Here's the story I get from listening to Obama's press conference (given exclusively to the US media):
So I'm sitting here thinking wow! this is almost as much contempt for the process (not to mention the problem) as a "global leader" could possibly muster. I'm thinking "the Europeans are going to be hopping mad". Then I heard a bit later that Sarkozy gave an almost identical press conference to the French media (without the pathetic excuse about the weather) and I realized that all the leaks that have been coming out that said that everything was stitched up before the gabfest even started were true. African and Islander delegations must be sitting open-mouthed wondering why they bothered to spend any money going there.
For Obama, Copenhagen was a photo-opportunity, reminiscent of Bush's aircraft carrier visit.
He says it's better to have no agreement as long as people go home and try to do something, than to have an agreement like Kyoto which had "legally binding" commitments that nobody kept. But that's wrong, because the "commitments" that people have allegedly made to be transparent about how well they're managing to cut carbon emissions are no less likely to be ignored than the Kyoto ones. So effectively what we've got 15 years after Kyoto is nothing at all and once again it has been the US that sabotaged the whole thing. I supposed you could credit Obama insofar as he didn't agree to anything he can't get through Congress, whereas the Clinton Administration did agree to something they couldn't get through Congress. Apparently only 45% of Americans believe that AGW is happening, and half of those probably don't want to stop it because it'll bring on the Rapture (or whatever it's called that Christians hope for at the end of the world).
If Copenhagen demonstrates anything at all, it is that the worse the problem gets, the further our leaders are going to stick their heads in the sand (while a substantial minority will also try to enhance our growing conviction that scientists are the new communist conspiracy). I fully expect that the US will soon declare a War on Warming, which will be designed specifically to aid the US armaments industry - and, like all its other Wars (on Drugs, Poverty, Terror, etc), will be at best unrelated to solving the problem identified in the name or at worst designed to perpetuate it.
While I'm on my theme of the US as a militarized society, I find it funny that in press conferences American journalists call the President "sir" - like they're in the army too and he's their commander in chief instead of their elected servant.
I came here this morning and I had a chat to President M from Ethiopia ("representing Africa") and the leaders of China, India, Brazil and South Africa (presumably not representing Africa) and we agreed that we couldn't agree to do anything in concert so we agreed to tell each other what we're going to do and be transparent about it and in the meantime we'll work on trying to agree what to do and how to do it. And now I'll take a couple of questions but there's some weather coming in Washington so I have to get back.
So I'm sitting here thinking wow! this is almost as much contempt for the process (not to mention the problem) as a "global leader" could possibly muster. I'm thinking "the Europeans are going to be hopping mad". Then I heard a bit later that Sarkozy gave an almost identical press conference to the French media (without the pathetic excuse about the weather) and I realized that all the leaks that have been coming out that said that everything was stitched up before the gabfest even started were true. African and Islander delegations must be sitting open-mouthed wondering why they bothered to spend any money going there.
For Obama, Copenhagen was a photo-opportunity, reminiscent of Bush's aircraft carrier visit.
He says it's better to have no agreement as long as people go home and try to do something, than to have an agreement like Kyoto which had "legally binding" commitments that nobody kept. But that's wrong, because the "commitments" that people have allegedly made to be transparent about how well they're managing to cut carbon emissions are no less likely to be ignored than the Kyoto ones. So effectively what we've got 15 years after Kyoto is nothing at all and once again it has been the US that sabotaged the whole thing. I supposed you could credit Obama insofar as he didn't agree to anything he can't get through Congress, whereas the Clinton Administration did agree to something they couldn't get through Congress. Apparently only 45% of Americans believe that AGW is happening, and half of those probably don't want to stop it because it'll bring on the Rapture (or whatever it's called that Christians hope for at the end of the world).
If Copenhagen demonstrates anything at all, it is that the worse the problem gets, the further our leaders are going to stick their heads in the sand (while a substantial minority will also try to enhance our growing conviction that scientists are the new communist conspiracy). I fully expect that the US will soon declare a War on Warming, which will be designed specifically to aid the US armaments industry - and, like all its other Wars (on Drugs, Poverty, Terror, etc), will be at best unrelated to solving the problem identified in the name or at worst designed to perpetuate it.
While I'm on my theme of the US as a militarized society, I find it funny that in press conferences American journalists call the President "sir" - like they're in the army too and he's their commander in chief instead of their elected servant.
The US military may have taken a cue from Obama's September speech favouring intervention in Pakistan. In any case they are increasingly seeing it as a necessary step in their war against the Taleban-Al Qaeda-whatever-it-is-really-that-doesn't-l
Worth reading from today's Asia Times is this article by Chalmers Johnson, Peddling democracy the US way. Johnson is a leading scholar of East Asia. The article reeks of frustration. Some key quotes:
the leaders of the missionary country are invariably infected with the sins of hubris, racism and arrogance
On the eve of our entry into World War I, William Jennings Bryan, president Woodrow Wilson's first secretary of state, described the United States as "the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes".
As Noah Feldman, the Coalition Provisional Authority's law advisor, put it in November 2003, "If you move too fast the wrong people could get elected".
The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a list of more than 201 overseas military operations from the end of World War II until September 11, 2001, in which we were involved and normally struck the first blow. (The list is reprinted by Gore Vidal in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, p. 22-41.) The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not included. In no instance did democratic governments come about as a direct result of any of these military activities.
The article doesn't mention post-WW2 Germany (West), although arguably some of that country's more democratic institutions arose from British Labour Party influence (I'm thinking of the system of mitbestimmung, in which workers' representatives had a say in the management of their company - something the Labour Party could not impose in its own "democracy".)
the leaders of the missionary country are invariably infected with the sins of hubris, racism and arrogance
On the eve of our entry into World War I, William Jennings Bryan, president Woodrow Wilson's first secretary of state, described the United States as "the supreme moral factor in the world's progress and the accepted arbiter of the world's disputes".
As Noah Feldman, the Coalition Provisional Authority's law advisor, put it in November 2003, "If you move too fast the wrong people could get elected".
The Federation of American Scientists has compiled a list of more than 201 overseas military operations from the end of World War II until September 11, 2001, in which we were involved and normally struck the first blow. (The list is reprinted by Gore Vidal in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got To Be So Hated, p. 22-41.) The current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not included. In no instance did democratic governments come about as a direct result of any of these military activities.
The article doesn't mention post-WW2 Germany (West), although arguably some of that country's more democratic institutions arose from British Labour Party influence (I'm thinking of the system of mitbestimmung, in which workers' representatives had a say in the management of their company - something the Labour Party could not impose in its own "democracy".)
I heard an interview with Chomsky the other day. It was actually quite interesting. The BBC interviewer started out on WMD and Saddam. C pointed out (quite rightly) that this was a false premise for the war and went on to say that the war was actually all about oil. I have tended to dismiss the importance of this aspect of it in the past since the US was perfectly able to buy large quantities of oil from Iraq and I tended to argue for a wider geo-political aim - involving establishing a US presence in the heart of the Arab world with the capacity to influence developments in a now half-unfriendly Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel/Palestine, etc. Chomsky's reply to the BBC, however, emphasised the importance of controlling the oil resources, as opposed to merely buying them.
At first I couldn't really understand this point, but since having some exchanges on my previous post with![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
rfmcdpei and gamoonbat about the original reasons for the formation of the G7 (as it was then), I started to think more about it. The 1973 and 1979 oil shocks did not produce an outpouring of anti-Arab sentiment in the West. The G7 was not concerned then so much with oil politics as with managing the consequences for the world capitalist economy. These consequences included an excess supply of petrodollars that, combined with declining output (due to higher input costs), created stagflation in the western economies. Aside from these consequences (as usual borne mainly by the poor), the main beneficiaries of the oil price rises were the western oil companies and banks.
Oil politics wasn't so important then because the major oil producers (Saudi Arabia and Iraq, also Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, etc) were 'safe' - that is, firmly allied to the US. They deposited their money in American and European banks and put the question of Palestine on the backburner. Actually, Libya was the only major 'renegade' (from an oil point of view). The USSR was only a minor competitor for influence in the Middle East and the oil shocks actually made it possible for that country to start exploiting more costly resources in Siberia - thereby becoming a major energy exporter itself.
Later, by contrast, Iran had a fundamentalist revolution, Saddam became a turncoat, Al Qaeda emerged as a rather popular Saudi opposition movement and general thorn in the side of western dominance of the region, the Soviet Union destabilized Afghanistan leading to the rise of an anti-Western Taleban, and, perhaps, most importantly, China became a major buyer of Middle Eastern oil. These developments arguably place in jeopardy not only continued western oil supplies, but continued dominance of the industry by the western oil majors and the health of western financial institutions. I don't know enough to draw any firm conclusions here (and Chomsky didn't enlighten me at all), but it could be quite important to follow the money trail from all these 'out of control' oil producing countries.
If CNOOC is looking to purchase western oil companies (e.g, its recent failed attempt to buy Conoco), many commentators are arguing that it doesn't matter because the deposits are in Southeast Asia, not in America itself. But maybe it does matter because that will give China more control, not only of world oil supplies, but over world financial flows. What does Iran do with the revenues earned from oil exports? Do they find their way into Swiss banks or not?
What happens to Gazprom's profits? Possibly, since Schroeder has become so close to them, they are invested in Deutschebank? Incidentally, the tie up between Schroeder and Gazprom can only be good for Germany and German dominance within Europe.
On a slightly different tack, I had to end up laughing at Chomsky's conclusion. He pointed out (again correctly I think) that the Iraq invasion has somewhat backfired on the US. While agreeing that it's good that Saddam has gone and that Iraq has had elections, he also pointed out that the sort of democracy that is emerging is scarcely to the benefit of the US as it will increase Iranian influence in Iraq and the invasion has also opened the country to terrorist groups that weren't there before. Iraq is, in many ways, more 'out of control' than before. He sounded so disappointed!
At first I couldn't really understand this point, but since having some exchanges on my previous post with
rfmcdpei and gamoonbat about the original reasons for the formation of the G7 (as it was then), I started to think more about it. The 1973 and 1979 oil shocks did not produce an outpouring of anti-Arab sentiment in the West. The G7 was not concerned then so much with oil politics as with managing the consequences for the world capitalist economy. These consequences included an excess supply of petrodollars that, combined with declining output (due to higher input costs), created stagflation in the western economies. Aside from these consequences (as usual borne mainly by the poor), the main beneficiaries of the oil price rises were the western oil companies and banks. Oil politics wasn't so important then because the major oil producers (Saudi Arabia and Iraq, also Iran, Venezuela, Indonesia, etc) were 'safe' - that is, firmly allied to the US. They deposited their money in American and European banks and put the question of Palestine on the backburner. Actually, Libya was the only major 'renegade' (from an oil point of view). The USSR was only a minor competitor for influence in the Middle East and the oil shocks actually made it possible for that country to start exploiting more costly resources in Siberia - thereby becoming a major energy exporter itself.
Later, by contrast, Iran had a fundamentalist revolution, Saddam became a turncoat, Al Qaeda emerged as a rather popular Saudi opposition movement and general thorn in the side of western dominance of the region, the Soviet Union destabilized Afghanistan leading to the rise of an anti-Western Taleban, and, perhaps, most importantly, China became a major buyer of Middle Eastern oil. These developments arguably place in jeopardy not only continued western oil supplies, but continued dominance of the industry by the western oil majors and the health of western financial institutions. I don't know enough to draw any firm conclusions here (and Chomsky didn't enlighten me at all), but it could be quite important to follow the money trail from all these 'out of control' oil producing countries.
If CNOOC is looking to purchase western oil companies (e.g, its recent failed attempt to buy Conoco), many commentators are arguing that it doesn't matter because the deposits are in Southeast Asia, not in America itself. But maybe it does matter because that will give China more control, not only of world oil supplies, but over world financial flows. What does Iran do with the revenues earned from oil exports? Do they find their way into Swiss banks or not?
What happens to Gazprom's profits? Possibly, since Schroeder has become so close to them, they are invested in Deutschebank? Incidentally, the tie up between Schroeder and Gazprom can only be good for Germany and German dominance within Europe.
On a slightly different tack, I had to end up laughing at Chomsky's conclusion. He pointed out (again correctly I think) that the Iraq invasion has somewhat backfired on the US. While agreeing that it's good that Saddam has gone and that Iraq has had elections, he also pointed out that the sort of democracy that is emerging is scarcely to the benefit of the US as it will increase Iranian influence in Iraq and the invasion has also opened the country to terrorist groups that weren't there before. Iraq is, in many ways, more 'out of control' than before. He sounded so disappointed!
Asia Times on rule of law in the US
War crimes made easy
Senator Lincoln Chaffee posed the following question to Rice... "Under the Iraq war resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq. So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?"
She answered: "Senator, I don't want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the president retains those powers in the 'war on terrorism' and in the war on Iraq."
Mind you, I think Congress deserves what it got. They were totally supine when they thought the US could start another war and win it.
From Nacht und Nebel to 'disappearance' to 'rendition'. Same, same?
Senator Lincoln Chaffee posed the following question to Rice... "Under the Iraq war resolution, we restricted any military action to Iraq. So would you agree that if anything were to occur on Syrian or Iranian soil, you would have to return to Congress to get that authorization?"
She answered: "Senator, I don't want to try and circumscribe presidential war powers. And I think you'll understand fully that the president retains those powers in the 'war on terrorism' and in the war on Iraq."
Mind you, I think Congress deserves what it got. They were totally supine when they thought the US could start another war and win it.
From Nacht und Nebel to 'disappearance' to 'rendition'. Same, same?
The ex-leader of the Labor Party has published a book of memoirs (slinging mud wherever he can). The Murdoch press is serializing it, which must mean something. I heard the other day about his claim that he was a victim of the factions, that the currently leader organized a campaign of undermining him involving allegations about his sex life, brawling and so on. This weekend The Australian's headline says 'Ditch the US alliance' (quotation marks in original), and underneath 'We're a mere US colony'. I expect this will appeal to vast numbers of party members. But the headline actually reminded me of a talk by one of that constant stream of visiting American 'scholars' from right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute who always manage to grab media coverage (unlike the homegrown ones). This particular American was arguing that it's time for the US alliance to be buried. It was set up, he said, after the Pacific War and basically aimed at providing protection for Australia from communist expansion. Now we have a good relationship with China and we should take more responsibility for our own defence. The US will not come to our aid. All true, apart from the unspoken caveat that we are still required to come to America's aid. That would, of course, be acting responsibly in our own 'defence'.
For a couple of weeks I've been hearing off and on about a demonstration staged by a few dozen family members of some men who have been detained by the Uzbek authorities on charges the family members say were trumped up. Today I heard that this peaceful demonstration was broken up by the authorities with extreme violence. Many people were killed.
Not an unusual story in itself. What gives it the irony, however, is that Uzbekistan had an election on the same day that the Ukraine had its election. In the former, only one candidate was permitted to stand, while in the latter there were two candidates and a dispute over who actually won. The United States government, eagerly jumped in to support the 'democratic' forces in Ukraine, but failed completely to even mention the situation in Uzbekistan. The essential difference between the Uzbek dictator and the former Ukrainian president is that the former had cleverly offered his ship of state as an aircraft carrier in the 'War Against Terrorism'. Unlike the latter, therefore, he remains free to terrorize his own population.
Not an unusual story in itself. What gives it the irony, however, is that Uzbekistan had an election on the same day that the Ukraine had its election. In the former, only one candidate was permitted to stand, while in the latter there were two candidates and a dispute over who actually won. The United States government, eagerly jumped in to support the 'democratic' forces in Ukraine, but failed completely to even mention the situation in Uzbekistan. The essential difference between the Uzbek dictator and the former Ukrainian president is that the former had cleverly offered his ship of state as an aircraft carrier in the 'War Against Terrorism'. Unlike the latter, therefore, he remains free to terrorize his own population.
