planet earth looks blue

Not only is the Pakistani military involved in an offensive against the Taliban in the western border provinces, but there is also rising tension between ethnic groups within the state.  According to the AFP , 34 people are dead from a shooting battle in Karachi.  Although the violence is directly blamed on ‘miscreants’ the tension is between the Urdu and Pashtun groups.  Both play a part in the government.  The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) is Urdu-speaking, while the Awami National Party (ANP) is Pashtun.  MQM blames the ANP for bringing in and accepting the extremist conservative influences of the Taliban.

Paramilitary troops had to quell the violence last night, but no issues have been resolved.  The United States has increased its awareness of Pakistan, pressuring the government to work harder to expel Taliban forces that are now influential throughout western Pakistan.  Fighting has been ongoing since 2007, when the Pakistani military attacked an extremist mosque, with period US drone attacks on the region.  Where does it end, and how far does it progress?  The entire region is becoming more and more inflamed.  It’s true that violence has decreased at times in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but looking at the overall situation, the countries are an absolute mess.  Is it time we accept that US troop presence isn’t helping?  At this point, our presence is about to spark a third war in the region, and the Taliban’s reach is more extensive that it ever has been.  Is it time to get out, and let forces work themselves out naturally?  Just like allowing the car companies to file bankruptcy, do we let go and see what happens?  There is of course a moral obligation to protect the people - but US troops are not doing that.  Their presence is putting people in danger, and this has been the case for years.  That is the truth - so why not accept that, and figure out what is the best option understanding reality, instead of chasing an outcome that we have no power to create.

The WHO says the swine flu shows no sign of abatement.  With the first death in the United States, a toddler who had just returned from a family visit to Mexico, and the official spread of the pig pathogen to Germany and Austria, as well as Scotland, Israel, Spain, New Zealand, Canada, and the US, the questions, fear, and potential for pandemic are swirling up into a whirlwind of danger.

Europe is calling for all non-necessary travel to the United States or Mexico to be stopped.  They are not banning flights, only asking their citizens to use common sense.  So far cases are minimal beyond the western hemisphere.  It also hasn’t spread south of Mexico.  The United States and Mexico are far from banning travel, and have criticized Europe for over-reacting, saying the virus isn’t that bad - yet.  Exactly.  Shouldn’t governments be taking precautionary measures to protect their citizens?  Would the swine flu be contained to Mexico if travel was halted immediately, instead of waiting until it was too late?

The other issue is vaccinations.  Nobody who had a flu shot this year is protected from the swine flu.  Unfortunately it doesn’t work like that.  The United States, and most western nations have a decent amount of vaccinations, some with enough to immunize their entire populationa , and others fending for ways to increase their reserves.  The US in particular is worried because most of its flu vaccines are manufactured outside of the country.  There is only one plant in Pennsylvania capable of producing about 50 million doses.  Funding could increase this number, but what about poorer nations?  How can they deal with the virus?

And of course the huge x-factor - what is swine flu itself capable of?  How many times, and how quickly can it mutate?  A pathogen that is able to transfer from human to human is able to far transcend its humble, harmless origins.  Is it possible that all of these millions of vaccine doses could become obsolete?  If so, then what?  25 million people died from the Spanish flu earlier this century.  Today, we know a lot more about protecting ourselves, and containment, and are much better equipped to manufacture and deliver vaccines, so I would hope we wouldn’t have anything close to a repeat of the past.  Today however, we are facing a financial crisis, and it seems as if, in the United States at least, we are hesitant to ‘overreact’ enough, in fear of crippling the economy, which by the way shrunk 6.1% in the first quarter.

There is another virus lurking, related to the bird flu, H51N1, which took nearly 800 lives.  This version, A/H1N1, is known as the swine flu, and was originally contracted from pigs.  Mexico has been hit the hardest so far, with 81 fatalities, and hundreds of infected people still being monitored.  Nearly a thousand are recovering and have been already sent home.  Mexico City has more or less shut down, but there are no travel restrictions thus far.  Many are criticizing the Mexican government for taking so long to figure out they had a deadly, contagious virus on their hands.  It wasn’t until cases started showing up in the US that anyone realized what was going on.

So far the swine flu has been spread to the United States, Canada, and even New Zealand, with no deaths outside of Mexico.  There are potential cases in Israel, Scotland, and Spain.  Fortunately, many people are recovering quickly, but doctors are baffled as to what makes this virus deadly in some cases, and a minor illness in others.  Although any past flu vaccinations will have no effect on the swine flu, there are anti-viral medications which should be effective on the swine flu as long as it is treated early.  The most frightening problem is that swine flu is apparently transferring from person to person, as opposed to from pig to human, as it has done in the past.  When the virus is transmitted between humans, it is likely to mutate, making it almost impossible for researchers to figure out how to stop it.  Symptoms include basically all of the above - fever, lethargy, lack of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, runny nose, and a sore throat.

Janet Napolitano, the US Homeland Security Secretary has just declared a public health emergency, and the World Health Organization is calling the situation ’serious’ according to CNN .  Nobody has yet said the P-word, pandemic, although no one can deny that the potential is there.  Some countries are banning pork imports from the US and Mexico.  Maybe it would be wise to skip the pork chops for dinner tonight, and order a pizza - without pepperoni.  Other than that, at this point the word on the street is, wash your hands, cover your mouth, stay home if you even think you are ill.  In Mexico people are advised to avoid large crowds, and no kissing strangers!

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund put out a report today on the state of the global poor, according to Reuters .  The situation, which  has always been dire, is on the brink of disaster.  While people are trudging along in the developed world, many out of work, and others still employed, or able to find an alternative source of income, this is not the case in the third world.  There aren’t alternative opportunities or ways to cut costs in countries that have always been stretching their dollars.  And its not only the financial crisis - which is constricting international loans, and limiting aid packages, which in many cases are a substantial portion of national budgets.  The high food and fuel prices have been climbing for well over a year now.  They are crippling a huge segment of the world.

What is the solution, where is the light at the end of the tunnel?  Is there one?  As global economies continue to slide, and those that have money, whether it be on an individual level, or a national level, hold on to it, those that depended on some sort of assistance are slipping through the cracks.  Instead of focusing on each other in a time of need, the world is turning inwards, each of us looks to prevent our own ship from sinking.  There is not a feeling of community of brotherhood, and tensions between rich nations and poor nations are rising, just as they are between the rich and the poor in individual nations.

Aside from a sense of global community - what about efficiency?  At least a third of the cost of sending a cargo ship loaded with food and aid to Africa goes to transportation costs.  Millions are dispersed, sometimes billions, but why does most foreign aide money go towards militaries and arms?  How is this going to ever create anything?  How are individuals, like Greg Mortenson, who built dozens of schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, starting out with a couple hundred dollars, able to make positive change, while governments continually throw their hands up in the air and say, we don’t know where all the money went.

Are we on a precipice right now?  Looking forward, truthfully, what do we see?  The IMF predicts that the global economy will shrink this year by 1.3 %, and world trade will slip by 11%.  There is talk of recovery, but economists agree we are more likely to see more steps backward, before we can move ahead.  In the mean time, the decisions we make today, whether to help the other sinking ships or not, and whether we can unravel the efficiency rubix cube, will impact the emerging world order.  As difficult as it may be to give more, unified prosperity is the only real prosperity.

As expected, Durban II was a disaster, much to the chagrin of Navi Pillay, the present High Commissioner for Human Rights.  She had tried so hard to make the second world conference on Racism respectable, but without the presence of the United States, Canada, New Zealand, as well as a handful of other western countries, Durban II never had much hope, and racism remains a world taboo.  No one wants to discuss it.  Why?  Just because of Ahmedinejad?

23 EU representatives walked out of the conference once the Iranian President began speaking.  Just like at the first conference in South Africa in 2001, he called out Israel for being an ‘oppressive Zionist regime’.  This is the cited reason that the entire western conglomerate of nations either boycotted or bailed out on Durban II.  But what about the rest of Ahmedinejad’s speech?  He didn’t only talk about Israel, but the United States as well, even Europe.  He flat out accused the US of being ruled by the war machine and energy interests.  Pointed out the Iraqi and Afghanistan death toll as well as financial toll for the US led invasions, and poised the question of how much blame does the self-ascribed superpower deserve in the state of world affairs today.  For talking about theses issues, Ahmedinejad is considered a complete nutjob.  Is he?  Is he really being that extreme?  Why not read some of his speech and make your own assessment instead of writing off valid questions.

Some say the Iranian President was just making a political move, trying to end any possibility of forming positive relations with President Obama to squeeze out his more moderate political opposition.  Perhaps.  But motives and passions aside, these are issues that need to be talked about.  Navi Pillay would have been more than happy to have any other world leader speak at Durban II, or even a high-ranking official from any western nation.  They could have overshadowed Tehran’s words if they wanted to.  So what really is the reason for avoiding a discussion we need to face if we as the human race are ever going to evolve?  There is hate in this world, and the only way we are going to squash it, is to face it.  Everyone knew what was going to happen at Durban II, because it happened at Durban I.  So instead of complaining about it, send it in a positive direction.

Durban II, the follow up to the 2001 meeting in South Africa, starts tomorrow in Geneva.  Durban I was the first official international conference addressing the issues of world racism.  Bush boycotted the first meeting, Obama, nor any US representatives, will be attending tomorrow.  The United States isn’t the only western nation remaining outside of these important talks - Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, and Italy as well will not attend.

Why the cold shoulder on racism?  Israel.  The purpose of the first Durban conference was to develop a document basically defining racism, addressing past, present, and potential future problems and human rights issues surrounding racism.  Several nations wanted to call Israel’s actions against the Palestinians racist.  The United States and Israel walked out of the conference, which they felt was using the world meeting to join together and condemn Zionism.

So who is right, and who is wrong - and what about addressing racism?  The question of ‘right’ when it comes to the land known as Israel, formerly known as Palestine, has led to decades of violence, generations of hate, and senseless killing.  Nothing has been created, nothing has been solved.  The world is apparently waiting for its saint, for its Gandhi, or King to fix this mess.  Those that live in Israel today, of course don’t want to give their homes back to the Palestinians, and feel that the suffering that the Jewish people have gone through, the Holocaust, as well as international racism towards Jews everywhere, gives them the ‘right’ to a Jewish homeland.  The Palestinians, who were kicked out of those same homes, and live in, let’s face it, terrible conditions for the most part, feel that they have a ‘right’ to return.

In all honesty, Israel has a lot of control over the lives of the Palestinian people.  They choke off the Gaza Strip so the two million people living their do not even have access to adequate goods, let alone the ability to thrive themselves with commerce.  They have a much stronger military force, and are comfortable using their US funded military, even at the cost of civilian casualties, as they have proved in the past two wars, the 22-day war in Gaza, and the 2006 war with Hezbollah.  Israel continues to colonize what areas are left to the Palestinians, something that they had agreed to stop doing in agreements made with former President Bush.  So if Israel’s actions are not being racist towards the Palestinian people, what exactly are they doing?

The Israel-Palestine situation is one example of ’something’ in the world today.  If we do not like to use the word racism, we can just call it ’something’.  But, all titles aside, ’something’ exists.  ‘Something’ makes some people believe they are entitled to more than other people, many times at the expense of other people.  ‘Something’ makes people who have plenty not worry while others don’t have enough.  ‘Something’ allows stratified nations and a stratified world, in which it is nothing short of a miracle, and a blessing, when one man can truly call another, my brother.

 An assassination attempt on the Bolivian President Evo Morales has been thwarted, leaving three dead, and two in custody.  The assassins were foreigners, possibly Hungarian or Irish, and some reports say Bolivian.  The plot was against Morales, the leftist President of the past three years, and Bolivia’s first indigenous leader, as well as the Vice President, and one cabinet member.  There was a shoot out in Santa Cruz where the assassins were staying, according to the BBC.  Santa Cruz is the central location of the opposition.  Morales, who was informed by intelligence of the plot days ago, ordered the attack.  The question is - why would foreigners try to assassinate Morales?  What interests do they have in the Andean nation?  They are reported to be a group of international mercenaries - paid by whom? 

The Bolivian opposition, the wealthy conservative class that rules the Senate, or any other interests that don’t like a man of the people, and a supporter of Chavez ruling a South American country.  Were the assassins paid by a political groups, or a conglomerate of corporate interests?  The two survivors will obviously be interrogated for information, although they themselves may not know who they were working for.  Police found heavy weaponry, including C-4 explosives, which are not found in Bolivia, according to a statement by Vice President Alvaro Garcia (Associated Press), as well as plans to go after the presidential motorcade.  

The attempt comes two days after Morales ended his five day hunger strike.  He was acting in protest of the blockage of constitutional changes which the majority of the population had voted for earlier this year.  The changes would allow Morales to run again in December elections, and will reserve seven seats in the lower house of parliament for minority indigenous groups.  Morales has so far done his best to work for his people, giving them a voice that they never had in their own country.  Bolivia has been ruled by the mixed-race, wealthier classes who reside primarily in the south.    

On a side not, to follow up on one of my recent posts - prosecutors in Spain have recommended to the court to drop the case against former Bush officials for their role in alleged Human Rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay, saying that if they are to be brought to trial, the United States should be the first ones to take them to court.  It is still possible that the court itself will choose to go ahead with the case.

The international group, Human Rights Watch called on the UN to investigate possible human rights violations in the short war between Israel and Gaza at the end of last year, which left over 1,300 Palestinians dead, many of which were civilians, 3 Israeli civilians, and 10 Israeli soldiers.  On January 12 of this year, the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva agreed to send an international group to investigate the allegations.  Although much of the focus is on Israel - it is believed that their forces fired into civilian and heavily populated areas, used white phosphorus (an illegal chemical weapon), and targeted civilian institutions - Hamas will also be investigated for shooting rockets into civilian areas.  In the past, the United States has blocked the UN from holding Israel accountable, but the Human Rights Watch points out that this only sells the civilians on both sides of the war short.

The offensive into Gaza hurt the Palestinians, arguably as much as one thousand times more than the Israelis, but the whole point of human rights violations at all is principle.  The basis that Israel had for its aerial bombing campaigns and alleged illegal warfare practices, as well as its choking off of medical supplies and food to Gaza was their belief that their human rights were infringed upon - yes, it was only a small fraction of their population that was affected, but it was enough for them to act upon it.

An investigation seems a proper closing to the whirlwind war that left many around the world appalled at the resulting suffering of the Palestinian people.  The only problem is that Israel is not going to cooperate with the investigation according to Reuters .  Richard Goldstone has been appointed by the UN Human Rights Council to head the investigations on both sides, but the Israel government sent a letter to Goldstone, saying that they could not cooperate.  Will there be any response by the international community?  Will Israel be able to avoid an investigation?  As a general rule, when a nation refuses to cooperate with the international community, such as in the case of Iran and North Korea, sanctions are imposed.  With such a powerful ally in the United States, this seems to be an unlikely outcome.  Which brings us back to square one on our global community - where are we on our trek towards a civilized world, if we are not held accountable for violating human rights?

AFP/Getty (Time Magazine) 

North Korea’s Central News Agency has announced that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is officially out of six-party talks.  This move is a reaction to the statement released by the UN Security Council - which condemned Pyongyang’s missile launch and reiterated the necessity for sanctions.  According to the Security Council meeting, North Korea broke resolution 1718, which does not allow “further nuclear test or launch of a ballistic missile”.  According to Pyongyang, the launch was not a military move, but rather a technological feat, setting a satellite into orbit - which was a success according to North Korea, and a failure according to the rest of the world.  

So now the talks, which began in the summer of 2003, are over.  Over a span of five years and six rounds, not much was accomplished in the first place.  North Korea wanted to be recognized as a respectable country in the world, as opposed to a blacklisted rogue state.  They also wanted an end to economic sanctions, a thaw on some of their foreign accounts, support for peaceful nuclear advancement, and the eventual right to pursue nuclear technology, basically a long list that was never going to be granted.  The US, China, South Korea, Russia, and Japan, wanted Pyongyang to give up its nuclear program completely, and disclose how far they had gotten.  Sanctions were imposed, tightened, loosened, and that was about it.  North Korea has consistently threatened to leave the talks, threatened to rebuild its nuclear facilities, and acts as if they have more military capability than they probably do.

Now, North Korea says they are no longer bound to any agreements made by the six-party talks, that they will never join the talks again, and will work to restore what was lost as far as their nuclear technology during the span of the talks.  And, they feel that the Security Council has “infringed upon their sovereignty” and has hurt “the dignity of the Korean people”.  

What will North Korea actually do?  That’s the root of the problem - nobody really knows.  They are extremely secretive, and always have been under Kim Jong-il.  Their is no doubt that they are a poor nation financially, but can anyone argue against their resolve?  Kim Jong-il could just be on a nationalist roll after the successful missile launch (semi-successful) and his recent return to the public eye.  Or he may be making the final push at the end of his career.  He can’t live forever, and perhaps had a few things left on his list-of-crazy-things-to-do-before-I-die.

The six main players in the Iranian nuclear talks, Russia, China, France, Germany, the UK, and the US, invited Tehran for new talks on its nuclear program.  The response by the Iranian nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, was one of welcome.  Iran’s President, Ahmadinejad, has mentioned before that he was willing to have nuclear talks, as long as they were respectful to his country.  Obviously, Iran is not interested in my-way-or-the-highway negotiations.  They’d like to have their voice, and their interests heard as well.  The Persian Republic has for some time insisted that it is enriching uranium because it wants to develop nuclear energy, not nuclear war.  The Supreme Leader has been talking about using nuclear energy for decades - Iran, an oil producer, is an energy state.  It is not that unrealistic for them to understand the concept of finite energy sources, of which their economy is based.  If they want to emerge in the future as a powerful nation, they have to remain an energy nation - thus nuclear energy.

There is of course another possibility - that they are secretly trying to build nuclear weaponry.  Which would be logical for their own self-interests as well, as they are the greatest threat to nuclear-armed Israel, a country with a threatening stance towards Tehran, and a penchant for war.  Iran’s leaders have refused to recognize Israel as a state, as they believe it belongs to the Palestinians, who originally lived in the area - a concept that would make the Jewish people living in Israel very uncomfortable and defensive.  Iran has been an enemy of the US in the past as well, particularly during the previous administration, when former President Bush called out Iran as part of the axis of evil, and many hawks in the Pentagon spoke of actually entertaining the possibility of attacking Iran.  Iran, just like North Korea, launched its missile in February, putting a satellite into orbit.  A move that, just like Pyongyang, shows the world that Tehran is capable, and is advancing technologically and militarily.  But are these pure acts of threat and potential aggression - or more of nationalism?  Iran’s launch was on the 30th anniversary of the Islamist Revolution, and was a display of Iran’s technology, in a country, like many nations, that ties its scientific and technological advancements to its place in the international pecking order.

There are two possibilities, and the truth to Iran and the nuclear question likely lies somewhere in between.  Talks between the six nations and Iran have potential to advance the entire world.  If Iran can feel comfortable enough to work with the international community, perhaps allow investigations into their nuclear program, then the rest of the world can dissolve the ‘big bad wolf’ connotations they have for Iran.  The six need to be respectful to Iran, however.  What if Iran doesn’t want investigations, not because they are creating weapons, but because they don’t want their energy technology stolen?  There are so many possibilities aside from the ones that each nation has been shoving down their people’s throats.  Hopefully we as a world are mature enough that our leaders can have a real conversation.