall of it’s kind is designed to segregate the population, and Israel has set up a series of security check points that make movement around the West Bank very difficult. Israel continues to settle the occupied territory despite International calls for a freeze on such settlements. These settlements are surrounded by walls, connected by Palestinian free roads also surrounded by walls. The situation as a whole is deeply disturbing, but honestly not unfamiliar. In The United States of America walls have been constructed to divide the U.S. from Mexico, again in an attempt to keep people segregated, and again because of racial prejudice. There have been many calls for a wall much taller and longer than the Berlin Wall to be built along the entirety of the US/Mexico border. Trying to divide people with walls has a devastating impact. Walls breed hate and contempt, and end up promoting violence and other illegal behavior instead of mitigating them. Gaza is surrounded on all sides by walls, and is in a state of perpetual isolation. This blockade has created not only a desire for retribution upon Israel, but it has made smuggling the most profitable industry in Gaza, dangerous and nefarious individuals are getting rich transporting not only people and arms, but also bread and water. Building a wall to separate the U.S. from Mexico will not end illegal immigration or the smuggling of drugs, it will simply force immigrants to use more dangerous means, and smuggler to be more violent. Furthermore, there is the paradox of building a wall to protect what you have only to find that the building of the wall destroys what you actually had. Building walls will only make people want to tear them down, none of them will last forever, and none of them will succeed in keeping people apart because people will climb them or dig under them. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall only a few remnants still exist today, even though the wall was such a prominent figure of the cold war, especially for Germans. Walls of division regardless of their supposed purposes always become symbols of prejudice and repression.

Karzai To The End

Hamid Karzai has been re-elected President of Afghanistan without a runoff poll. Karzai’s opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, pulled out of the election over the weekend, when it became clear that the poll would not be free and fair. Karzai won a previous poll that was criticized for fraud and corruption, and reforms demanded by the opposition to ensure a fair election were mostly ignored. Abdullah had asked for the chairman of the Independent Election Commission, Azizullah Ludin, to be replaced ahead of the runoff, but Karzai refused on the basis that such a change only days before the election would do more harm than good. The possibility of actually holding a free and fair election in Afghanistan is slim to none, even getting voter turn out over 50% would be next to impossible. Karzai would have almost certainly won the runoff poll anyway, and has said that he would have preferred for Abdullah to participate despite his objections. The Obama Administration has recognized Karzai’s re-election, not that they had much of an alternative. President Obama was fairly critical of Karzai, singling out corruption as major concern. It appears that the administration would have preferred a reform oriented government headed by Abdullah, but it is doubtful he would have been able to move very far in that direction. Not to mention the fact that he would have become the target of assassination by a plethora of Afghani groups. Corruption is an institution in Afghanistan, a country that lacks the rule of law, and a court system that is a joke. Obama can try to pressure Karzai to reform, but Karzai has not shown an inclination to buckle under the weight of U.S. pressure in the past. Hopefully this will push Obama to reconsider his long term commitment to building Afghanistan, because Karzai is as fraudulent as the rest of his country’s Government. It would appear that the majority of the Government does not have long term plans for building a strong Afghanistan. One of the side effects of a U.S. occupation is a huge investment of U.S. dollars into Afghanistan, it’s essentially the same as winning the lottery. If the money is used wisely then Afghanistan and it’s people could ultimately be the beneficiaries, but if the oligarchy at the top choses to embezzle as much as they can, Afghanistan fails once again. So far the leadership has chosen to graft as much money as they can before the Karzai Government in Kabul finally collapses, and when it does there won’t be a cent left for the next regime. Karzai and his cronies don’t appear to have any faith in a long term future for their country, and are probably already working on where to spend their fortunes in exile when the Taliban and Northern Alliance return to control of their respective territories. To build a country you need extraordinary leadership like a George Washington or a Mustapha Kemal, leaders like that are hard to find, but look at the success of the republics they founded. There are people in Afghanistan who want to build a country, but they are marginalized by the mafioso nature of the Government. Furthermore, the Government is unable to exert control over most of the country, meaning localities are run by whomever is the strongest tribe, often the Taliban. Karzai has been the target of assassination several times, and anyone who rocked the boat more than him would at least face more of the same. The U.S. should not invest anymore into this bankrupt enterprise, especially with Iraq and Pakistan need increased attention from the State Department. If the U.S. had spent as much money on the Taliban, as they have on the Karzai Government, Afghanistan would probably be in much better shape. It’s not like Karzai is anymore trustworthy Mohammed Omar, and at least Mohammed Omar has an ideology beyond graft. The Obama administration may try to move around Karzai by appealing directly to more local authorities, but it is unlikely that it will generate more optimistic results. It is very unfortunate that the election turned out this way, but the situation had a gravity that was inescapable.

Iraq In The Next Century

The Obama administration intends for all American combat forces to leave Iraq by August 2010. The Exact dynamics of what U.S. presence will remain is still extremely vague, and a sizable contingent of U.S. troops will certainly stay in country for many years to come. Iraq has been less volatile even though more and more security responsibility has been turned over to the Iraqi Army and Police. However, there has been a trend up in violence, most recently several bombings of government ministries have occurred just outside the green zone. Despite the recent success in turning over security to Iraqi forces, it appears that they are not capable of maintaining stability on their own. Iraq’s foreign minister blamed the most recent bombings on foreign fighters, but over 60 Iraqi military personnel and officers have been arrested, and early indications are that there was at least some complicity with security forces. The Iraqi military and police are not ethnically integrated, and the leadership is dominated by Shi’a. Many rivalries exist, and Iraqi forces have fought with each other in the past. The Sunni awakening was one of the turning points in the reconstruction of Iraq, but the Sunni leadership has not found a willing partner in the central government. The Sunni groups that the U.S. partnered with were not part of the Iraqi Government, and are essentially independent militias, commonly known as the Sons of Iraq. The Government of Iraq has brought this program under the umbrella of the Iraqi Security Forces, but are only willing to accept 20% of the Sunni forces, and payment of these forces has been irregular. This is an underlying problem, Sunni groups may have reconciled with U.S. forces, at least for now, but there still has been little to no progress in Sunni – Shi’a reconciliation. The Shi’a dominated government has not been eager to integrate, and many Sunnis in the government are actually former Ba’athists, who are deemed politically useful or reliable. Sunni leaders are still frequently arrested and detained, and their militias are targeted, when many Shi’a militias operate in the open. The fact that there are still so many armed groups outside governmental control is very concerning. Arab-Kurd political tensions have steadily increased in the last year. Ninewa was turned over to Sunni leadership even though the Kurdish Peshmerga provides the security for that region. The Kurds are not in favor of a strong national government, and want to maintain their autonomy. However, Iran and Turkey are both opposed to a strong Kurdish State because of their own internal conflicts with Kurdish separatist groups, many of which operate with the aid of Kurdistan. Ultimately the biggest problem in reconciling any of these groups is how to divide the oil wealth. Iraq has large oil fields, but they are not evenly distributed across the country. The Kurds have been making oil contracts without government approval, and there is not much oil in the Sunni controlled areas. The Iraqi Parliament has been unable to pass meaningful hydrocarbon laws. The Kurds already have their own government and army that operate independently, and it is unlikely that they will accept being ruled by a strong government in Baghdad. The Iraqi Army and Kurdish forces have clashed before, and with pressure from Turkey to crack down on Kurdish militants, and increased Iraqi Army presence, future conflicts are likely. Earlier this year provincial elections were a success, with little violence and increased voter participation. In January Iraq will hold a National election, which will shape the future potential of the Iraqi State. Many groups boycotted the previous national election, which led to the Shi’a dominated Parliament, and the election of many dubious characters. Fear dominated the previous election, many candidates were unwilling to post their pictures, and others were simply bullied out of running. The current government led by Nouri Al-Malaki has been ineffective and corrupt, serving it’s own self-interests above anything else. There has been a split between the Dawa Party and The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq , the two largest parties in the Iraqi National Alliance, and there is a lot of internal grumbling about Al-Malaki’s leadership. Hopefully there will be a turnover in Parliament, but Al-Malaki has a substantial lead in current polls mostly by championing his record on security. However, with the current series of bombings has severely rattled faith in Al-Malaki’s ability to provide security, especially with planned U.S. troop withdrawals. If bombings continue, and security starts to slide, the elections with almost certainly be postponed. In fact the elections won’t even take place unless the Parliament can pass key legislation before January. It is possible Al-Malaki will be replaced, but the alternatives are not especially promising, and the government will certainly still be dominated by members of the Iraqi National Alliance, which will make further reconciliation unlikely. Despite all the progress in the last two years, the future of Iraq is bleak. The country is fractured by Shi’a sectarianism, Sunni distrust and Kurdish nationalism, and the U.S. is really the only force trying to hold it together.

Something Out of Nothing

President Obama has reportedly decided to send 45,000 more troops into Afghanistan, 5,000 more than General McChrystal asked for in april.  The leaders of the Obama Administration are split on what strategy to pursue, and that delayed this decision for several months.  The Afghan people deserve to have a government that can provide them security and stability, but it is far to large a problem for the U.S. to solve.  There is no clear strategy for success and no satisfactory definition for success would be.  The war is already eight years old, and there is no end in sight.  Seventy precent of Afghanistan is not under the control of the government.  Afghanistan is bordered by six countries which either have no interest in nation building, or are actively sabotaging our efforts to pacify the country.  General Petraeus has pursued a new strategy of trying to split the rural population away from the Taliban, but troops of the ground have struggled to make much headway.  The Afghans experienced Taliban rule, and would certainly prefer something better, but with much of the country ungoverned, they would tolerate Taliban rule over complete lawlessness.  In places where U.S. forces have cleared out the Taliban, the local people have also cleared out, and U.S. troops have little success in getting any cooperation from civilians.  Americans are foreigners in Afghanistan, and despite good intentions, U.S. troops are still viewed as an occupying force.  Afghanistan is about 250,000 square miles in size, and with only 60,000 troops coalition forces can only occupy small parts of the country, so the Taliban always have someplace to move to.  It could take as many as 600,000 troops to effectively prosecute a counter insurgency in Afghanistan, adding a mere 45,000 is not going to enough of a difference.  The Taliban are mostly Sunni Pashtuns, who are led by Mohammed Omar, and suported from Pakistan by Siraj Haqqani, whose father fought the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980’s.  The Taliban refuse to engage in large scale attacks, and are generally content with harassing U.S. forces.  Mohammed Omar knows that the U.S. can’t do this forever, and his straetgy is to sabotage any attempt at building an effective government.  Omar spends most of his resources on keeping popular support so that he can reclaim power when troops finally pull out.  He has even copied some U.S. strategies in appealing to public instead of out right intimidation, which is still used very consistently by the Taliban.  They have been fighting in Afghanistan off and on for more than twenty years.  The Taliban are part of the fabric of Afghan culture in the south and western provinces having slowly gaining power and territory over several decades.  If the U.S. wants to rid these provinces of the Taliban it could take decades.  In essence the U.S. would have to build an entirely new country out of nothing.  Attempts at building a productive economy have been stymied by rampant corruption, and a serious lack of any effective alternatives to growing poppies.  Many of the provinces are effectively narco-sates, and many others thrive largely on smuggling enterprises.  The Karzai government has been ineffective partly because of corruption and partly because of his tenuous grasp on power.  He has to ally himself with many of the provincial powers and allow them to run their areas without much interference because direct confrontation with them is not possible.  The Afghan army is small, less than 130,000 troops in total, and many local warlords have sizable militias of their own, which they have been able to keep by registering them as private security forces.  Karzai has no strong political power, and has shown little will to push for much of any reform in his government.  His re-election appears to be headed toward a second round of voting after wide-spread fraud has been discovered.  However, his main opponent, Abdullah Abdullah, ran on a platform of reform, but even with a possible run-off election it seems unlikely that he would be able to unseat Karzai.  With so much of the country outside the grasp of the central government in Kabul it is virtually impossible for any candidate to be capable of exerting any substantial change.  Without a large and effective army, without a healthy economy, and without a strong central goverment there is not going to be a successful outcome.  These essentials are not even close to fruition after eight years of war, and it is time to accept that a stable secure Afghanistan is not within the reach of American power.  Furthermore, if the strategic goal is to prevent al Qaeda from being able to launch attacks from Afghanistan then the mission has essentially succeeded already, and we can continue to keep it that way without being an occupying force in a hostile country.  The U.S. is spending more and more resources with diminishing returns, and as commanders continue to reduce expectations of what they can actually deliver in Afghanistan it is time to realize that what we have now is probably going to look very similar to what we will have eight years from now.  More importantly President Obama needs to be more concerned with the Taliban and al Qaeda in Pakistan.  Without a stable Pakistani Government that wants a strong Afghanistan, as opposed to a satellite state, it is going to be impossible to thwart the Taliban in Afghanistan.  The North and Eastern Provinces are run by warlords commonly referred to as the Northern Alliance, who are ethnically Tājik, are generally opposed to both the Taliban and al Qaeda.  They are considered allies by the Afghan Government, and did most of the fighting with U.S. support that initially liberated Afghanistan.  However, their autonomous rule is just as draconian as the Taliban, and are responsible for much of the corruption in the Karzai Government.  Eliminating the Taliban alone is not going to secure a free and democratic Afghanistan.  Even if the Taliban where pushed out, no one else would be able to govern that territory effectively.  The Obama Administration should continue to actively support the government in Kabul regardless of who wins the presidential election, and should invest heavily on building a strong military because thats the only authority that will be able to hold the country together.  The strongest tribe rules in a tribal society.  In some parts of Afghanistan U.S. forces are the strongest, but Afghans know that their presence is only temporary.  A strong Afghan army would be able to convince the people that the Taliban isn’t going to eventually return, and that the Kabul government can exert influence over at least a majority of the country.  Only then will they start cooperating in building a better country.  The U.S. should support Afghanistan vigorously, but no amount of troops is going to build something out of nothing.