Top 5 Diplomatic and Power Moves in 2009
It was a unique and troubling year in international affairs and global diplomacy. I am fully aware and admit that this list will not be complete, conclusive or correct in everyone’s opinion. I may even be lucky to agree with you on only 1, or perhaps, 2 events. Nevertheless, the intention is to invite your own lists, and suggestions for mine.
2010, or twently-ten, is going to be a rapid and complex period in international history. Twenty-ten does have a nice ring to it.
5) Seeing nuclear power developing in Iran, the rest of the Middle East’s/Persian Gulf’s powers aim for nuclear programs as well. The Middle East states say they only want atomic power. Some probably do. But United States government and private analysts say they believe that the rush of activity is also intended to counter the threat of a nuclear Iran.
4) US continues to grow UAV attacks in Pakistan, hunt and kill Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud. Issue becomes a major public outrage during Secretary Clinton’s visit to Pakistan in October. Reliance on robotic remote-control vehicles grew quickly in US armed forces.
3) Israel launched major offensive into Gaza. before declaring a unilateral ceasefire before the Obama inauguration. Israel said that it was discontinuing its 22-day-old assault on Hamas, saying the objective of disabling Hamas’s military capabilities had been achieved. Peace plan made no, if not backward progress in 2009.
2) Beijing and New Delhi get Nuclear Hotline. 
The leaders of India and China agreed to set one up between New Delhi and Beijing, highlighting concerns that a worsening border dispute could quickly become the first major conflict of the multipolar era.
1) Kim Jong Il says “skrew you, I’ll do whatever I want, bitches,” to the United States. In January 2009, Pyongyang refused to accept terms proposed by the US and decided to wait out the Bush administration, which foolishly took North Korea off its list of state sponsors of terrorism. In April North Korea test-fired a ballistic missile despite widespread international opposition, testing the young Obama Presidency. When the UN Security Council tightened sanctions Kim Jong Il expelled international nuclear inspectors.
On May 25, 2009, North Korea announced that it had successfully conducted its second nuclear test, again the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution to tighten sanctions.
In August 2009, former President Bill Clinton paid a dramatic 20-hour visit to North Korea, in which he won the freedom of two captured American journalists, opened a diplomatic channel to North Korea’s reclusive government and dined with the North’s ailing leader, Kim Jong-il. The North Korean government, had sentenced the Current TV journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, to 12 years of hard labor for illegally entering North Korean territory. Mr. Clinton apologized to Mr. Kim for their actions, according to the North Korean state media. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton denied that Mr. Clinton had apologized.
Finally, North Korea keeps up its arms trade business. A shipment of arms and apparently sophisticated missiles from North Korea was seized in Thailand, on a tip from American intelligence agencies, as officials try to determine whether the cargo was headed to South Asia or the Middle East.
Do you agree? What are your top 5? Tell us.
Global Fund in Copenhagen should not be overlooked
By: Melissa Vargas
The unavoidable truth, is that the most economically and socially disadvantaged people are the ones that are the worst affected by climate change’s extreme weather patterns and its corollaries.
The United Nations’ climate conference in Copenhagen this month hopes to a find a new climate treaty to restore the Kyoto Protocol. Officials have 11 days to convince 192 countries to impede the growth of the global GHG emissions. Although the international goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are vital, the opportunity to establish a global fund to help poor nations fight climate change and the extreme environmental shifts that follow is of equal importance.
The unavoidable truth, is that the most economically and socially disadvantaged people are the ones that are the worst affected by climate change’s extreme weather patterns and its corollaries. Scientific estimates claim that more than 300,000 people die each year because of climate change related events. The living conditions of an additional 325 million people are significantly affected by the extreme weather patterns that have doubled in the past 20 years; more frequent and more severe rainfall, more intense heat waves and extended droughts.1 The unavoidable truth is that the most economically and socially disadvantaged people are the ones that are the worst affected by climate change’s extreme weather patterns and its corollaries. (continue reading..)
Obama’s New War: A Tough Sell
By: Ricardo Rodriguez*
Having campaigned on an ostensibly anti-war platform, Obama will likely disappoint a large percentage of his base with the announcement of the new Afghan surge. For those on the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party, feelings of abandonment may be a more appropriate term.
The fact remains, however, that Obama’s presidential campaign was no more anti-war than his proponents care to admit. While he certainly hammered on the point that he voted against the war in Iraq and to an extent called for a scaling-down, he was vociferous in his condemnation of the Bush administration for neglecting Afghanistan, which Obama consistently added was the ‘true war.’ In other words, there was nothing subtle about his views on the Afghan war and the signals he conveyed regarding a potential escalation of troops.
President Barack Obama finishes his speech about the war in Afghanistan at the US Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., on Tuesday night. (Charles Dharapak/AP)
After hearing his speech last night, appropriately delivered at West Point in front of 4,000 cadets, one cannot help but sense the urgency and sincerity in Obama’s voice and demeanor. He appeared tired and worn out from deliberation, eyes glossy with underlying sadness. Often invoking history, from the strong words of Eisenhower to the leadership of FDR, he sought to provide an overarching context for his decision in an attempt to rally the confidence of those who would be called upon to make the most immediate sacrifice—American soldiers. Obama was not there to placate his base of progressives, much less the hawks on the right who will likely criticize any decision he would have made short of an unconditional surge, with no timeline whatsoever. Nonetheless, for many on both sides, Obama’s plea was far too abstract, lacking the logistics needed to justify what will likely be another long-term commitment.
Indeed, the fallout coming from both sides was immediate and stark. Sean Hannity called Obama weak, and not surprisingly cited the imprudence of setting an 18-month timeline. Chris Matthews, although visibly bewildered by Obama’s decision, was much more subtle in his critique, calling the surge a “Rube Goldberg”—an unnecessary, ostentatiously engineered contraption designed to complete a fairly simple task.
Hannity’s critique was expected, but still unfortunate; he of all people should have commended Obama for showing a clear commitment to US security, the lynchpin issue of conservatives. Matthews, on the other hand, was simply misguided in his interpretation; to say that al-Qaeda’s potential reemergence vis-à-vis an unstable Afghanistan need not be prevented through a complex, comprehensive effort minimizes a dire situation. Even more so, it shows an utter failure in understanding the big picture.
With his approval ratings at their lowest since he took office—most notably exacerbated by the fragile economy—Obama faces tremendous risks with the Afghan decision. Perhaps the most telling sign of long-term political risk is growing isolationist sentiment among the American people, which according to an upcoming report from the Pew Research Center has reached a 4-decade high. Combined with a 35 percent approval rating on his handling of Afghanistan and 50 percent opposition to a troop escalation, according to Gallup polls, Obama faces an uphill battle in selling what is clearly an unpopular war.
After having deliberated for over two-months since General McChrystal submitted his request for more troops, it is hard to imagine that someone who is perceived to be as reasonable as Obama would make such an unpopular decision had he not truly deemed the worse case scenario far too grave to ignore. Unfortunately for Obama, as Ron Reagan Jr. so aptly stated, the big picture cannot fit on a bumper sticker. Suffice to say, for an economically downtrodden American people, this will be a tough sell.
*Ricardo Rodriguez is the Associate Editor of www.politics3.com
30,000 More Troops, For What?
Last night, after a long awaited and highly scrutinized build up President Obama addressed the country from West Point Military Academy on the future of the war in Afghanistan. His speech was methodic, organized and tried to explain the reasoning behind the surge. After announcing his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan as soon as this month, he immediately announced his timetable to bring them back home in the next sentence. The 18 month timetable was a clear warning to many groups including the American military, the Afghans, the Pakistanis and Al Qaeda aligned groups that the open ended U.S. commitment in Afghanistan was over.
An Afghan National Policeman (ANP) fires a rocket-propelled grenade during a live-fire exercise near Beshud, Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan, Feb. 13, 2008. The range is for U.S. forces to evaluate the ANP on thier marksmanship skills. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Justin French)
The core of his speech and strategy was all about one word, transition. President Obama’s core argument is complex, but his attempt to make his explanation palpable to the audience was overly simplified at the expense of substance. In his argument he outlined a 3-prong strategy. The United States seeks to introduce additional troops into Afghanistan to foster the right environment for the Afghan government, its troops and people to take responsibility for their own security and prosperity. The U.S. will work within civilian political and developmental channels to support the Afghan people and lastly continue the partnership with Pakistan to strengthen their military and political institutions.
However, the President glossed over the massive corruption challenges in Afghanistan, the illegitimacy of the most recent election which gave President Hamid Karzai another term, and he never mentioned the main source of Taliban and al Qaeda funding in the country – heroin.
The President hoped to convince the American people, anti-war members of Congress and allies around the world to support an escalation of this war. He did a good job explaining the value of securing Afghanistan and its connection to the attacks of 9-11. He did a poorer job explaining why 30,000 additional combat troops would be able to do anything different than the 68,000 troops that are currently there.
