Tha Newest Facebook Feed

Lawl

"Why Pakistani Women are Coming to the U.S. to Give Birth"

Details the interesting, and oft-harrowing process of squeezing the kid out in the U.S. as opposed to Pakistan.

Fascinating. 

Belated response to Preventing Genocide

Of all the articles assigned, I found the Economist article the most interesting. It also raised many questions that I had also thought of when I first heard of R2P - including the possibility that countries such as the U.S. could use R2P as an excuse to intervene in other countries. Humanitarian intervention has been perverted to such a point, and R2P stands to be used in similar manners.

How does one further define R2P without becoming to explicit? The "delicate" terms that were put forth by Gareth Evans and others are delicate because they are also very vague - when is it ok to intervene? When a certain amount of people have died? Before people are killed? There are too many variables here to set one answer to the equation. There are no guidelines to when an intervention is needed, but there is little doubt after the fact when one was called for. Rwanda? Yes. The former Yugoslavia? Yes. Name countless others, and yes, there should have been something done. But by who?

One final question, in a post filled with questions, is towards the title "Right" to protect. Whose rights are we protecting through this measure?

Balmy relations between China and NK

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's recent visit to North Korea, replete with an alarmingly intimate embrace with Dear Leader Kim Jong Il, signals warming relations between China and the North. The implications for China-North Korea trade are clear, but the implications for U.S.-China security can only be speculated upon.

AfPakIn?

Indian Ambassador to the UN Hardeep Puri has qualms about "enlarging the canvass" to include India in Afghan-Pakistani relations.

"Why on Earth Would We Wait to Disarm Iran?"

Hitchens' thesis paragraph, as nearly as I can pin it, is the following:

"I have never been present for any discussion of any measures that could even thinkably be taken against Tehran that does not focus obsessively and exclusively on the possibly calamitous outcomes. Israel hits Iran and—well, you fill in the rest. The target sites are, anyway, too much dispersed and too deeply buried. You know how it goes. Apparently, nothing can be done that does not make a bad situation worse. It is as if there could be a worse outcome than the nuclear armament of a lawless messianic state that tore up every agreement it signed even as it bought further time while signing it."

The rest is a very worthwhile read.

Barak Obama's Facebook Feed

lol.

African "Good Governance Prize" Not Awarded This Year

Maybe I'm really cynical, but I find it really amusing that there is a prize for African leaders whose requirements are spelled out in the article as follows:

"Now in its third year, the prize is given to a democratically elected leader from sub-Saharan Africa who has served their term and then left office."

And guess what? The committee didn't think anyone this year was qualified enough.

Article.

Article on Afghanistan

Article Here

This is a good article about the current debate in the White House on Strategy in Afghanistan.

Maldives and Climate Change

Article.

The Maldives government, in an attempt to draw attention to climate change problems, held a cabinet meeting in scuba gear at the bottom of a lake. The Maldives are among the lowest countries on Earth, and may be submerged from global warming within our lifetime. The Cabinet signed a CO-emission regulation document to promote action towards change.

America's responsibility

I believe that the international drug trade is the most threatening global crime in our times. It is truly shocking the amount of devastation that Mexico has suffered to supply America's drug habits. Instead of focusing on cutting down supply, I think the US should work harder to cut down on demand. "Just say no" is obviously not working. There are tons of college students who smoke marijuana for recreation purposes. Do any of these students know that someone has probably died in order to get them high? Probably not. Students are not thinking about it, but they should. I think we really need to raise awareness about the tragic events that are going on in Mexico. Enjoying illegal drugs costs lives.
Gregor has suggested legalization as a possible solution to many of these problems. I do agree that this would be a successful way to cut down on the drug trade. We all know that marijuana isn't any more dangerous than alcohol. If people could grow it privately and legally, we would certainly reduce our demand for Mexican marijuana.
However, legalizing prostitution is a drastically different concept. Women should not have to sell their bodies to make money. Society cannot condone the practice. Sure, men can enjoy themselves in the Red Light district in Amsterdam, but is that truly a model society? I find it utterly tragic.
I hope that international organizations manage to step up the fight against sex trafficking. I had no idea that thousands of victims are trafficked into the United States. This is absolutely horrifying. It disappoints me that there are citizens of this country who desire sex slaves.

Global Crime

As I was unable to attend the meeting on Sunday, I will share my thoughts on Global Crime on the blog.

First things first, I would like to say that America is not just a victim of global crime, it is also a cause of some things. Before I say any of this, I would like to stress that I do not advocate any of the following things, but they must be taken into account when considering Global Crime.

Drugs...

We read a lot about Colombia and cocaine. We read that the US is fumigating coca fields and doing everything it can to eradicate the crop at its source. However, US attempts at fumigation rob farmers of their livelihood, and antagonize others as they resent foreign intervention into one of their customs and traditions. Ever since 1961, when the UN outlawed coca exports, the US has done what it can to eradicate cocaine production...but in actual fact, US attempts have led to contrary. We are trying to stop global crime, but our efforts are contributing to it. We need other ways to help out these areas that are producing narcotics that are dispersed around the world.

Trafficking...

The scale of this growing crime is disturbing. We need to provide something, anything, that would provide some alternative to those that a. are doing the trafficking and b/ being trafficked. I know this can be seen as a stupid thing to say, but I cannot provide another alternative. I know it is only a film, but Taken gives you an idea of what is going on in human trafficking. It is incredibly worrying the extent to which this crime is disrupting society. It is all good and well saying that we need international cooperation to stop this, but is that really going to happen? Does the UN have the power to implement harsh punishments?

This may be a ridiculous statement, but some of these crimes would not be an issue if they were legalized. Before you view me as crazy, I am not condoning the legalization of child trafficking, but for some issues, like some drug use and prostitution, there are ways round it. Look at the pragmatism of the Dutch in legalizing prostitution and marijuana in Amsterdam...drug abuse and underground prostitution has dramatically decreased since implementation. In our increasingly more global community, some things will have to change, or global crime will continue to rise...

These issues are too large for the opinion of one man, and I regret that I was not at the meeting to discuss these further...it looks like it was a great presentation...good job guys.

This illiterate argues for a pull-out of Afghanistan

The link is here. 

I quote directly from the beginning of the article:

Yes, Afghanistan is deteriorating fast and in need of urgent attention. But figuring out what to do in Central Asia is simple: Leave. Now.

 

Its true, I'm very biased on the Afghanistan issue. But regardless, its not difficult to agree that the U.S. can't waltz merrily about the world, tearing delicate societies apart, blasting infrastructure to pieces, rendering over a third of a country's arable land unlivable, destabilizing governments, creating near-unprecedented refugee crises, and bail immediately once the domestic political situation makes it advisable. 

That's the Dwight Eisenhower/John Kennedy/Ronald Reagan/George Bush approach. That's the "oh goody I went to Harvard and I'm a major decision maker, so I get to play with people like chess pieces!" approach. That's the approach that made the U.S.'s moral-high-ground argument against the Soviet Union laughable. Much of sub-Saharan Africa is a destabilized mess because of the CIA's meddling in the region. Egypt, Poland, Libya, and the entire South American continent, the Carribbean, and Central America are still struggling to recover from the body blows that the U.S. dealt them. 

If you broke it, you buy it. 

Or rather, if you break something, and you don't buy it but put it quietly back on the shelf, you are a scumbag. 

Afghanistan is not something that can be put back on the shelf quietly. Not anymore. 

The U.S. singlehandedly saved Afghanistan from the Soviets. Without U.S. assistance, the Russians would either have been beaten to a bloody defeat, or the country would have gone down in flames. Either way, the provision of stinger missiles, black ops training, food, and various munitions made the (7th!) Afghan war against foreign incursion much less costly than it should have been. 

Immediately after, the U.S. left Afghanistan to rot. That rot came back and bit it firmly, in various militant attacks against both civilian and military installations. 

The U.S. decided to come back. Initially, it utterly broke the country down, from the bottom up, and set up a forgivably shaky framework for governance. Subsequently, due largely to Bush's idiocy, the country's heart was broken again. 

In effect, the U.S. military burnt down a family's house, threw up a tarp to keep out the rain, then ran off to beat up a kid for his lunch money instead of finishing the construction. Now,  Terence Samuel proposes that the U.S. look at the miserable family inside and say, "Sorry, I gotta go home now. Good luck!"

Are you serious?

Afghanistan is not Iraq, it will only become Vietnam if the public ignorantly turns on it with the same remarkable insanity that they showed in electing Bush twice, and militaries worldwide need to finish what they start. 

Berlusconi

The most persecuted man ever?

The controversial tycoon Prime Minister of Italy has had another run in with the press...and another gaffe. What else do you expect?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8300184.stm

I love this page...Berlusconi...in his own words...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8296830.stm

My favorite being...

In an interview with gossip magazine Chi, Mr Berlusconi denies he pays for sex, adding:

"I never understood where the satisfaction is when you're missing the pleasure of conquest."

Great article from Michael Scheuer

Yaniv has worked wonders to secure Michael Scheuer for next semester. Read this article, and you will agree, that we have a great speaker lined up.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/10/12/go_big_or_go_home?page=0,0

Scheuer's article says how the war in Afghanistan has transformed from what it first was. Now, he says, more and more Afghans are fighting to get rid of the occupying forces. Now, it is a fight to free the nation from unwanted occupants.

A year ago, we were talking about withdrawing troops from the war in Afghanistan. Now, the US is requesting more troops in Afghanistan, and today, the UK sent 500 more troops. Gordon Brown is claiming that by sending more, we will help our allies and help build a 'safer Britain'.

The long and short of this article is that we have screwed up bigtime in Afghanistan, and that there will be worse to come because of it.

Czech-Mate?

When Ireland said 'yes' to the Reform Treaty last week, there was jubilation in Brussels. Finally, the last member state that had shot it down was now behind it. Implementation must be close. As Alex said in his blog, Poland and the Czech Republic have to ratify the Treaty. Poland, last saturday, signed the treaty and celebrated the occasion with a lovely ceremony. One down, one to go.

The Czechs are bound to sign it. Wrong.

The Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, the notorious Eurosceptic, is delaying the process as much as he possible can. Afraid of what might happen, Klaus has added in a footnote about Property Rights to the treaty. He wants Germans to give up any right to property in Czech territories; rights that have been there since the formation of the Czech Republic after the War. One would think that this tactic should have been brought up in negotiations, but Klaus is fighting for dear life to delay the treaty.

Why?

First, he is afraid of a more powerful Europe. Secondly, it can be argued that he is waiting for the British elections of 2010. David Cameron has come out and said that if elected, he will put the Reform Treaty to a referendum, and I think that if this were to happen, it would be voted down, thus delaying the Reform Treaty once more. That said, I think that David Cameron is only saying this to gain support from the eurosceptic Tories, and he hopes that the Reform Treaty will be ratified by all 27 member states before the election.

Either way, Klaus' decision to add the footnote is hindering the EU's implementation of the Lisbon Treaty, and shows the difficulties in getting 27 culturally, historically and ideologically different countries to agree on a treaty that affects them all.

What is the EU going to do to get Klaus on their side and to sign his name onto the treaty...?

Suicide Capital of the World

Not an argumentative piece, so not much analysis. Essentially a summary of the situation in Greenland, now the world's suicide capital.

Pakistani Army Storms its 'Pindi HQ

A lot of my family, on my mother's side, is involved in the Indian military in some capacity, in both administrative sectors and deployable sectors. Naturally, I'm biased. Regardless, this is terrifying. Indian media, of course, reports stories of how Pakistan is slipping and falling frequently, but the volume of stories making its way into the North Atlantic media is a little stunning. It's eerie how the government's collapse is closely  mirroring that which was predicted for it shortly after partition. Anyway.

BBC Story Here

Nobel Peace Prize

I'm sure most people have already heard the news, but for those that haven't, Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Article.

Poll: Americans Don't Know What They Want in Afghanistan

I despise the use of the word "Americans" to depict residents of the U.S. Anyhoo.

Agence France Presse

Iran Seeks the 'Japan' Option

A fairly convincing argument related to the facts surrounding Iran's nuclear experimentation. Summary given by "The Slatest" below:

It's possible that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was insincere when he forbade atomic weapons as un-Islamic. Khamenei's fatwa is just one of the many seemingly contradictory pieces of the Iranian nuclear puzzle: Tehran vehemently denies that it's building a nuclear weapon, while the United States, Israel, and others point to previously hidden facilities as evidence Iran is lying. Salon commentator Juan Cole says a single hypothesis "explains all the anomalies elegantly and concisely." Iran seeks nuclear latency, also known as the "Japan option," Cole argues. That is, Iran (like Japan) doesn't want the bomb, but just the threat of being able to build one quickly. The strategy secures energy independence, "would help fend off aggressive attempts at regime change by the Western powers or Israel," and, "conveniently for Khamanei," violates neither Islamic law nor the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Moreover, it lets Mahmoud Ahmadinejad deny he's building a bomb without technically lying.


Link here

Not Foreign Policy, but...

A compelling and almost tragic story of the decision of a mother to give her 9-year old son ganja, in order to allay his severe medical symptoms. Written by the mother.

Part 1

Part 2

Is it better to be feared or loved?

So the world, in general, loves Obama. But that doesn't necessarily mean our image in the world has that much improved according to Foreign Policy. I think we have a long way to go to regain our status in the world after 9/11 and no new President could immediately wipe away bad feelings of Iraq and Afghanistan. I like this analysis though because it analyzes the complexity of our "standing" or image in the world, not boiling it down to a simple change in leadership.

No Analysis Here: I Completely Agree

Roman Polanski Slammed, Amongst Other Things

European Union President

So, the Lisbon Treaty was ratified by the Irish yesterday. This leaves the Czechs and the Poles as the only states who haven't ratified. For those who aren't aware, the Lisbon Treaty will establish two major things: a President of the European Union position, and a single foreign affairs office. This is massive news, because the EU has been crippled by a lack of common foreign policy, something this aims to reverse. And the so-far most talked-about candidate? None other than Tony Blair.

Article.

"The Latest Updates from Barak Obama's Facebook Feed"

This is the funniest one yet that I've read.

Here

Special Envoys

Because I was sadly unable to attend Great Decisions with everyone last Sunday, I want to share my thoughts on Special Envoys.
I think Special Envoys are useful only when the official capacity of the State Department or other Bureau is unable to address certain concerns. For example, there is no U.S. Ambassador to North Korea, for obvious political reasons. However, because interaction between the US and North Korea is necessary and inevitable, it makes sense to have a Special Envoy who can stay on top of everything.
However, Special Envoys are likely to complicate diplomacy in places where multiple outlets for communication already exist, such as in the Middle East. For good reason, many State Department officials feel that their toes are being stepped on. Early in his campaign and in his Presidency, Obama promised to bolster the number of diplomats in the State Department. And I think that is where he should be concentrating his resources. Working around the State Department only weakens its strategic abilities.
Lastly, the special interest Special Envoys are absolutely silly. A Climate Change Envoy? Seriously? This seems like a waste of resources. Any interest group can come along and demand a Special Envoy. How about Special Envoy to the Elderly Citizens of the World? I can see the AARP pressing for that one. Or Special Envoy to Women’s Independence? Perhaps a suggestion from NOW. Political ties, webs, and organization already exist for special interest groups. Obama shouldn’t be giving into these groups, even if it sounds nice and friendly on the nightly news.
I hope that Obama can limit his envoys to the places where they are really needed. However, at the rate he’s going, this is unlikely. I hope that Clinton can learn to hold her ground.

Legalize Cannabis, Reduce Violence?

The debate over legalizing cannabis (pot, weed, marijuana)—is not a new one. Several states have legalized the drug for medical purposes, but what happens when cannabis is legalized for everyone? This BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8275794.stm illustrates the growing cannabis culture in California and the fight for and against legalizing the drug. However, what I find most intriguing about the article was this statement from Richard Lee, a California man who runs Oaksterdam, a facility which explores cannabis in the medical industry and educates people about cannabis "According to some estimates, the Mexican cartels get 60-70% of their money - their profit - from cannabis…So if we cut that out of the equation then theoretically 60-70% of the violence they perpetrate would be cut out, because they'd have less money for the guns and weapons and ammunition to kill people and to spend on bribing officials and all the rest.” While this is by no means a verified fact, but perhaps a hasty assumption to make—it does bring to light an interesting question—can the legalization of drugs actual make violence go down? Can the legalization of cannabis in the United States mitigate the effects of drug cartels in Mexico and South America? What does the legalization of a formerly illegal drug do to drug cartels worldwide?

Image from: http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/uploadedImages/News/Chicago/Images/Science/DSC00987.JPG

China's 60th anniversary celebrations

CCTV, China's state-sponsored media network, has comprehensive multimedia coverage of Beijing's monumental celebrations for the Communist Party's 60th anniversary.

http://www.cctv.com/english/special/60anni/video/index.shtml

As part of extravagant military and civilian parades to Tiananmen Square, China marched thousands of troops with pristine coordination, rolled hundreds of tanks and other heavy artillery, and drove dozens of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads to the United States through the main thoroughfare of Beijing. Says David Shambaugh, China expert with the Brookings Institute: "This is really, from a public relations standpoint, a major mistake on the part of the Chinese government. But this is not being done for the outside world; this is being done for the internal audience."

Looks like the propagandist, opportunist, exploitative Party of Mao's era is still alive and well.