This morning the New York Times ran an article outlining some of the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on national security. The article begins by stating that:
The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics.
The concerns raised here are both real and imminent. Since 9/11, political scientists have concurred that 'new security' challenges such as the environment, terrorism and disease constitute a much greater threat to the western world than traditional war. One only has to look at recent outbreaks of swine flu as well as terrorist attacks in Britain, Spain and the U.S to see that this is true. Meanwhile, there has not been a single 'hot' war between developed countries since 1945. This makes it all the more surprising that the Pentagon and U.S intelligence agencies are only now taking their first look at the potential implications of climate change for national security.
A recent report by the U.S National Intelligence Council, 'Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World' predicted that by 2025, the scarcity of natural resources such as clean water, food and oil will be a potential cause for war. Furthermore, dwindling domestic supplies of oil in the U.S make this problem particularly poignant in America. So why has it taken the Pentagon until now to commission any reports on the topic and what has finally prompted them to?
The first question can be answered by the Bush administration's obsession (bordering on fetish) for all wars Middle East, as well as their confidence (bordering on arrogance) that America was unchallengable militarily. 9/11, however, was a watershed moment in exposing this idea as a fallacy. National Security, it appears, can no longer be secured by tanks and war planes, we needed a new way of conceptualising it. Whilst President Obama has been stuck with the continuation of Iraq and Afghanistan, he is not tarnished by either the fetishes or the arrogance of his predecessor and has shown his ability to think ahead in commissioning this report. It's findings might just give 'new security' issues the spotlight they deserve.
The second question may have a little more to do with politics. The World Future Energy Summit takes place in January 2010 and president Obama has so far been unable to force Congress to act on many, if any, of the issues which will be discussed. One sure-fire way to get their attention: tie the issue into the national security debate. Neither the timing nor the findings of the report could have played any better for the Obama administration (which is probably why they commissioned it) who will be loathed to once again bow down to European leadership on environmentalism at the summit.
Now the debate has been brought front and centre, it's time to see if Obama is willing to show the kind of leadership which has been lacking in his push for healthcare reform. If he does, it may just set the wheels in motion for many of his other policy priorities to be legislated on.
ADJB
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Saturday, 8 August 2009
Clinton’s African Tour – A Success Story?
After the hostility of Kenya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will no doubt be relieved to move on to South Africa, a country with whom she will have less significant problems to tackle. Nevertheless, progress must be made on issues such as corruption if the U.S is to take away any positives from this challenging tour.
Clinton was on the defensive before she even arrived in Nairobi after Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga stated that Kenya didn’t want any "lectures" on how to govern themselves. Clinton had intended to discuss governance problems, corruption, human rights and impunity within Kenya and hasn't been deterred by Odinga's words, though she did comment that she is "very disappointed" with the slow pace of discussions.
One can question the extent to which Clinton’s appearance in Kenya was ever going to be successful after she criticized the Kenyan government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the violence surrounding the elections in early 2008. In doing so, she alienated many of those who are now in power and this has kept relations between the two camps icy, at best. Clinton has not, however, been afraid to make plain some hard truths about the state of the justice system in Kenya, commenting that at one local tribunal, there was little reason to "hire a lawyer when they can buy a judge."
The South African leg of Clinton’s tour would appear to be more promising, with President Zuma stating that both South African and US administrations were hoping to take their relationship to a "higher level". Any ground made in South Africa will have to be balanced against the seeming failures in Kenya, but some positive momentum is needed if the Obama administration is to make this trip successful. With only Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia and Cape Verde left to visit during her 11-day trip, this may well be the highlight for Secretary Clinton.
Clinton's rhetoric has been a far cry from the conciliatory tone used by Obama himself, but the 'good-cop-bad-cop' routine might be just what is needed in a continent which has seen democracy after democracy fall by the wayside under an endemic culture of corruption. As one African newspaper put it, for the time being, "we need pressure from the U.S. to do what is right."
LAB
Clinton was on the defensive before she even arrived in Nairobi after Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga stated that Kenya didn’t want any "lectures" on how to govern themselves. Clinton had intended to discuss governance problems, corruption, human rights and impunity within Kenya and hasn't been deterred by Odinga's words, though she did comment that she is "very disappointed" with the slow pace of discussions.
One can question the extent to which Clinton’s appearance in Kenya was ever going to be successful after she criticized the Kenyan government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the violence surrounding the elections in early 2008. In doing so, she alienated many of those who are now in power and this has kept relations between the two camps icy, at best. Clinton has not, however, been afraid to make plain some hard truths about the state of the justice system in Kenya, commenting that at one local tribunal, there was little reason to "hire a lawyer when they can buy a judge."
The South African leg of Clinton’s tour would appear to be more promising, with President Zuma stating that both South African and US administrations were hoping to take their relationship to a "higher level". Any ground made in South Africa will have to be balanced against the seeming failures in Kenya, but some positive momentum is needed if the Obama administration is to make this trip successful. With only Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia and Cape Verde left to visit during her 11-day trip, this may well be the highlight for Secretary Clinton.
Clinton's rhetoric has been a far cry from the conciliatory tone used by Obama himself, but the 'good-cop-bad-cop' routine might be just what is needed in a continent which has seen democracy after democracy fall by the wayside under an endemic culture of corruption. As one African newspaper put it, for the time being, "we need pressure from the U.S. to do what is right."
LAB
Friday, 7 August 2009
Compassion - for what?
On the 8th August 1963, a fifteen-man gang hijacked a post office train travelling from London to Glasgow, stealing £2.6 million-worth of used bank notes in the process (around £38 million adjusted for inflation) in what would come to be known as 'The Great Train Robbery'. Though nobody was killed in the process, the driver of the train, Jack Mills, was beaten with a crowbar and suffered from trauma until his death in 1970.
Thirteen of the gang were arrested and convicted on 16th April 1964, whilst the other two were never tried. Just 15 months into his 30-year sentence, Ronnie Biggs (a notorious member of the gang) escaped from Wandsworth Prison by scaling the 30-foot-high fence and jumping into a waiting van. He subsequently fled to Paris, underwent plastic surgery and took on a new identity before moving to Australia and finally Brazil. Since Brazil had no extradition process with Britain Biggs lived openly there for a time whilst the British authorities watched on, powerless.
Having suffered from three strokes, he voluntarily returned to the UK in 2001 in order to receive free medical treatment from the NHS. Though arrested upon arrival, he has spent most of the time since then in hospital. Last month he was rejected for parole because he remained "wholly unrepentent" for his actions. So I am perplexed as to why Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw has chosen to grant him his freedom on "compassionate grounds" having served less than 10 years of his sentence.
I would not regard myself as tough on crime by any stretch of the imagination, but granting Biggs his freedom is an embarassment. Britain turns away thousands of asylum-seekers who simply want work and live within the system. To turn around and grant freedom to a man who has so fragantly abused it is an afront to all those who work to uphold it and those who will never get to be a part of it. Whilst many of these asylum-seekers will be forced to return to conditions of poverty, disease and war, Ronnie Biggs will spend his 80th birthday as a free man.
ADJB
Thirteen of the gang were arrested and convicted on 16th April 1964, whilst the other two were never tried. Just 15 months into his 30-year sentence, Ronnie Biggs (a notorious member of the gang) escaped from Wandsworth Prison by scaling the 30-foot-high fence and jumping into a waiting van. He subsequently fled to Paris, underwent plastic surgery and took on a new identity before moving to Australia and finally Brazil. Since Brazil had no extradition process with Britain Biggs lived openly there for a time whilst the British authorities watched on, powerless.
Having suffered from three strokes, he voluntarily returned to the UK in 2001 in order to receive free medical treatment from the NHS. Though arrested upon arrival, he has spent most of the time since then in hospital. Last month he was rejected for parole because he remained "wholly unrepentent" for his actions. So I am perplexed as to why Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw has chosen to grant him his freedom on "compassionate grounds" having served less than 10 years of his sentence.
I would not regard myself as tough on crime by any stretch of the imagination, but granting Biggs his freedom is an embarassment. Britain turns away thousands of asylum-seekers who simply want work and live within the system. To turn around and grant freedom to a man who has so fragantly abused it is an afront to all those who work to uphold it and those who will never get to be a part of it. Whilst many of these asylum-seekers will be forced to return to conditions of poverty, disease and war, Ronnie Biggs will spend his 80th birthday as a free man.
ADJB
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Time for some Tough Love?
The path to a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East has been a difficult one, to say the least. The last 60 years have been characterised by wars interspersed with random acts of violence from both sides. An estimated 100,000 people have been killed and one report speculates the opportunity cost to both sides from 1991-2010 is somewhere in the region of $12 trillion. The fact that so much is at stake for both sides from a religious standpoint is largely to blame for the lack of progress over this time. Utilised effectively, however, it could be the reason both sides come to the table as the potential upside of a peaceful settlement is huge for both.
On a positive note, as argued in this article, some of the major points of a potential agreement have already got broad support from both sides: borders will largely return to those of 1967 (with a few land swaps necessary to achieve this), a Palestinian state will be established (I find it shocking that this should ever have been disputed) and the right of return to Israel for Palestinians (though this must not happen to any great extent in practice if the agreement is to hold).
For any agreement to happen, however, the U.S must utilise the 'stick' more effectively. Netanyahu has been able to let settlements balloon in size in defiance of America's requests whilst pocketing $3 billion per year in foreign direct aid (Palestine, in turn, receives no aid). Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, have refused to crack down on terrorists, and in some cases encourage them, with very little pressure from the U.S. In these areas the U.S has the power to force both sides to the table if it is bold enough. For a lasting agreement to be reached, both sides must desperately want to end the status quo and see compromises on issues such as Jerusalem as the lesser of two evils.
Whilst Netanyahu is reluctant to compromise, he surely knows that Israel would be staggeringly vulnerable without U.S aid and his stance would likely change should the U.S show any willingness to cut this aid. The situation in Palestine also looks more promising with big wins possible for the more moderate Fatah party in the January elections.
The path to peace is now a realistic goal if the leaders of both sides can come together. For this to happen, America must first assume its role as an even-handed arbitrator and make the difficult choices. If ever the status quo could be broken it is under the dynamic and popular leadership of President Obama but he must seize the moment far earlier in his presidency than his predecessors. Were he to do this, he might just live up to the messianic status he holds across much of the world.
ADJB
On a positive note, as argued in this article, some of the major points of a potential agreement have already got broad support from both sides: borders will largely return to those of 1967 (with a few land swaps necessary to achieve this), a Palestinian state will be established (I find it shocking that this should ever have been disputed) and the right of return to Israel for Palestinians (though this must not happen to any great extent in practice if the agreement is to hold).
For any agreement to happen, however, the U.S must utilise the 'stick' more effectively. Netanyahu has been able to let settlements balloon in size in defiance of America's requests whilst pocketing $3 billion per year in foreign direct aid (Palestine, in turn, receives no aid). Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, have refused to crack down on terrorists, and in some cases encourage them, with very little pressure from the U.S. In these areas the U.S has the power to force both sides to the table if it is bold enough. For a lasting agreement to be reached, both sides must desperately want to end the status quo and see compromises on issues such as Jerusalem as the lesser of two evils.
Whilst Netanyahu is reluctant to compromise, he surely knows that Israel would be staggeringly vulnerable without U.S aid and his stance would likely change should the U.S show any willingness to cut this aid. The situation in Palestine also looks more promising with big wins possible for the more moderate Fatah party in the January elections.
The path to peace is now a realistic goal if the leaders of both sides can come together. For this to happen, America must first assume its role as an even-handed arbitrator and make the difficult choices. If ever the status quo could be broken it is under the dynamic and popular leadership of President Obama but he must seize the moment far earlier in his presidency than his predecessors. Were he to do this, he might just live up to the messianic status he holds across much of the world.
ADJB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
