Over 460,000 acres have been burned by wild fires in southern California over the past few days. Wild fires that, at least in part, may have been the work of arsonists. The reward for information leading to a conviction now stands at $250,000 while damages from the inferno are estimated at over $1 Billion.

The fires, which have thus far resulted in at least 7 deaths and almost 2,000 lost homes, are dominating the 24-hour news cycle while Congress works in vain toward once again sending SCHIP legislation to the President's desk, a nominee for the seat of Attorney General stands before a confirmation committee, and unprecedented, unilateral sanctions have been placed on Iran in the lead-up to now inevitable military strikes. Also in the news is the bleakest environmental report ever issued by anyone coming from the U.N., and the White House-redacted testimony of the head of the Centers for Disease Control to the U.S. Senate on the effects of global climate change on public health (don't worry about West Nile though, the White House says that people die from the cold too). But I digress.

I'm taking even odds that these fires, if they were indeed ignited by arsonists, will serve as the latest milestone in the Bush Administration's quest to consolidate power in the unitary executive. Forget talk of global warming, or climate change, or peak oil, or even collapsing credit markets. The only word we'll need to know for the foreseeable future is ecoterrorism. I fear we'll come to know it all too well.

Labels: environmentalism, George W. Bush, UN

The The Toronto Star reports this week that "a group of academics, former officials and security experts are tabling a proposal [to create] an international rapid reaction force that could be deployed within 48 hours of a green light from the United Nations."

This idea was first proposed shortly following a period of Hell on Earth known as the first half of 20th century. Half of the West was living in near third world conditions. Even the U.S. struggled with high illiteracy, disease, and the "last throes" of a Civil War. Yet there we were, suddenly the leader of the free world. But, for whatever reason, the idea of a United Nations Global Peace Force was quickly shelved and not seriously re-examined until 1994 in the aftermath of the 100 day Rwandan Genocide during which 1,000,000 people were murdered.

The force proposed this week would operate with Security Council authorization not just to deal with future genocides, but to engage in preemptive operations to quell armed conflicts, protect civilians, and address humanitarian needs.

The resistance against this type of force is strong. Some nations worry about a U.S./Western led interventionalist force, but here in the U.S. the reasons for opposing a standing United Nations military are entirely unique.

First, U.S. citizens will pay for it. The U.S. foots the bill for the majority of U.N. operations in general, and the costs of this global, rapid response force would be no different. According to the Toronto Star, the proposed Global Peace Force could cost $2 billion to establish. And while U.S. citizens recently donated a record $260 billion to charitable organizations, the media - the conservative media - would characterize this pittance as a handout to the malcontents of the world too lazy, poor, or stupid to take charge of their own destinies.

Which leads me to the second reason Americans oppose a Global Peace Force: it's a God thing. This may come as a shock to many out there, but a large segment of the U.S. population believe that the establishment of such a body - or anything resembling a real world court for that matter - is tantamount to the end times. Literally.

Those people are idiots. Fortunately they're starting to lose thier grip on our nation.

I say create the Global Peace Force, and the world court too. And while we're at it, increase that budget by about 20 times. Shit, we just re-upped for Afghanistan and Iraq to the tune of $94.5 billion. It's the ninth time this Administration has come to tax payers since 2003 and asked for "emergency" funding. Did they forget the two-front, generational war they're waging? Again? We can afford $40 billion for the establishment of a Global Peace Force.

And since we're putting up the bread, I doubt the Security Council members would mind if we defined the authority of this force as being constrained to upholding the United Nations Charter which in part reads:

We the peoples of the United Nations determined

- to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

- to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

- to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

- to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom...

In short we can count on them - with Security Council approval - to take care of genocide, other religio-ethnic conflicts and natural disasters of biblical proportions.

And who should staff such a force? Volunteers. There are plenty of folks out there that want to serve a just and honorable cause. One that has the mandate of the people of the world. One that exists for the expressed purpose of making this world a better place for our children than it was for our parents.

Labels: Rwanda, UN

For the subsistence-level, tribal peoples of the world a new age is dawning. It is the age of the worker.

"Developing" nations have been annexed wholly, or in-part, by multi-national corporations seeking new markets, cheap labor, and lax environmental laws. However, these corporations have a problem.

What happens when the villagers don't want your goods, your jobs, or your money? After all, what use is TV to a village with no electricity? A tribe that has spent generations developing a sustainable relationship with nature and culture incompatible with western ideals (i.e. capitalism, democracy, monotheism, etc.) has no need for the trappings of modern life - nor the sweat-shop labor necessary to enjoy them. The solution: Destroy the tribes.

Militias armed by western governments and multi-national corporations stalk these nations systematically killing men and raping women. Ethnic cleansing? Perhaps. But it's also an effective way of depopulating the countryside while flooding urban centers - some next door, some half-way around the globe - with refugees...most of whom are women and children. The result: An instant source of cheap, victimized, terrorized, labor at the mercy of their employers.

The corporations get their workforce, their merchandise, and a dumping ground for their pollution. The murderers and rapists on the ground melt back into the night - all the richer from the spoils. And finally, we - the first-world we - get our campaign pullovers on the cheap.

Labels: Africa, economy, refugees, slavery, UN

An un-scheduled press conference (and in the Rose Garden no less)? This is odd in and of itself in the weird world that is the White House press corps, but I don't think anyone knew how strange it would actually turn out.

The President held the conference accompanied by Secretary of State Colin Powell. The reporters present assumed the conference perhaps had something to do with the equally odd surprise announcement of an "emergency summit" which will occur Sunday in the Azores. Yeah, this is when I start calling people to make sure I haven't finally lost touch with reality. Well, it seems I'm still sane - I wish I could say the same for our government.

So about this press conference: I was listening to Maine Public Radio and the host of the program breaks in to inform listeners that they would be switching over to National Public Radio momentarily to cover a press conference during which the President and the Secretary of State were expected to make some remarks.

NPR takes over. The conference begins. The President makes a short 2 or 3 minute speech about Israel and Palestine living in peace with one another, and then he turns and leaves! Colin Powell turned on his heel to follow the President as the press corps began shouting questions about the summit. The reaction from the NPR host in the studio and reporters on the scene was more or less similar to mine: WTF?

Yeah, this whole thing is getting a little out of hand at this point. Something has gone terribly, terribly wrong for the administration's plan to wage indiscriminant war in the Middle East. I'm laughing at their superior intellect.

Here's the break down: Bush had planned to visit Blair - those plans were scrubbed this week as it appeared increasingly unlikely that the UN Security Council would bend to US pressure on the Second Resolution. Blair of course is suffering continued attacks at home over his pro-war stance, and is being condemned by his own party as Bush's lap dog. Naturally something had to give eventually. Remember, this was a strange pairing to begin with; Blair is essentially Briton's Bill Clinton.

So what happens? A press conference in which Bush tries to turn down the heat he's taking from ignoring the war going on right now between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and also to introduce an interesting turn of phrase to the current geo-political lexicon: "step-by-step." Could it be that the US is ready to pursue the British compromise plan for dealing with Iraq? Will it float in the Security Council?

It's a hell of a gamble. This is after all a pissing contest in the end, and Bush has suffered some major set-backs already. First he wanted to act without UN support, but was convinced by Powell and Blair to form a real international coalition before unilaterally deposing the government of one of the wealthiest sovereign nations on Earth. Then there was the tussle over the first resolution, 1441. Bush took it in stride and waited. He was sure that by the time he had his troops in place the UN would be ready to play ball. What he didn't count on was Russia. Sure, France had given the US a hard time with the first resolution, but the administration had figured Russia would play along. They figured wrong. With Russia on its side, France was able to form a voting block. Hell, even China started to toy with the idea of opposing the US. So the Second Resolution is dead in the water. What's next?

Meeting in the Azores is interesting symbolically. Neither Bush nor Blair is visiting the other's nation and twisting arms. No, they're both traveling half-way to meet one another. They are committed to war as a final option, and to make every diplomatic attempt to solve this situation in the meantime. That's the message they're trying to send anyway. The result will either be a new push for the British step-by-step plan (which France has already balked at), or a claim that everything that could be done was, and that unilateral action is now permissible by international law. (There's also the wild outside chance that Saddam will touch off a conflict himself before either the UN or the US makes a move. I believe the world would be highly suspicious of US covert action in this case however given the number of special forces troops already on the ground in Iraq).

Either way, war in Iraq will happen. But it's still nice to see Bush have to jump through these hoops. I only wish there were some way to convince him to just bring the troops home, and re-think his global strategy. Clearly, Bush has been a gambling man throughout these several months of diplomacy, and he hasn't won a single hand yet. Can there be any more indication that his administration's policies are simply unsound?

What happens when the President bets the farm?

Labels: Colin Powell, George W. Bush, iraq, maine, resolution 1441, tony blair, UN

After a flurry of diplomatic activity last week, things were oddly quiet in the news this past weekend. A captured al-Qa'ida “mastermind,” and the Iraqi destruction of several Al Samoud missiles dominated the newscape. Monday had little more to offer, but it appears that a few of the more obscure developments from last week - having fermented and stewed - are now being served up for general consumption. Something else is on the horizon.

The resignation of U.S. diplomat John Brady Kiesling has finally made the mainstream news here in the states. The New York Times has decided to cover the story without actually covering it by printing his letter of resignation without editorial comment. A well-respected diplomat has terminated his 20 career in matters of state as a form of protest to his government. He’s not a star athlete, or a Hollywood stud. Is anyone else ashamed for never having heard of him? What work has he done for our nation? Was he a good man? Did he represent the United States as the land of the free, or did he use his place of power for personal gain? I’ll likely never know, and that disturbs me. If he was the man he presents himself to be in his letter of resignation, then I mourn our nation’s loss. The Times is practically an institution here in the U.S. – I expected better of them as journalists. Instead, they’re silent on this issue.

Today, there is also talk of war. Not talk of others talking about war, but talk of actual war. It seems that the U.S. has finally rounded the bend on this situation. The debate – regardless of its relevance - is over. With or without the support of its citizens, our nation is resigned to war; all that’s left is the screaming. Gulf War II is set to start sometime around the weekend of March 15th.

Karl Rove’s canceled fundraising trip to New Hampshire is one indicator that points to the start of hostilities. Rove was expected to collect as much as 250,000,000 for President Bush’s re-election campaign on that trip. It seems the administration is sensitive to the image of passing the hat while people are dying for its diplomatic failures.

That week is also significant because of the administration's push for the final U.N. Security Council to issue its final decision on “The Second Resolution.” President Bush has repeatedly voiced his willingness to go to war – whatever the outcome of that vote - in recent weeks. Despite this, the administration will wait until after the ballots are counted, and the voices of the world’s free nations have been heard. After that, the U.S. will be diplomatically free to ignore those voices, and pursue any course of action it deems fit.

To ensure the U.S. people are as resigned to war as is possible, I expect the administration to seed the media with banal al-Qa'ida news, threat warnings, and propaganda. The rest of the news cycle between now and the start of the initial assault will be filled in with local fluff pieces. Thoughtful analysis regarding the administration’s foreign policy – if it ever existed in the first place – will trickle to a stop as the media shifts into its own war footing. Substantial coverage of any war preparations will be replaced by up to the minute updates detailing how many pizzas were delivered the Pentagon and the Whitehouse.

Those of us who had hoped for peace are held hostage – forced to watch our nation’s descent into war on CNN. The regime in power continues to ignore our needs and our will. The Leviathan is beyond our control. Despite my education in the fields of political science, international relations, history, and military science I have failed to construct a justifiable case for war. I have tried to see their logic, and have found that there is none which can absolve us from the blame of the murder of innocents.

I was once proud of my country, but that’s changed. I still have hope that the U.S. can be a great and wonderful place again, but my hopes of living to see that day are continuously diminished. Madison believed that no nation can endure continuous war while protecting the rights of its citizens. I fear the worst for us. Our freedoms are being stripped away in name of security; our rights will follow. Will we still have the gall to call ourselves Americans even then?

My nation is dying, and I am powerless to stop it.

Labels: George W. Bush, iraq, Karl Rove, media, UN

This week the U.S., the U.K. and Australia will once again plead their case to the UN Security Council. They will insist that Iraq is in "further material breach" of UN resolution 1441. I believe that this will be the last such opportunity for the UN to authorize force before the allies go it alone.

The United States has made no secret of its offer to Saddam Hussein - and his top officials - of immunity to war crimes prosecution in exchange for political exile. As tensions have mounted on Saddam to take an active hand in avoiding war, he has placed his Minister of Defense under house arrest.

U2 spy planes are patrolling the skies over Baghdad. The U.S. threat of finding and killing Saddam within the first 48 hours of an invasion are very real. So the question remains, can this situation end peacefully before such an invasion unfolds?

The cost to the U.S. - regardless of the outcome - will be untold billions of dollars.

One way or another, Iraq will be occupied by either the U.S. or the UN. Inspections and disarmament will continue. In the aftermath, the Bush administration will enter an election year with 200,000 troops abroad, and a possible continued nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. Osama Bin Laden will likely still be at large.

Then of course there is the economy. Will U.S. investors rally following a resolution to the situation in Iraq? Is that all that is keeping them from rallying now?

I continue to search for the answers to these questions. Your thoughts are always appreciated.

Labels: iraq, saddam hussein, UN

"Iraqi 'terror ships' at sea."

In terms of international law, what implications does this have (If it's actually true)? Is this the smoking gun? If these vessels represent the entire store of Iraq’s banned weapons, could war be avoided? Are all the eggs in the same basket?

One thing is certain: These ships cannot stay out at sea forever. If they do carry banned weapons in their cargo, then they will be found out sooner or later. But at what cost?

In light of the US being prepared to bribe other nations to support an extensive war - and a subsequent occupation - wouldn't it be cheaper for us to propose that the UN weapons inspectors be allowed to claim global jurisdiction in their search for Iraqi engineered weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors would then have the authority of international law to seize and examine the cargo of these vessels whatever their location.

Furthermore, a UN Security Council resolution which bars UN member states from supplying these vessels until they have made a full disclosure with regards to their cargo should be immediately considered. The suspicion of vessels carrying tons of weapons grade materials on the high seas is adequate grounds for the Security Council to act on this matter.

To consider the worst case scenario: If these ships are capable of polluting regional ecosystems, and they do so, UN member nations who are adversely effected by this action must receive economic compensation for their environmental loses.

Either way – its cheaper than war.

Labels: iraq, UN, wmd

I agree that Saddam and members of his regime are guilty of crimes against humanity. The world knows this, and believes he should be removed from power. I don’t believe that is what is at issue here. Let me explain why I feel this way.

Bill Clinton successfully presented the American people with a war criminal in eastern Europe. Then he rallied support around a diplomatic effort convincing the UN - with NATO military support for the first time in history - to depose a government, and bring its top officials to trial in the World Court. The entire thing was a sham to distract media attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Yet the governments of the world still went along with him for the ride.

Why has the UN Security Council and three NATO member states chosen now to obstruct US endeavors to police the world from bad men? Are they the pacifists they claim to be? Since when?

I don’t believe for a second that France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and China have become pacifists. They are not. Their opposition to war has little to do with pacifism, and nothing to do with policing the world. Not a single government on the globe gives a damn about the suffering of the Iraqi people under an oppressive regime.

This is about money - not people.

If that’s true, how much would this war cost the United States? It’s being bandied about in Washington D.C. that a war in Iraq – and its subsequent occupation – would cost US taxpayers several tens of billions of dollars over the next two years.

How much more than this must we pay our “allies” to go along with this plan in the first place?

Turkey alone is going to cost the US in excess of 26 billion in grants and loans. What about all the fledgling EU states to be? How much are they each costing us? Why are the poorest nations of the world suddenly so vocally supportive of our policies? Were France, Germany, and Belgium simply too expensive the first time around? Are Russia and China just holding out for better deals when the second UN resolution gets put forward?

Turkey has come late to this game, but they stand to make a considerable profit. With US troops floating off their costs – unable to unload, and unable to turn around – how long can we hold out on them. Even if they only manage to negotiate one or two billion more, its still coming out of our pockets. And when I say “our pockets” I mean that literally.
Everyday the long-term costs of this potential war increase. I am concerned that a war is too costly a venture for our economy to sustain.

So what is our best alternative?

Labels: bill clinton, iraq, saddam hussein, UN