planet earth looks blue

What is the international definition of terrorism?  The US definition states that terrorism is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”  The key word here is ‘noncombatant”.  Although the label of terrorists on basically all groups could be called into question, today, a ray of light needs to be shed on the situation in Sri Lanka.

The Tamil Tigers are considered a terrorist group by India, America, the EU, and Canada.  But are they?  Aren’t they the literal definition of freedom fighters?  The Tigers are the revolutionary group, started in the 1980’s with the purpose of seceding from Sri Lanka, formerly known a Ceylon.  Tamil is a separate ethnic group within the country, that has been trying to secede from the country.  They are separatists, fine, but terrorists, no.  A separate state was proposed back in 1976.

The Tamils want a small portion of the north and east of Sri Lanka, to form an independent nation, Tamil Eelam, ruled by their people, for their interests.  The fighting has been going on for decades, but over the past year it has been an all out year.  Virtually no media is allowed into the country, banned by the Sri Lankan government, and there is scant international presence at all.  There are camps outside of the conflict zone where some civilians are staying  According to the UN, 186,000 are housed in camps, 1,700 who are severely wounded are in hospitals, and 50,000 more are within the conflict area.  Yesterday was the day everyone in the international community feared, the day they did nothing to prevent - hundreds of innocent people died in one blood bath.  The numbers range from around 600, to a body count of 1,200, with at least 100 children.  According to the Tigers, the government basically went on a campaign of aerial bombing and heavy artillery fire.  The government says the Tigers turned on their own people and are responsible for the killing.

The number of civilian casualties is unknown, and the circumstances are unclear, but the burden of proof rests on those who will not allow an international presence.  It is hard to believe that this was anything other than the military trying to end this conflict once and for all before the next elections, as not everyone supports the violence.  But because many western nations allow the Tigers to fall under the umbrella term of terrorists, the voice in defense of the Tamil Tigers is silenced.  

The situation in the Swat region of Pakistan is only getting worse as many expected.  There was a period of relative calm with a peace deal signed in February, but both sides, the Taliban militants, and the Pakistan forces, accuse the other side of staging attacks.  Right now the residents of the area are fleeing their homes, heading to government set-up camps.  They were previously told to leave, then to return, and now to leave again.  Half a million are expected to flee, with many living in the camps already.  There has been a period of confusion as the government has wanted to call an end to fighting, although this was never the case.  It seems that violence never really ended.  According to BBC news , a major offensive is imminent.The Taliban spokesman, Muslim Khan, accused President Zardari of going to America to look for more money.  The militants, are in a way indirectly fighting America, at least American interests.  Trilateral talks between Obama, Zardari, and Afghan President Karzai, are planned for Washington, Wednesday.  During the unprecedented meeting Obama is expected to put pressure on Zardari to step up Pakistan’s offensive against the Taliban, who has already taken control of the Swat Valley, where the people allowed Sharia Law to be imposed.  The Taliban has said that they will not stop until this strict conservative religious order is implemented in all of Pakistan.So where does that leave the people?  As usual, in the crossfire until things are figured out.  Pakistan has been fighting the militants since 2007, but never to a major degree.  The US has also been attacking the area with aerial bombing through drone attacks, which continued without abatement as American leadership changed hands.  During that entire period, the Taliban basically took hold.  Girls have not been going to school - they in fact only have been able to attend in the refugee camps - women are separated, music & art is oppressed - the usual black and white Taliban law.  Why now?  Has the US been expecting Pakistan to take care of the militants in their own country?  Was it politically wrong to have an official war in Pakistan while Iraq was still considered highly active.  Now we are told that violence has lessened there, the US forces are leaving in a year and a half - is the public ready to accept another war?  It seems there is way more of an actual threat with Pakistan, because of their nuclear arsenal - if Zardari falls, will the Taliban have access to nuclear weapons - would they actually use them?The US right now seems to be putting out the carrot (billions in aid) to Zardari, and asks in return that Pakistan puts its best war foot forward, and blows up as many militants as possible, so at least if America has to officially move into the region (America fight in a country without oil?) it will be quick and painless, like Iraq was supposed to be.The question should really be raised - is all this violence helping anything?  After five years of war, the result is that our former ally, Saddam Hussein, is dead, and the region is a mess.  The exact forces we claimed when it was convenient, to be there to destroy, are ten times more valid, and powerful, with their hands of control reaching far beyond Afghanistan.  Isn’t it true that they have gained credibility as a foil to foreign invaders?  Violence will always breed violence.  Peace will always breed peace.  Give the people schools, clean water, access to a normal life, and they will never join a militant faction.  Bomb their homeland, take the life of their brother, as a side effect of war, and they will always fight against you.

Violence has flared up in Yemen this past week, marking the anniversary of the 1994 two-month long uprising, which was quickly put down by government troops.  The current state of Yemen exists after an agreement in 1990 for South Yemen and North Yemen to unite.  Yemen, bordered by Saudi Arabia, and Oman, is primarily an oil state, with 90% of its exports being in oil.  Yermen is far from a wealthy republic, ranking somewhere around 10th or 11th on the world’s poorest nations lists.  Its oil reserves are quickly running out, and are predicted to dry up somewhere in the next 15 to 20 years.

The South, which is primarily Sunni Muslim and the location of much of the republic’s oil, is dissatisfied with the government.  Starting a few days ago, towards the end of April, the fighting began at a rally.  Since then, 8 have died, four of them Yemeni soldiers.  21 people have been wounded.  The violence is taking place in the south of the country.  The United States has issued a statement, showing concern for the stability of Yemen, asking the different sides to discuss their issues.  A difficult thing to do in a country still with independent tribes, al-Quada influences, poverty, and social unrest.  The government also faces a Zaydi Shi’ite rebellion in the north.

Yemen is led by President Ali Abdullah Saleh.  Strongly supported by America, Saleh was the President of North Yemen since 1978, and of unified Yemen since 1990.  Although he has led for some time, he ran again and won in 2006.  The elections are supposedly “fair”, although Yemen isn’t the most transparent of countries, nor does it have the cleanest human rights record.  There isn’t much international attention directed on the Southwest Asian nation, but because of its geographical importance, rubbing elbows with both Somalia and Saudi Arabia, if the violence continues there will probably be more of a reaction.  Right now the US is probably hoping this will blow over, as one more al-Quaeda hotbed in the region would really be devastating.

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.

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?