Posts filed under 'International'
August 30th, 2006
Two researchers, Ilyana Kuziemko and Eric Werker, recently published a study examining the monetary perks that go with a seat on the United Nations Security Council. According to the study, for the two-thirds of the seats that rotate membership every two years the amount of U.S. aid increases by 59%. The U.N. aid to those countries increases by 8 percent. The effect is even greater during times of crisis, when member votes are especially valuable.
On average, the typical developing country serving on the council can anticipate an additional $16 million from the United States and $1 million from the United Nations During important years, these numbers rise to $45 million from the United States and $8 million from the United Nations.
The study also concludes that the U.N. increases in aid appear to be driven by UNICEF, whose actions are historically dominated by the United States.
August 11th, 2006
It’s Reid who doesn’t get it:
This government’s response to the real threat of terrorism has only made things worse
by Dan Plesch, The Guardian
Friday, August 11, 2006
If true, the British agents who risked their lives to infiltrate and expose this massive plot to bring down airliners crossing the Atlantic to the U.S. are forever in our debt. If true, authorities have identified yet another way security can be bypassed. If true, the phrase “If true” may point to the more dangerous property of Thursday’s events: Governments aren’t trusted.
Plesch’s column points to a big difference between experiencing the aftermath of a great tragedy and anticpating one. This kind of criticism was completely lacking five years ago in America. One reason, of course, is that the nation was focused on its grief and anger. Another reason is that the first foreign attack on U.S. soil in decades automatically harkened back to the previous such attack, Pearl Harbor. We were supposed to believe our government was in the right, acting on our collective behalf, and at all times doing the right things. That is why the traditional news channels suddenly flatlined into the same story, and dissention such as the opposition by Barbara Lee was rare for several weeks. Airliners didn’t fall into the sea in pieces yesterday, and so Dan Plesch can question his country’s leadership in the same daily news cycle as the arrest of terrorists.
Mass murder is a very black-and-white concept. Even by those who might sit on the side of the fence that can spin it as a necessary evil, the bottom line is it is evil. Government double-talk is the large, smooth gradient in between. At face value, it is easy to understand the players without a program. The Good Guys just defeated the Bad Guys. Hooray. If you start factoring in the cost of accumulation of questionable decisions by those same Good Guys, and the long-evolving circumstances that helped create such fervent desperation in the Bad Guys, everyone starts wearing hats in shades of gray. The fact that, at least in the back of their minds, there is a sizeable population that questions how much truth is in the claims of the U.S. and U.K. is a byproduct of the low level of trust those in power have engendered. That, as much as explosive combinations of on-board liquids, is a threat to be addressed.
The lives of thousands of people were just saved, allegedly. A long-awaited British version of the September 11, 2001 attacks was thwarted Thursday, reportedly. Backup attacks may have been stepped up in the wake of the arrests, presumably. Al-Qaida was behind it all, claims the U.S. A million travelers are now moving about their lives apprehensively, at best — definitely. Fear is the only certainty.
July 22nd, 2006
Almost five years ago, I took great comfort in the aftermath of the airliner attacks on the U.S. looking at online papers from around the world. Coverage of the events of the day by mainstream U.S. media were myopic and singing the same note. About three hours a night, I went through a rotation of web sites from China, Iran, Israel, England, Russia, Korea, Brazil and a few other nations to get a different perspective. In some cases, the perspective was similar to the States. Usually there were other angles to follow and other opinions to be expressed.
Although three hours a night is probably too much to spend on a regular basis, I look at the problems evident in Israel’s new war and wonder how the rest of the world sees it. Here are some different shoes to try on once in a while and walk around:
July 14th, 2006
U.S. vetoes U.N. resolution on Mideast
This is disturbing on several levels, but I’ll focus on two.
First, it again calls into question the wisdom of allowing veto power for the five permanent members of the U.N. It has to be considered a deterrent to real diplomacy. A harm-reduction approach might be to not do away with it entirely, but to give that council of five collective veto power and require 3 of the 5 to agree (like a supreme court decision).
Second, the implication put forth by John Bolton is that a call for cessation of violence would deter the progress the violence is making. One side abducts a soldier, an act in itself the amplification of many non-violent but intrusive exchanges between Israel and Palestine. The other abducts officials and lawmakers. The next thing you know, bombs are going off. I can recognize the validity of a controlled burn metaphor in some situation, but there is nothing controlled about this most recent mess. To suggest that interrupting the “fluid events on the ground” with a call for peace would inflame tensions is ridiculous.
Personally, I believe in the need and potential of the United Nations. Some do not and want it eliminated. Either way, we can agree that the current state of the organization is not functioning well and needs some kind of change in its structure.
