![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
This is old news now, but first of all, it was interesting to see most people over 30 very quickly returned to cold war mindsets as soon as Russia invaded Georgian territory a couple of weeks ago. The fact it was sparked by the Georgian invasion of a disputed province didn’t seem to matter, because as far as many were concerned, it was Russia reasserting control over the former Soviet bloc states. That is an important aspect, but we also need to remember that these provinces are disputed, so the situation is closer to a hypothetical Serbian invasion of Kosovo than any cold war era military intervention. Do you think the US and other western states would act differently if Serbia did retake Kosovo in a similar fashion to what Georgia attempted? Interestingly, as another blog pointed out (I can’t remember which), if you consider both Georgia and Russia democracies, which they loosely are, then this scenario blows the democratic peace theory out of the water.
Now to the Australia Russia Uranium deal in The Age today. Apparently our idiot Foreign Minister Smith has raised the prospect of blocking the deal on the basis of Russia’s recent actions in Georgia. This is a clear demonstration of the mindset I've just mentioned. The authors Flitton and Nicholson don’t offer any context for the conflict, stating only that "...Russian troops crossed into the disputed Georgian territories..." This is journalists following the policy line of the state. It’s such blatant pandering to western state interests that they even throw in fears of Russia selling on Australian Uranium to Syria, whose nuclear program consists of a research reactor under IAEA safeguards. This represents yet another blatant toeing of the Washington line by The Age.
However such issues should be virtually irrelevant to the uranium agreement, and it seems that another Labor MP, chair of the committee on treaties Kelvin Thompson, has got to the point and said that the main reason we should not be selling to Russia is the risk that they could then sell it on to third parties. Thompson seems like a smart guy, and even suggested that we consider waiting until after the 2010 NPT review conference to consider ratifying the deal. There is a particular fear that Aus could be sold on to states such as Iran and this is indeed a legitimate fear. But again Smith outs himself as a fool by claiming that the safeguards aren’t the issue, they already prevent this. today featured a story on the proposed Australian export of uranium to Russia, which now apparently
The great thing about having a blog is that you can just vent about almost any issue you want.
Most La Trobe University students really need to learn some realism. I dont mean the Morgenthau etc theoretical arguments, that I dont entirely follow, just some practical realities of the international system as it exists today. Discussing international law today, specifically criminal law and enforcement, some students were outraged that the leadership of the Khmer Rouge would face a criminal trial, while it was 'the Americans' that devastated the countryside of both Cambodia and Vietnam in the 1970s. Are they arguing that one sided justice is worse than no justice at all? I would rather have the powerful criminals stay untouched while the weak criminals face justice than neither of them face justice at all. It is unrealistic and stupid to expect the most powerful state to simply hand over its leadership to face a criminal trial, or hand over any jurisdiction to such a body that they could not control. Anyone who believes they should needs to go back to watching Today Tonight.
It is very fashionable today to issue blanket anti-US statements that arent based on facts, just emotion. Most La Trobe students also need some perspective on international humanitarian issues. While I dont agree with arguments from neoconservatives about Americas global mission, or Hitchens style arguments about US moral superiority. But, people are way too ready to argue that because the US is the most powerful state, it means it is responsible for everything, and is the source of all evil in the world. I might be inadvertantly attacking alot of the people I agree with, and even my own arguments here, but the US is not the Great Satan that many make it out to be. It sounds contrived, but the world could probably have a worser hegemon than the USA. In saying that, the US is not some sort of overwhelming force for good, and has done bad things. but that doesnt mean we should lose sight of all the other criminals across the globe. The events at Abu Grahib were horrendous, but on par with a deliberate and systematic genocide? No.
A lecturer today made the argument that the 20th Century's 'return to barbarism' means that the US is in effect responsible for the September 11 attacks. Wouldnt a more rational argument be that September 11 is an example of barbaric acts? She was talking as if there was nothing wrong with the act itself, that attacking civilians is justified because of the barbarism of the USA. How can someone arguing against barbarism, argue that a barbaric act is justified? If killing the 'innocent' people in the WTC is justified, then surely the firebombing that signals the beginning of this renewed barbarism was justified too?
As a disclaimer, I consider myself to be almost as left as the come, but some of the unintelligent and un-thought through arguments of many others on the left really discredits some of the more intelligent ones. I know many of the arguments I have made here are not prime examples of great argument (and I contradict myself within this very post, guess where!), and I probably sound quite elitist in arguing this point of view. You may even consider me part of the supposed unintelligent left. As Chomsky argues, intellectuals have a responsibility to criticise and denounce the crimes of their own side, but when this leaves behind reasonable argument and appeals purely to emotion it will never prove an effective check on the abuse of power.
Rudd's proposal for an International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament is fantastic news. It looks like we finally have a PM who is going to put non-proliferation and disarmament at the top of the national agenda, and actively work for it in the international arena. I know nuclear weapons NGOs are working hard to influence the construction of this new body, and what exactly will be its main focus. Rudds announcement came after he visited the Hiroshima memorial, the first Australian PM to do so. You can get the text of the Kyoto Uni speech here, but I'm going to pick out a few interesting key parts.
The speech pushed all the wanky Japan-Australia friendship stuff, and also reiterated and clarified Rudd's proposal for the Asia Pacific community (does he have any more of these things up his sleeve?). There was also a strong focus on climate change. The interesting part was his explanation for this nuclear commission.
I definitely like his first point.
"In the past decade, the world has not paid adequate attention to nuclear weapons."
He also states that...
"...we must be committed to the ultimate objective of a nuclear weapons free world"
So this is all a good sign. Unfortunately it is slightly tarred by his references to Iran and North Korea, as if they are the only states that are driving nuclear proliferation. Rudd consistently uses the term non-proliferation ahead of disarmament, and this is a conscious choice. It seems to be a non-proliferation commission first, and a disarmament commission second. Yet these are mutually reinforcing things that can only succeed when they both work together. By focussing on non-proliferation over disarmament, Rudd is ignoring the issue of the NWS arsenals that are one major aspect driving this proliferation.
Rudds renewed emphasis on the NPT is a good thing, he notes that...
"There are two courses of action available to the community of nations: to allow the NPT to continue to fragment; or to exert every global effort to restore and defend the treaty."
This is very true, and the recalcitrence of states in fullfilling their NPT obligations (both NWS and NNWS) is a major force weakening the treaty. Rudd also emphasises the importance of the 2010 review conference. Will it be able to achieve anything were the last couple have failed?
Rudd also outlines some possible courses of recommendation that this commission might adopt, looking at the recommendations made by Schultz/Kissinger/Perry/Nunn, that we should
"-Strengthen the means of monitoring compliance with the NPT – which could be achieved through requiring all NPT signatories to adopt monitoring provisions designed by the IAEA;
-Develop an international system to manage the nuclear fuel cycle – given the growing interest in nuclear energy; and
-Adopt a process to bring the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty into force. "
All seemingly good recommendations. The CTBT and IAEA monitoring are very important and possibly achieveable measures, eventually. But international control of the nuclear fuel cycle is a very interesting question. Will NWS and other nuclear states give up their control of the fuel cycle to prevent others obtaining the same technologies? Or will the proposal be more along the lines of international control for some, and state control for the established nuclear powers. That is the sort of proposal floating around now in relation to Iran's nuclear program. But this would create a two-tiered international system, with developed rich states maintaining control over the energy supplies of poorer ones. This question also applies to the idea of increased IAEA monitoring, would the established NWS have to undergo as extensive monitoring as states such as Iran would? It comes down again to who is percieved as a 'good state'.
And again, this group of recommendations mainly still focus on non-proliferation rather than disarmament.
Lets hope this renewed focus on nuclear weapons will successfully evolve into a wider reaching one than it looks like now, because in order to effectively curb proliferation and the state desire for nukes, we need to reduce their presence in the international system aswell. The growing evidence of the 'second nuclear age' and the nuclear energy renaissance mean that the danger of nuclear weapons is increasing and there is a critical need to combat that threat.
In related news, the press conference after Rudd's speech revealed that he is apparently standing by the Labor policy of no nuclear exports to non-NPT members. This means that India will not be getting Australian uranium, yet it doesnt necessarily change Australia's position at the NSG. I imaging we will still be in the position of giving others the green light to export, while we hold back. A good sign nonetheless.
Another short post today. I wish I could create some sort of resources section on this blog, with a whole lot of useful and interesting books/films etc that I've seen over the years. Maybe I will, if I ever get around to it, and if I do, this book would probably be one of the first to go in there.
A documentary on the fantastic Shake Hands With The Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda by Romeo Dallaire was on the ABC last night, and I managed to catch most of it thanks to helpful a tip off from a friend. I read the book a couple of years ago, and it is a truly fantastic account of the Rwandan genocide, along with the internal and international problems in effectively dealing with it. The book is an account of Dallaire's time as commander of UNAMIR in implementing the failed Arusha peace accords, and the later genocide. Dallaire recounts the internal problems inherent in the UN bureaucracy, and the troubles he had in getting assistance from the underfunded and over-bureaucratised organisation. He also describes the international troubles and frustrations of his quest to get additional assistance from the international community to stop the genocide once he realised it was planned, and when it atually began. It is a moving personal account of the genocide, and a fantastic book. Apparently a movie adaptation was released in Canada last year, which I would be interested to see.
It also reveals the international community's constant lament of 'never again' to be the self serving lie that it is. This gets rolled out after every international tragedy since 1945, along with the claim that we didnt fully understand the true extent of the crimes. I hope that the current lack of effective international action in regard to current crimes in Africa will not be so devastating as in 1994.
This is a video from the Cluster Munitions Coalition, which works to ban cluster bombs. The conference is on right now until the end of May in Dublin negotiating. The startingpoint for negotiations was established at the Wellington Cluster Munitions conference earlier this year, and you can find the draft treaty there.
Australia is one of the states who aims to water down the outright ban on cluster bombs. This is done through attempts to introduce exceptions for bombs with self destruction or neutralisation features (such as Australia's purchased SMArt 155 artillery shells) . All cluster bomb manufacturers claim their weapons are guarunteed to explode or work in this way, so personally, I'll believe this part when I see it. Australia also wants to make it possible to work alongside and benefit from other state's force's that do use cluster munitions, such as our lovely allies the USA.
Its funny to look at the states that support modifying the treaty in such a way (mostly Europeans, Japan, Canada and Australia) are opposing the developing world states where cluster munitions are actually most likely to be used.
Hopefully we can follow the way of the ottawa convention banning landmines. Cluster bombs do not discriminate, and always have a disproportionally high rate of harming civilians and children. They often effectively become anti-personel landmines, remaining dangerous a lot longer than the conflict itself.
Hopefully the dickheads Smith and Fitzgibbon will do the right thing and push for a full comprehensive ban. And maybe Australian newspapers will pick some of this up.
You can sign an Australian petition here. And MAPW has a link to a factsheet here.
The assignments are finished, the sickness is fading, so its time to get back to some (semi)substantial blogging. The NPT PrepCom which i mentioned a while ago wrapped up last week, and NGO reaching critial will has a great selection of documents and reports from the meeting.
The documents are relatively bland, and most of them mention the same unfulfilled treaties and the additional protocol, all look to Iran/North Korea as major threats to the regime, and call for more disarmament by the NWS. But a few significant issues did come up.
I'll start off with the Australian delegation, and the first thing that strikes you is the similarity with last years conference papers. A significant difference this year was that 2 NGO representatives made up part of the official Australian delegation. Definitely something to be proud of, and one of them was from MAPW. The interesting thing about this year was that they raised the idea of a nuclear weapons convention. The chair's factual summary also highlighted this. This is pretty new stuff, the idea of the NWC is an NGO idea floated around for a while. ICAN has a pretty detailed draft convention here. Its interesting stuff, and worth looking at and working towards.
The final day of the conference saw the P5 finally come out with a joint statement, unlike in past years. Tensions between the states, and of course their virtual disregard for their NPT obligations, means the statement put the emphasis largely on non-nuclear weapons states compliance with the treaty. they also failed to mention the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty (CTBT) which is yet to be fully ratified by the US and China. The language is also differs significantly with other states, reflecting the P5s use of the treaty as an instrument of policy rather than something they themselves are actually bound by. Many states at the meeting expressed concern over the disarmament clause, and the seemingly opposite moves that some NWS are making in developing new nuclear weapon systems, and retaining nuclear weapons as a vital part of defence planning.
An interesting issue is that of nuclear weapons free zones (NWFZ) and in particular the middle east. The vast majority of states were quite ready to criticise Iran and North Korea, as they should, and make empty calls for the realisation of the 1995 resolution on a NWFZ in the Middle East. However, the elephant in the room was Israel. The only state in the middle east to have actually acquired nuclear weapons, and it was never actually named. The Iranian delegation let the cat out of the bag in this statement,
"[the] Israeli clandestine nuclear program [is], the main obstacle to NWFZ in the region"
...
"Regrettably the trend of support and assistance of certain western countries to [the] Israeli nuclear weapon program has reached such a horrendous and indeed ridiculous state that the Israeli regime, a non-party to the NPT, whose nuclear arsenal coupled with its expansionst, repressive and state-terror policies and behavious is repeatedly recognised as the single most serious threat to regional and international peace and security, finds the audacity to cry wolf about [the] peaceful nuclear program of the NPT state parties. The agressive nature of that regime and the unequivocal support of the United States to it has let this regime belive that the law of the jungle rules the world.
Unfortunately, in the current session we witnessed that the attack of a non-party to the NPT on Syria a state Party to the treaty not only was not condemned by some western countries but also they turned their criticism to a non-nuclear weapon state who by joining the NPT has legally foregone [the] nuclear option. The position of this group of countries would send a wrong message that it is ok for some to have nuclear weapons and stay outside of the NPT, while others who are state parties to the treaty should be targeted"
Wow! I hope that shook things up a little. Even if it is left to Iran to say it, a state that has violated the NPT itself, its still pretty awesome to hear.
Science and Global Security has crunched some numbers on the actual plutonium production of the facility. Im no nuclear physicist, but I dont think the case that Al Kibar was for a nuclear weapon really stacks up.
First lets look at the numbers. Judging from the photos, and the current info on the Yongbyon facility on which it is supposedly based (which is based on old British Calder Hall reactor design), it looks like the Syrian reactor would produce around 1104.81 grams of Pu239 each year. This is a conservative estimate, but remember that the 'Fat Man' design requires 6kg of Pu239.
This is not enough to produce the CIAs claimed one or two bombs each year. If these estimates are correct, then Syria was looking at around six years for its first bomb (which you assume would need testing), so that gives us probably 24 years before Syria has a strategically significant arsenal. That is a very long time to keep a nuclear project secret, and a frustrating wait for Syrian designers.
This also ignores the many questions raised in a previous post. Also remember that Syria has a significant stock of chemical weapons as a deterrent to Israel already.
Is this really a Syrian weapons program?
This recent Syria-North Korea reactor story is quite intriguing for a number of reasons, but its come at just the wrong time for me to really take a good look at it like I want to. This is the presentation shown to members of Congress a couple of days ago. The full text of the briefing can now be downloaded here.
Back when Israel bombed the facility, there was much discussion over what it was that they actually destroyed. Now it appears the off-the-record claim that it was a reactor is true. This still doesnt answer many of the questions raised at the time, and also pushes aside the fact that it was still an illegal attack on another state. Its not the first time Israel has taken a preemptive/preventative strike against an Arab neighbour.
Theres a whole lot of technical issues involved with this, and for that I recommend the ArmsControlWonk. Not only are the posts good, but the comments are also useful.
There are alot of serious questions on the validity of the evidence presented, and it is slightly reminiscent of Colin Powell's famous presentations to the UN a few years ago.
Looking at the Photos, where is the rest of the infrastructure that you would think would surround a nuclear reactor? The only thing there is the reactor building. I would also expect at least some security at the facility, maybe even some AA guns, as the Syrians would have to be suspecting Israeli action if it was a reactor. There is also no evidence of a reprocessor. If your going to have a nuclear program, with a reactor this small, you would think a reprocessor would also be on the cards.
Also, where is the fuel going to come from? Is there evidence of any nuclear material transfers?
The IAEA is understandably pissed off about only hearing about this now, and realistically, why weren't they told? The threat was hardly immediate, with any nuclear fuel at least several years away, and not even any substantial evidence of a nuclear weapons program outside of this plant. The normal way to go about this sort of thing is through the IAEA, a technical/scientific approach to the problem of proliferation. They have the ability to conduct a challenge inspection, which is the route that I think should have been taken.
Another issue that keeps popping up, if all this is true,then why now? The claims of not wanting to instigate any counter-attacks are workable, but why release this in the middle of negotiations with the state you claimed supplied the technology? Seems counter-productive, but maybe thats exactly what its meant to be?
I'd also like to clarify my position on the Tibet issue. Just because you dont support a Chinese occupation, doesnt mean that you support the system that was there before the communists took over. The Dalai Lama ruled Tibet as a religious monarchy for the benefits of the elite. You can't confuse some vague mystic vision of Tibetan Bhuddism with a socially egalitarian society, which Tibet was not. China may be a harsh government, and a destroyer of Tibetan culture, but the communists did end the oligarchy that existed before that. I think we need a personal critique of the Dalai Lama, possibly by Christopher Hitchens? (a la the fantastic Noone Left to Lie To and The Missionary Position, on Bill Clinton and Mother Teresa respectively).
Secondly, the recent news about the sharp increases in the price of staple foods has highlighted yet again the globe's reliance on oil and fossil fuels. The front page of The Age yesterday highlighted the fact that corn prices have increased by 31%, rice by 74%, soya by 87%, and wheat (think flour) by 130%. A major contributor to this is our reliance on oil, which in turn has led to an increased production of biofuels, to the detriment of corn production. While alternatives to oil and fossil fuels are a good thing, biofuel will do more harm than good, with the amount of corn used to produce 100 liters of biofuel the equivalent to enough to feed one person for a year. Too many acres turned over to biofuels means higher prices, more impoverishment, and more hunger for the poor.
The oil link doesnt stop there, with another major cause for the exponential price rises attributed to global warming and drought in key crop production areas, such as Australia. So our reliance on fossil fuels in the past is leading to the same problems that are caused by attempting to wean us off fossil fuels onto biofuels. Another cause for the crisis is developing states like China, whose new demand for oil intensive foods like beef is also contributing to climate change, and driving up prices. Not to mention the role of oil in transporting food around the globe.
The price of bread has doubled in the past year in many poor countries, and I've been to countries like Egypt and seen how integral bread is to everyday life. Newspapers run sensationalist headlines to sell papers, but talk of a food crisis seems to be very real. And it stems from our reliance on oil.
A general update today.
First of all, I really love the protests going on with the Olympic torch relay. Does it even still count now that they've put the flame out twice? They're even considering stopping it. The IOC, in giving Beijing the 2008 olympics, stated that they hoped it would help open up Chinese society and maybe be a positive influence on Chinese politics, so they cant exactly complain that protesters are politicising the games. Also, China is pretty clearly using the opportunity to show off China to the world as a world power and a successful developing state, so they cant complain when people point out it isn't that nice to live there (assuming you aren't rich anyway). Kevin Rudd has also exposed himself again as a dickhead on the issue, directing away criticism by claiming China is a lot better now than 25 years ago. So what? That doesn't mean its a good place to be. I don't think that sportspeople should boycott the games, but political leaders certainly should, so hopefully Rudd will get in on the act already, rather than avoiding the issue by leaving it up to his suposed 'schedule'.
Secondly, this report has just been released by USIP, and details the situation and options for the US in Iraq, and manages to put a positive spin on the fact that security levels are back to 2005 standards. It doesn't paint a very attractive picture.
Thirdly, the SIPR arms transfer database has been updated with 2007 information. Apparently arms sales were down on last year, but overall continuing their upward trend since 2000. it shows Australia as one of the 20 biggest arms importers, and Sudan has imported 87% of its conventional weapons from Russia between 2003-07, so we cant accuse China of being that bad. Its a really useful resource, check it out here.
And lastly, to the Age. I admit I can give some leeway, what with it being the opinon pages and all, but to print such zionist propaganda does require a certain suspension of rationality. Danny Lamm's article on the 7th was a blatant piece of Zionist propaganda. And Danny isn't entirely to blame, we can blame editors for the title 'Israel is taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace', and starting from that, it only got worse. He gets off to a good start, ignoring the problems that are inherent in a two state solution, and moves on to the big guns...
"This solution, however, has its opponents, particularly those groups led by Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and terrorist movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah which reject the peace process and maintain a fanatical commitment to destroy the state of Israel.
This would deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination..."
Invoking 'self-determination' in the defence of the Israeli state? I dont even know how such hypocrisy can function. Has Lamm completely ignored the fact that Israel is a colonial state? Is he completely blind to the Palestinian population being militarily and economically oppressed? Yes, Israelis should have a right to self determination, but has he considered the reasons why so many people want the Israeli state gone?
Lamm then moves on to defend some of the useful state myths surrounding Israel's beginnings, such as Israel's 'David and Goliath' view of the first Arab-Israeli war.He then attempts to discredit the work of Walt and Mearscheimer thesis, which, if you look at it objectively, would seem to confirm their arguments about the Israel lobby. Lamm is clearly eager to fit into this lobby, and his willful ignorance of the perspective of the oppressed in this situation can only discredit his arguments.
Why is The Age even publishing this crap?
Even with the 'man of steel' gone, Australia continues its role as deputy sherrif to the United States. While Kevin Rudd's salute to President Bush may be just a joke, his broad support and advocacy for the NATO mission in Afghanistan is much more. While Bush's apparent easy acceptance of pulling Australian troops out of Iraq was attributed to the 'strength of the alliance', there is probably a little more at play. Bush was probably happy to accept the inevitable withdrawl from Iraq with the promise of more support on the Afghanistan front. In advocating more support for NATO in Afghanistan, Rudd is following the US line, and seems very eager to do it.
Sure, maybe people doing more in Afghanistan is a good thing (even if it makes as little sense as the war in Iraq), but the flipside to this is that Rudd's new role will probably lead to him being on the recieving end of pressure for Australia to do more. Australia has the largest non-NATO commitment, but that is still only 1000 troops out of over 47,000.
Afghanistan is going to be a very long term committment, with little real plans for withdrawl. Progress is coming very slowly. Has Rudd jumped out of one impossible occupation and into another?
The evolution towards a formalised South Africa style apartheid system is coming along strongly, with Israel's supreme court accepting the idea of seperate roads for Palestinians in the occpied territories. If we look back in US history, we find that since 1954 the legal consensus is that state sanctioned segregation is inherently unequal, and therefore discriminatory. But that doesnt stop the US from being Israel's most enthusiastic backer (a club that Kevin Rudd was eager to join). We also can't forget that the old 'roadmap' for peace was largely based on perpetuating the current status of a Palestinian territory that was made up of Apartheid style 'homelands' and an economic dependency of Israel.
All this begs the question, given the current situation and extreme poverty of what does exist of Palestine, is a two state solution physically possible? Can a viable Palestinian state ever emerge out of this apartheid?
Kinda reminds me of this cartoon...
Yesterday the UN Security Council voted to tighten the sanctions on Iran over its refusal to halt its nuclear program. The resolution was sponsored by Britain, France and Germany, and all except Indonesia (who abstained) voted to support it. This comes almost a full year since the last batch of sanctions. The sanctions mainly include travel bans on a few key individuals and other bans on trade and assistance with a few organisations involved in the nuclear program, but none of it is very hard stuff, calling on states to "exercise vigilance" when dealing with Iran (but thats the way UN resolutions go).
This third round of sanctions comes in the wake of the latest IAEA report on the 22nd of Feb. Strangely though, this report was not all together negative about the situation in Iran and Iran's cooperation with the Agency. The IAEA is satisfied Iran isnt diverting materials, and the main concerns are with any form of past weaponisation programs, including in particular high explosives testing. The main issue in any look at a future Iranian weapons program is still undeclared material and facilities, but so far "the Agency has no concrete information" that they exist. The report concludes that Iran is cooperating in providing information in an ad hoc manner.
None of this is really that different to past IAEA reports, so why did the sanctions pass now? Past talk of sanctions by the US and others had always been shot down by other members of the Security Council. A theory thats been floated around about the renewed international pressure on Iran goes back to last years NIE, which concluded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, and probably hasnt since at least 2004. At the time that was hailed as a victory for Iran, and one of its major effects was to rule out US military action to halt any Iranian nuclear program, which was looking increasingly likely at the time. But ruling out military action has freed up other actors to pressure Iran without fear of inadvertantly authorising any US military strike (as was retroactively applied in the case of Iraq).
I think this can go some way to explaining the recent changes in policies towards the Iran issue, particularly Russia who is still pretty close to Iran.
"Labor considers that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems is one of the most serious international security issues confronting the world today. Labor considers effective efforts to combat these developments require sustained multilateral, diplomatic and defence cooperation and action.
Labor is concerned that as a unilateral response to the problem of ballistic missile proliferation, national missile defence is disproportionate, technically questionable, costly and likely to be counterproductive. It also has the potential to undermine non-proliferation and derail world progress towards nuclear disarmament. Labor also notes that national missile defence would impact on the security situation in the Asia Pacific region, and that this could have serious consequences for Australia's strategic circumstances and national security.
Labor is committed to ensuring that all efforts are made to protect ADF personnel deployed on operations. Labor supports the development of capability for in-theatre defence of ADF personnel and key strategic interests from ballistic missile attack."
The first two points make perfect sense and are a completely rational policy to follow. (clearly the third point is stupid, as you cant just ignore the strategic implications of BMD and consider it an 'in theatre' instrument).
BUT, winning government has the strange ability to push previously well thought and reasoned policy out the window. Now, The Age reports that Foreign Minister Stephen Smith (Is he really the best they could find?) is considering some Australian role in the US project.
The first few questions would be, what sort of role?
But, then you would have to ask why? Smith argued in a previous Age article that his opposition to Missile Defence was based on purely technical grounds. But what has really changed? And how have the arguements of the ALPs national conference less than a year ago changed?
North Asian BMD is supposedly meant to counter a missile threat from North Korea. First of all, Pyongyang probably doesnt really have the capability to hit any Australian territories (and why would they waste scarce resources in hitting Darwin anyway?) Secondly, any North Korean threat would not need Australian involvement, as a couple of ships in the Sea of Japan could probably take care of it. Thirdly, it is really expensive for very little reward (besides pleasing the US). Fourthly, the technology is not entirely certain or reliable, and many simple measures (such as decoys) could theoretically evade such a system.
And finally, we return to the strategic concerns hinted to in the 2007 conference. They certainly havent changed, and Missile defence, in Asia and Europe, is still one of the most destabilising factors in international politics and arms control today.
Why should Australia risk worsening strategic stability and the relationship with China (the more likely target of Asian BMD) for a system that we arent needed for, is expensive, and probably wont even work?
First of all, in relation to Missile Defence, the US plan to install radars in the Chzech Republic and interceptors in Poland was premised on defending against the threat of weapons of mass destruction coming from 'Rogue states', primarily Iran. That was stupid when it was first brought up, as even though it was assumed Iran was developing nuclear weapons, they didnt have any sort of delivery vehicle that could actually threaten Western Europe, let alone the US. and besides that, the Science behind the placement and effectiveness of the interceptors was dubious considering they were meant to be for Iran. So clearly we have a missile defence system that is targeted at Russia. and now after the NIE, and the fact that Iran doesnt even have the weapons program any more, that becomes even clearer.
Secondly: The question needs to be asked of everyone rejecting the validity of the NIE, and what they are really disputing, particularly policymakers in the US and Israel, who have been the most vocal in opposition. If they havent seen the classified report, which I suspect many of them havent, then they cant really be objecting to the report and the evidence itself. They are only rejecting the conclusion it comes to.
Seeing that its a monday, and the real version finished last week (why does it ever finish?) I'll do my own review of the weekend news, mostly The Age. First of all, the Sunday newspapers are shit, so I wont really bother looking at them. Second of all, The Herald Sun isn't as bad as every one says it is, considering that its only a tabloid anyway. at least it gets the facts right most of the time, even if the editorial is a little skewed.
Thirdly, most importantly, The Age is a mixed bag. While the opinion articles are usually quite good. There is some actual range of opinion, and regular writers, such as economics editor Kenneth Davidson, or Robert Manne, are consistently good. Waleed Aly's article in Saturdays Age, 'Too tough for our own good', on the war on terror, was fantastic, and I recommend it. (I would link to it, but I can't find it anywhere)
However, The same mistakes The Age made in supporting the war on Iraq in 2003 are being made right now. Marko Beljac has already made a few (justified) complaints against the Age here and here, and now they're at it again over Iran's Nuclear program. While some of the Age's writers are probably completely rational, a few others a clearly pushing for war.
The story in Saturdays Age was titled 'Iran a Year off nuclear warhead, says UN'. Now this is serious bullshit being peddled out here. Firstly it was the IAEA that said it, not the UN, although it is considered a UN watchdog, so that can be excused. Secondly, and most importantly, that is not what the report stated, and it is not even what the story itself stated. The story goes...
"The installation of 3000 functioning centrifuges at Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz is a "red line" drawn by the US across which Washington had said it would not let Iran pass. When spinning at full speed they can produce enough weapons-grade uranium (enriched to more than 90% purity) for a nuclear weapon within a year..."
Clearly that does not mean that Iran will, or even can, have a warhead within a year. There is alot more to building a nuclear warhead than having the Uranium for it, and currently Iran does not even have that. Then a delivery vehicle is even more trouble on top of that. Clearly TheAge is not too concerned that its readers get the correct impression as to what is actually happening in Iran, only that they get what the editors consider the 'right' impression. The impression that lead to war.
All the current discussion in The Age and elsewhere rests on the dubious assuption that Iran WANTS a nuclear weapon, and is ACTUALLY pursuing it. As I have blogged about before, this is based on nothing, and leads to irrational and alarmist assumptions like these.
The article seemingly attempts to discredit the parts of the IAEA report that document Iran's cooperation with the agency by attributing them to 'Russian officials' rathet than looking at the report itself. It also waits until the end to mention that the 3000 centrifuges are not even up and running properly yet, so at the current rate the supposed warhead is very far away.
The article was taken from a Guardian story by Julian Borger which was titled 'Decision time for US over Iran threat', which is editorialising enough in labelling Iran a threat, but is not as bad as The Age's take on the issue.
Within the current international political climate, with the US persistently pushing for strong action, including war, against Iran, it is dangerous and reckless for The Age, supposedly the paper for progressive opinion, to be arguing a line like this one. The Age seems determined to provide assitance to those trying to convince us that war is necessary, has it learnt nothing from the invasion of Iraq?
How may poeple have to be killed, and how much larger must the conflict in the Middle East get before The Age will stop supporting these imperialist advenures?
The recent conflict and pressure in Pakistan has raised some interesting issues, and the US connection is good to explore. One of the most important allies of the US in the Cold War was Pakistan, as a slightly stable and relatively obedient counter to non-aligned India, and the Arab states. Particularly during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistan was important as a base for US supported insurgents, the Mujahideen etc, fighting the Soviets. The Pakistan border with Afghanistan suddenly became very important again after the US attempted its own invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
The US response to the turmoil in Pakistan has been relatively quiet, with little rhetoric, and continued military support. Arguably this probably has somehting to do with the close US relationship with Musharraf. But realistically Musharraf himself is not that important, the military elite that would probably govern the country if he fell is largely pro-western, and the recently returned Pakistani elite Bhutto would probably also continue the friendship.
The nuclear weapons issue is also not really at the top of the US agenda. It seems the chances of them falling into the hands of any Islamists or anti-western forces are very low, and the Nukes are pretty carefully controlled by the military and pro-western elite. Besides any renegade militray units, stray nukes seem an unlikely possibility.
The biggest issue at the heart of the muted US response is the Afghanistan connection. Or more specifically, the Afghanistan fuel connection. Pakistan's status as a US ally was bolstered as a result of the US invasion of Afghanistan, and the important role it plays in supplying US troops in the region. While the US burns more than half a million gallons each day in Afghanistan, around 80% of that comes from refineries in Pakistan, and without Pakistan's support the US military operation would be crippled.
24,000 US troops, along with Nato allies, are stationed in Afghanistan, and without Pakistan's fuel, along with 75% of other US supplies that come through Pakistan, the mission would collapse. Besides Pakistan, the only other US supplies hub is in nearby Kyrgystan, and the closest source of fuel is refineries in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.
The supplies situation is already precarious, with the Pakistan route using 700 trucks, with often more than 4 million gallons of fuel in transit at any time. Theres also problems of theft, strikes and delay, with some trucks turning up over 90 days after they were loaded. Besides Pakistan, the US doesnt really have alot of choice. They were kicked out of Uzbekistan, and flying that huge volume of fuel couldn't work.
The incredible importance of the Pakistan supply route means that the US cannot afford to take any decisive action on Musharraf and the situation in Pakistan now. Maintaining the status quo is too important too them.
The story was constantly referring to 'us' and 'we' may be going back to the moon, but in reality the only mention of any space program other than that of the US was literally just a mention. But that is quite distorting, the focus of such a story needs to be on the other players in the game. The Chinese and Russian programs are heating up, and its this competition that is the real interesting bit.
First, a primer on Helium-3.
Helium-3 is a non-radioactive isotope of Helium, and its relatively rare on Earth, but apparently there could be a whole lot on the moon. There is a little here on Earth, but that comes mostly from nuclear weapons, and its nothing compared to whats on the moon. The amount of energy that it can generate is impressive...
"That 1 million metric tonnes of He3, reacted with deuterium, would generate about 20,000 terrawatt-years of thermal energy. The units alone are awesome: a terrawatt-year is one trillion (10 to 12th power) watt-years. To put this into perspective, one 100-watt light bulb will use 100 watt-years of energy in one year.
That's about 10 times the energy we could get from mining all the fossil fuels on Earth, without the smog and acid rain. If we torched all our uranium in liquid metal fast breeder reactors, we could generate about half this much energy, and have some interesting times storing the waste..."
A rough estimate of its value as an energy source, given we already have an existing electrical grid, would be approximately US$3 billion per tonne.
So it is obviously an incredibly valuable commodity.
Now, this all fits nicely within the increasing weaponisation of space, and the renewed emphasis on missions to the moon.
Andy Thomas, the Australian astronaught who is leading the renewed NASA mission to the moon, says..
"There are no programmes in any of the space agencies in any countries that have firm plans to min(e) resources such as helium 3 on the moon at the present time."
But notice how he says "firm plans...at the present time"? Other countries ARE thinking about this opportunity. And while the US is launching this mission without much real metion of Helium-3, Russia has openly said "the main purpose of its lunar programme is the industrial extraction of helium-3…"
The US mission to establish a base on the moon is also going to be a relatively solo effort, and they have refused offers on help and internationalisation from Russia. Clearly this is more than just a few experiments in zero gravity that we're talking about.
China's Lunar probe is also now officially on its way to the moon, and China and Russias growing strategic ties seem to be getting closer in regards to space their space programs.
The first state to control the moon, would therefore gain control of the most significant source of energy near earth. And much like strategic control of the Middle East for oil resources, this would be a hotly fought over contest. In the future it may well be that "whoever controls the moon controls the earth". These 'energy wars' are only going to intensify and become more and more significant as time goes on and as hydrocarbons on earth continue to decline.
The Outer Space Treaty, ratified in 1967, lays the basis for the militarisation of space, and it specifically forbids the weaponisation of space, and the using of outer space territories for military purposes, including nuclear weapons and so on.
But in the current climate, following a Chinese space missile test earlier this year and increasing US action, how long can this treaty, and the accomanying internationalisation of space, continue?
Even more importantly, how long till we see Total Recall style space wars come true?
Would US interests be served by democratisation in the Middle East?
American interests in the strategically important Middle East would largely not be served by any real democratization. Many argue that US interests would be assisted, however there is little evidence that terrorism or strategic cooperation in the region would be improved through democratization efforts.
The idea that democratization in the Middle East would help combat terrorism gained in strength after the September 11 attacks in the US. It became a major part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq after the total lack of weapons of mass destruction became apparent. The idea was that Iraq would become a shining beacon of democracy, which would inspire a wave of democratization over the region.
Undemocratic and repressive regimes can breed terrorism, and political repression can radicalize opponents and create extremists. The argument follows that a democratic system could enable peaceful reconciliation of grievances, allow peaceful channels for dissent, and provide inclusion in policy making for marginalized groups. A democratic system can arguably work better to respond to other causes of terrorism, such as poverty and social divisions.
However there is little real evidence that this theory holds true, as recent democratisation efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are a testament to. Democratic systems also have not stopped terrorist groups becoming active throughout Western Europe and the US in the past. Terror organizations often do not have much widespread appeal, therefore are unlikely to gain power through democratic processes, so why would they respect the system? Why would a terror organisation hold the ideal of democracy above previous goals? An efficient authoritarian regime is also arguably better able to deal effectively with a terrorist threat than a democracy.
The second and most important problem for US interests in the region is that if Middle Eastern governments were actually representative of public opinion, they would be overwhelmingly against the US. A democratic Middle East would produce governments less likely to cooperate with the US than the current Authoritarian ones. The problem for democracy in the Middle Eastern states is not that the people do not want democracy, but that the USA would not like the results. Some argue that democracy would benefit the US, as authoritarian regimes can have trouble submitting to US wishes because of public opposition, but by definition that would only get worse if those governments had to listen to their people. Democratic systems would also most likely bring Islamic parties to power, which the US has not shown a preference for, as they often form the only organized political force besides the government. A democratic Iraq, with a Shiite majority, would also most likely move for closer ties with Iran, which the US could not allow. If the US were serious about democracy and respecting public opinion within Iraq they would have withdrawn by now.
The limited versions of democracy that exist in the Middle East often result in anti-US victories, and are largely condemned by the US because of their outcomes. Iran has limited political participation and restricted elections, with the anti-American Ahmadinejad elected from a controlled list in 2005. More recently the Palestinian territories experienced democratic elections, with the Anti-US Hamas gaining power, which resulted in US led sanctions.
Democracy promotion for the USA is a strategic tool, and is subsequently focused on enemies such as Iran and Syria, rather than allies such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt. There is little pressure upon America’s autocratic allies to democratize, and they continue to obtain strong US support. Undemocratic US allies such as Musharraf in Pakistan and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan receive strong US support as they assist the US on their democratisation mission in Afghanistan.
Saudi Arabia is an intensely totalitarian state, the main ally of the US in the region, and the linchpin of US regional hegemony. There is massive popular resentment against the Saudi regime, and its main supporter the USA. The US has put some limited pressure on the Saudi monarchs to democratize, and an election was held for local councils. It was restricted to male voters and approved candidates, and only half the council seats were open to election, with the others appointed by the regime. This miniscule step was praised by the US, and business went on as usual.
A similar case exists with Egypt, where Mubarak has ruled for over 25 years, and is a close US ally. Subject to political pressure he ran an election of pre-approved candidates in September 2005. The election was conducted in rounds, meaning if the first few rounds weren’t going his way he could rig it even further or just call it off. Mubarak triumphed in this engineered election and was commended by the US, but the semi-legal anti-US Muslim Brotherhood emerged as his main opposition. This resulted in a considerable cooling down of US pressure to democratize.
