International Relations

[rmnunez]

Didn't socialists come up with some answer to short-circuit the missing industrial stage in the 3rd world?

[RebelWithanAK]

Not really. Russia's communist party was trying to fast-forward through the process, and ended up with the dirtiest heavy industry known to environmental science. China went Communist halfway through the process, and the restructuring kinda slowed the process to where they're still pretty much a second-world nation.

[rmnunez]

I'm sure there was some sort of Guevaraist tract describing how to apply socialism absent the proletarian experience in rural communities of South America, maybe by the Cubans relating to Africa? The communit system highlighted to me the "command-economy" dimension and less any sense of ideological difference with the Soviet model.

[rmnunez]

Here's an intersting note forecasting the US getting embroiled in a 100 year-old Afghano-Pakistani controversy; the Durand Line.

http://interestalert.com/brand/siteia.shtm...er=World%20News

[rmnunez]

How many of you had heard of Maziristan before you saw this?

[rmnunez]

Apparently the globalophobic environmentalists are losing steam:

>The only problem for the protest and activist groups, particularly those focused on environmental issues, is that they might be too little, too late. Just this week, one of their biggest champions, the European Trade Representative Pascal Lamy, admitted that they are losing the intellectual argument. At a plenary session to commemorate what the European delegates were calling "Sustainable Trade Day," Lamy was asked about Europe's largely failed efforts to push stringent environmental regulations into trade rules. Lamy said, "we in the EU know that we have not convinced enough countries, either on the developed side or on the developing side" of Europe's views on linking trade and environmental standards.

>To understand the magnitude of this admission, it's important to understand a little background. Ambassador Lamy, and most of the diplomatic Eurocracy, has been trying for the past two years to drive environmental issues up the agenda of the World Trade Organization. This has been difficult to do, since the organization was created to liberalize and facilitate international trade, not pressure for tough eco-regulations. Meanwhile, the US had been routinely vilified by activist groups like Greenpeace and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as a global bully and evil-doer for standing in the way of efforts to protect the developing world's environment from what they perceive as a rapacious global capitalism. Greenpeace described the WTO this way: "The WTO is a tool of the rich and powerful. By placing trade above all other goals, it threatens our health and the environment."

>The underlying assumption of the protesters is that countries like the US use multilateral institutions, such as the WTO, to advance its interests at the expense of the health and environmental well-being of the world's poor and less developed countries. But the truth is turning out to be a little more complicated. For example, at the World Summit for Sustainable Development last year in Johannesburg, the US joined with several developing countries in shaping the summit's declaration to affirm that economic growth and well-being are necessary preconditions for societal and ecological health since environmental degradation is largely driven by poverty. As such, efforts should focus primarily on improving living standards. Such efforts include a liberalized global trade system unencumbered by stifling restrictions and regulations. At Johannesburg, NGOs and their allies in the European delegation were largely rebuffed by the very developing world they claimed they wanted to help. Lamy's remarks in Cancun seem to mark that Europe is beginning to get the message, whether it wants to hear it or not. Meanwhile, Mexico finds itself in the unusual position of having to protect a porous border —to keep out well-intentioned environmentalists.

(from National Review)

[RebelWithanAK]

Wait, you didn't just quote the National Review just now, did you? Blech.

[rmnunez]

Couldn't find anything useful in CommonDreams

[RebelWithanAK]

Did it ever occur to you that you might be quoting from a biased source?

[rmnunez]

Certainly the National Review is a biased source, just like Emperor's Clothes or those Common Dreams. I see no harm in considering what such sources say, often they offer a particular insight which is helpful in framing an issue.

For example, the article excerpted mentions the perception the Americans use IGOs to advance their interests, this is interesting because it suggests those highlighting this American practice are unaware all governments routinely use IGOs in this way.

The Johannesburg Summit declaration was something I hadn't considered, I can see how it would be taken by the critical lefties, but the logic is persuasive, prosperity will guarantee better environmental protection than anything else. It goes without saying that prosperity will also require environmental 'sacrifices' and I'm sure this distresses the left and is described as some sort of co-optation or imposition from greedy western capitalists. But the note highlights how the long-running EU effort to promote sustainable development (an effort many in the OAS have also undertaken to promote) has simply fallen on deaf ears. The environment is of less concern than improving standards of living for most third worlders. The article closes refering to the same problem Mexico's environmental 'minister' mentioned at the inaugural conference; the need to avoid making environmental regulations obstacles to economic development. This is something also mentioned by Annan in the statement he had read on his behalf at Cancun. But the WTO is an entity set up to promote trade and devlopment rather than environmental protection, people should try and remember this when they are asking for peras from an olmo (pears from an elm).

[rmnunez]

Israelis have to 'buy' a certain amount of government-promoted nationalist disinformation. This is necessary because otherwise they would need to live with an unbearable amount of guilt. Careful scrutiny by Israelis of that nation's history, its leadership, policies and practices regarding the Palestinians would fill the most inconsiderate among them with shame. Its like the slaughter of Indians in America, something people in that country prefer not to dwell upon.

So we have a chosen people on promised land, lots of highlighting ancient roots in the region, all sorts of governmental institutions to promote the preservation, protection, promotion and research into Jewish antiquities. They live in a very militarized society, compulsory military service for life, everyone has a gun, universities are high security bastions, people live in 'gated communities' but this means something different there. Everyone goes around looking over their shoulder and they discount their misdeeds comparing them to someone else's.

This is an unpleasant 'reality' that needs to be justified somehow. How does the Israeli government account for the situation its subjects live under? They tell them they are sieged by hatefilled Arabs all around them, that they must fight this hated enemy for their god-given right to live on disputed land. They tell them to make sacrifices and they 'lean' on allies to fund their important military needs because the frustrated Palestinians don't buy into the Israeli mythology. rmnunez :§)©

[Geoff332]

It is important to seperate the actions of the Israeli Government from the actions of the Jewish people. They are not the same thing (which I know you didn't imply, but I think it's important enough to re-iterate).

[rmnunez]

True Geoff, however an educated, well-informed and sophisticated community like that which purpotedly can be found in modern Israel ought to find itself reflected in its government's policies and practices. If Sharon's Defense Minister is counseling executing Arafat are the man's views an aberration or reflection of those held by the people he supposedly defends?

The extent to which a population in general can be blamed for the misdeeds of their government is an interesting question. What blame to Afghans for Taliban, Iraqis for Saddam or Serbs for Slobo? Aren't Americans to blame for Bush or does he really reflect commonly held views there?

I should be mindful of the distinction between Israeli governmental policy and the views of all Israelis, but I think I can be safe in assuming the salient features are endorsed by most there. The government policy towards Muslims has been fairly consistent and long-lasting, I haven't heard of a great deal of civic discussion among the Israelis on treatment of Palestinians. Do you have any evidence there are significant communities of Israelis who oppose Sharon's policies? The Knesset debates exiling Arafat, don't most Israelis think this is the best answer too? (we know some in the Cabinet counsel otherwise)

[rmnunez]

Soros:

>"You passed the U.S.A. Patriot Act without proper discussion," Soros said in a recent interview with PBS. "Anyone who opposed it was accused of giving aid and comfort to the terrorists. I think we've gone off the rail in this country. Lawmakers didn't even get a copy of the bill. They couldn't even read it before it was passed."

[rmnunez]

The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) deployed by the US has produced a report on WMDs in Iraq, there is enough to keep all sides happy. For the critical left the report is damning as it unquestionably established Saddam had no WMDs. For the intervention’s supporters recovered evidence of butolin toxin (the single most poisonous substance known). The ISG also identified installations and facilities which had been used to produce other biological and chemical weapons and plans for a 1000 km range missile. But they didn’t find any ready-made missiles with banned warheads.

>UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw immediately seized on the evidence as proof that Saddam was violating Security Council resolutions. In a statement he said: "The ISG has discovered dozens of WMD-related programme activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the UN during the inspections that began in late 2000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3160334.stm

Perspective Alert:

Then, earlier this week, the rebel factions with whom France was supposed to be working had a falling out and, according to this report in Liberation, 23 people were killed in a provincial center when one group of rebels stormed a bank and others tried to move in on them. Le Monde carried the news that the incident might even cause France to consider peacekeeping in places where there is no peace.
Twenty-three people in one afternoon in a country that has supposedly been under the care of French-led U.N. peacekeepers for a year. If it had been a GI tripping over a landmine in Baghdad, it would be a "spiral of violence and terrorism." But where all you have is a Reuters and an AFP guy bumping into each other on a dash for cover, it's just another day in what Villepin called "the spirit of the Marcoussis accords." By "spirit" he means "ghost," because if last month was any indication, the U.N.'s mission in Ivory Coast is dead.

http://www.nationalreview.com/europress/bo...00310030830.asp


Its working:

>In an expansive interview on Saturday evening, Mr. Putin warned that Iraq could "become a new center, a new magnet for all destructive elements." He added, without naming them, that "a great number of members of different terrorist organizations" have been drawn into the country since the fall of Saddam.

This is good news, better that international terrorists be drawn into Iraq to confront well-equipped soldiers, than that they find themselves dispersed in their efforts in international targets around the world.

>To respond to this emerging threat, he said, the Bush administration must move quickly to restore sovereignty to Iraqis and to secure a new UN resolution that would clearly define how long international forces remain there.

I think it depends on how ‘magnetic’ Iraq proves to be. If Putin is not exagerating then this is almost an ideal situation, terrorists converging on Iraq to confront troops. People around the world ought to be grateful to the Coalitioneers for their courage in diverting terrorists away from resorts, airliners and more vulnerable civilians everywhere. How many actual international terrorists have been killed so far? Does anyone think a single one of them should have been spared? Is anyone sorry any of them is occupied plotting against the Coalitioneers in Iraq rather than trying to figure out how to do something dramatic and bloody in London, Paris, Rome or New York again? When Iraq’s terrorist magnetism wanes the Coalitioneers should start wondering about relocating, but between now and then I think this is better than dealing with the problem reactively (at least now the western forces have the initiative).

>"How would the local population treat forces whose official name is the occupying forces?" he asked, suggesting that further hostility to the US was inevitable unless its occupation received the international legitimacy it now lacks.

I do think the Coalition could improve its ‘PR’, build some bridges, bring in some of that famous American ingenuity in problem-solving, their ‘know-how’ and technology. Putin seems to suggest the hostility is inevitable due to the occupying character of the Coalition, to the extent this is true then shortcomings in ‘nationbuilding’ are irrelevant.

>Mr. Putin said for the first time that Russia was prepared to offer partial relief on the $8 billion it is owed by Iraq, but only in coordination with other major creditor nations in the Paris Club.

That is a nice gesture, I think all the obligations undertaken by Saddam’s regime should be voided. There has been a fundamental change in circumstance which excuses Iraqi compliance. Incidentally it was announced Monday that Russia had agreed to pay up on the USSR's $41 billion outstanding to the Paris Club.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/internat...&partner=GOOGLE

[GreatWyrm of Babylon]

Bio-chemical are suddenly not WMD? It has to be immediate radiation death to qualify? Oh, they only kill people and do not damage precious property, okay.

[rmnunez]

WMDs technically are any weapons whose destructive effect is far disporportionate to the value of the military target. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons would always qualify as their area of impact and duration of their effects far exceeds the military value of any target.

This terminology thing is something to keep an eye on. Critics of the US intervention will avoid using the expression "WMD" when refering to anything found in Iraq whereas those favoring the policy are likely to apply that label to weapons which may not actually be WMDs. One also should consider how elements or equipment, growth media, precursors, research, analyses and such would not be WMDs, though they could show an intent to produce them.

[rmnunez]

On the semantics thing we have a problem distinguishing whether we confront a terrorist or insurgent situation. Distinguishing who is a terrorist is vital since the Geneva Conventions as well as rules and customs of war outlaw victimizing civilians, yet insurgents are recognized to have certain rights under international law.

This relates to discussion on how the Israelis are fighting Palestinian terrorism. If we recognize that in war there are just 2 types of individuals; military and civilian, where do terrorists fit? Are terrorists civilians with same protections afforded other people under the GC? If terrorists are not civilians, are they then some sort of irregular armed force?

Under some interpretations and in past practice, rebels capable of holding a defined territory, if they make a claim to self determination and lack participation in the ethnically, culturally and/or religiously different government that nominally controls the land where they live –are a non self-governing group seeking a Charter-enshrined right to self-determination.

This is relevant only in some cases; it would never apply to AlQaeda which is not struggling for any right to form a state but would to Palestinians living in occupied territories engaged in some sort of struggle for self-government.

[G. Adams]

Terrorists are soldiers with a cause rather than a government. The should be treated as such.

[RebelWithanAK]

After all, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. The semantics of such are only really based on whom is the aggressor. I don't see us crying about the Columbian or Bolivian killings very much...