How comparable are Rwandan warlords and Bosnia’s killers to George Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan? The genocide debate …
- Genocide trial to be held in Rwanda for first time (dailystar.com.lb)
- Guatemala ex-dictator gets 2nd genocide charge (miamiherald.com)
- Rwanda Remembers Genocide 18 Years Later (voanews.com)
- Rwandan genocide suspect Leon Mugesera denied trial in French (vancouversun.com)
according to a study by the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Energy. It has concluded that the 13th-century Mongol leader’s bloody advance, laying waste to vast swaths of territory and wiping out entire civilisations en route, may have scrubbed 700m tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere – roughly the quantity of carbon dioxide generated in a year through global petrol consumption – by allowing previously populated and cultivated land to return to carbon-absorbing forest. (via Why Genghis Khan was good for the planet | From the Guardian | The Guardian).
Genocides are good
For some 100 years, the Carnegie Endowment /Institutions has been providing cover, logic and justification for Desert Bloc’s genocidal behaviour. This is yet another example. Genghis Khan was good, because he ‘reduced population’. Hitler was good because he reduced the Jewish population. Churchill was very good – he reduced Indian, Arab, populations. Various American Presidents were also very good. They annihilated the entire Native American Population in the USA. Anglo-Saxon Policy in Australia is good because it has again wiped out Australian Aborigine population.
Before that, the Abbot of Citeaux instructed his followers at the start of the Albigensian Crusade – “Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” (Kill them all, God will know his own). “Get gold, humanely if possible, but at all hazards, get gold.” (1511, King Ferdinand of Spain to his conquistadors). Since, it was not possible humanely, the Spanish Conquistadors massacred millions.
These massacres cut green house gas emissions. And this is a double-trick. So, in our outrage at the notion that Genghis Khan’s massacres were good, we don’t reject the fraud of Global Warming Is Bad notion.
Red herrings – the challenge ahead
To get around the ‘problem’ of economic stagnation, the West has created artificial ‘crisis’ situations.
- Population Explosion
- Global Warming and climate change
- Civil Wars in Africa
- Islamic Demonization and the spectre of Islamic terrorism
- Financial meltdowns
These are major diplomatic offensives using media, academia, events and situations to
- Maintain superior negotiating positions
- Define the agenda – which usually means non-substantive issues.
Carnegie, I can see ya!
EU trade policy has long been hijacked by European business, which wants raw materials at cheap prices. EU priorities are a mirror image of positions adopted by corporate lobby groups. The commission frankly states: “We will rely on EU business to provide much of the information on the barriers which affect their trade or investment with third countries.”
There is a serious risk that Europe’s budget and unemployment crisis will put policymakers even more in hock to the demands of big business.
Opposition from Africa
It is hardly surprising that European policy faces mounting opposition from most African countries, which have long opposed signing investment agreements with the EU. The Raw Materials Initiative should be opposed by Europe’s citizens, too, because it distracts from the need to reduce their own consumption. Europeans already consume four times as much as the average African. (read more via The Hindu : Opinion / Op-Ed : The European Union’s ugly resource grab).
Idea of ‘exploiting’ resources on the cheap
To take away rights from people ‘who do not know the value’ of such resources (Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Africans) and transfer property rights to the ‘discoverer’ of these resources is an old idea which strangely finds legitimacy, even after 400 years of bad experience. Ranging from Spain to Belgium, with the Dutch and the English, all joined in this ‘resource’ grab. And this saga continues.
Bankruptcy of ideology – ism, cracy and archy
In some case, modern nation-States based on various ‘isms’ (Capitalism, Communism, Socialism) combine with various ‘archy’ (monarchy, oligarchy) and ‘cracy’ (democracy, plutocracy, bureaucracy) continue to ensure that power and wealth remains in the hands of very few. The Rest of Us have to be happy with illusion of being equal, of having power over leaders, etc. And no.
This power does NOT flow from the barrel of the gun – but from limiting access to ज़र, zar (gold), जन jan (people) and ज़मीन jameen (land). Instead of various ‘isms’, ‘archies’ and ‘cracies’, what the world needs is a system that will guarantee the four essential freedoms – काम kaam (desire, including sexual) अर्थ arth (wealth), मोक्ष moksh (liberty) and धर्मं dharma (justice)
- Corporo-cracy? No… (ask.metafilter.com)
- 2010: Church begins mobilisation (vanguardngr.com)
- Europe and Africa: a partnership of equals? | Claire Provost and Aaron Akinyemi (guardian.co.uk)
- Africa, EU on summit collision course over economic deals – AFP (news.google.com)
- Africa lashes Europe on trade at summit eve (calgaryherald.com)
- Q+A: Troubled trade ties between EU and Africa (reuters.com)
- Biofuels will up Euro greenhouse emissions (newscientist.com)
- Africa, EU reach out for economic tie-up in troubled times – AFP (news.google.com)
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan ordered 700 neutron warheads built to oppose Soviet tank forces in Europe. He called it “the first weapon that’s come along in a long time that could easily and economically alter the balance of power.” But deployment to the North Atlantic alliance was canceled after a storm of antinuclear protests across Europe. President George Bush ordered the stockpile scrapped.
By 1982, Mr. Cohen had abandoned his deployment quest. But he continued for the rest of his life to defend the bomb as practical and humane.
“It’s the most sane and moral weapon ever devised,” he said in September in a telephone interview for this obituary. “It’s the only nuclear weapon in history that makes sense in waging war. When the war is over, the world is still intact.”
Samuel Theodore Cohen was born in Brooklyn on Jan. 25, 1921, to Lazarus and Jenny Cohen, Austrian Jews who had migrated to the United States by way of Britain. His father was a carpenter and his mother a housewife who rigidly controlled family diets and even breathing habits (believing it unhealthy to breathe through the mouth). The boy had allergies, eye problems and other ailments, and for years was subjected to daily ice-water showers to toughen him up.
In recent years, Mr. Cohen prominently warned of a black market substance called red mercury, supposedly capable of compressing fusion materials to detonate a nuclear device as small as a baseball — ideal for terrorists. (read more via Samuel T. Cohen, Neutron Bomb Inventor, Dies at 89 – NYTimes.com).
What is the problem
Buildings, land, raw material, machines, infrastructure, ports, roads, airports – things are important. All these things will not be affected by a neutron bomb. The perfect weapon, ever.
People are the problem. Eliminate people. Neutron bomb was the perfect weapon for the perfect war.
Desert Bloc philosophy in short.
NATO, for the first time, officially claimed a role in the Arctic, when Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told member-states to sort out their differences within the alliance so that it could move on to set up “military activity in the region.”
“Clearly, the High North is a region that is of strategic interest to the Alliance,” he said at a NATO seminar in Reykjavik, Iceland, in January 2009.
Since then, NATO has held several major war games focussing on the Arctic region. In March this year, 14,000 NATO troops took part in the “Cold Response 2010” military exercise held in Norway under a patently provocative legend: the alliance came to the defence of a fictitious small democratic state, Midland, whose oilfield is claimed by a big undemocratic state, Nordland. In August, Canada hosted its largest yet drill in the Arctic, Operation Nanook 2010, in which the U.S. and Denmark took part for the first time.
Russia registered its firm opposition to the NATO foray, with President Dmitry Medvedev saying the region would be best without NATO. “Russia is keeping a close eye on this activity,” he said in September. “The Arctic can manage fine without NATO.” The western media portrayed the NATO build-up in the region as a reaction to Russia’s “aggressive” assertiveness, citing the resumption of Arctic Ocean patrols by Russian warships and long-range bombers and the planting of a Russian flag in the North Pole seabed three years ago.
It is conveniently forgotten that the U.S. Navy and Air Force have not stopped Arctic patrolling for a single day since the end of the Cold War. Russia, on the other hand, drastically scaled back its presence in the region after the break-up of the Soviet Union. It cut most of its Northern Fleet warships, dismantled air defences along its Arctic coast and saw its other military infrastructure in the region fall into decay.
The Arctic has enormous strategic value for Russia. Its nuclear submarine fleet is based in the Kola Peninsula. Russia’s land territory beyond the Arctic Circle is almost the size of India — 3.1 million sq km. It accounts for 80 per cent of the country’s natural gas production, 60 per cent of oil, and the bulk of rare and precious metals. By 2030, Russia’s Arctic shelf, which measures 4 million sq km, is expected to yield 30 million tonnes of oil and 130 billion cubic metres of gas. If Russia’s claim for a 350-mile EEZ is granted, it will add another 1.2 million sq km to its possessions.
A strategy paper Mr. Medvedev signed in 2008 said the polar region would become Russia’s “main strategic resource base” by 2020. Russia has devised a multivector strategy to achieve this goal. First, it works to restore its military capability in the region to ward off potential threats. Russia is building a new class of nuclear submarines, Borei (Northern Wind) that will be armed with a new long-range missile, Bulava. Navy Chief Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said recently he had also drawn up a plan to deploy warships in Russia’s Arctic ports to protect polar sea routes. (via The Arctic’s strategic value for Russia By Vladimir Radyuhin.)
Thin ice …
Some sixteen months ago, 2ndlook speculated that West’s redemption may come from oil – from the Arctic. With receding Arctic ice-caps, the West may find itself sitting on large oil reserves. Production from these discoveries may take 10-25 years – climate permitting.
Climate change, I don’t believe in. How long will these weather patterns persist? The West is skating on thin ice – but then what can they do. Slavery is not an option – not for another 50-100 years at least. Dig mother earth, is the second and only option they have believed in.
For the last 3000 years at least.
- Russia and Norway resolve Arctic border dispute (guardian.co.uk)
- Russia, Canada in rivalry over Arctic resources (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Russia, Canada make competing claims to Arctic resources (foxnews.com)
- Russia to boost Arctic research (blogs.nature.com)
- Senior Nato commander warns of potential conflict over Arctic resources (guardian.co.uk)
- Russia, Canada in rivalry over Arctic resources (ctv.ca)
- Russia, Canada and Denmark to file Arctic claims to UN (theglobeandmail.com)
- Canada, Russia expect to win Arctic claims at UN (cbc.ca)
- Coast Guard: Russia makes inroads in Arctic, and we should, too (chron.com)
- Military forces ‘will keep the Arctic safe’ (telegraph.co.uk)