Beijing Olympics
June 11, 2008
Background
The 2008 Beijing Olympics was planned to be China’s entrance into the world as an international leader and superpower. They were to demonstrate their ability to host a traditional international event and therefore be recognized as a well developed country. In exchange for this opportunity, they implicitly pledged to improve their human rights record in exchange for the bid.
However the months before the games have been marked by scandals. Amnesty International reported that the Chinese government was censoring and imprisoning Tibetan protesters. Prominent people, such as Steven Spielberg, criticized the Chinese government for giving weapons to the Sudanese government. They claim that the weapons are used to terrorize civilians in the devastated Darfur region.
Recent Events
Two events may further jeopardize the success of the Beijing Olympics.
Tibet: Human rights groups report that many Tibetan protesters and separatist are being detained by the Chinese government. They also claim that the government has not reformed its human rights policy and are still heavily censoring speech in the region and arresting dissenters. (The picture below shows a Tibetan protester (middle) being arrested by the police). Recently the government arrested 16 Buddhist monks for three separate bombings in Tibet. Many pro-Tibet supporters claim this is a government raid designed to silence Tibetan separatist and government critics. However the entire situation is not known because the Chinese government does not allow journalist into the region without special permission, which is rarely given.
Sichuan Earthquake: The May 12 earthquake in Sichuan has destroyed many buildings, including schools, and damaged the infrastructure of the region. In addition over 60,000 have been killed. While the earthquake is over, there are still natural disasters that threaten the region. The earthquakes also formed ”quake lakes,” where water is accumulated behind landslide “dams” that eventually break due to the pressure of the trapped water. The quake lakes have an enormous potential to destroy buildings in the region by breaking. Currently the Chinese government is attempting to drain the lake.
Analysis
The continued criticism and rumors of human rights abuse in Tibet may overshadow any success in the Olympics. This criticism may continue even after the games lowering the probability that the Chinese government would showcase the event as an example of its success. If the current criticism increases as the Olympic Games become closer, the event may not be widely mentioned afterwards. As it may be known as the time China broke a promise with the international community, by failing to reform its human rights practices and lowering censorship.
The earthquake has disrupted the stability in the country. Even more, international attention in the region has increased. China’s every blunder in the reconstruction will probably be criticized and magnified by Tibetan supporters. The earthquake and the fragility of the region have increased the potential for unrest to occur during the Olympic Games. If any serious disturbances occur during the games, China would fail the test of proving themselves to the international community. It could even embarrass them for years to come.
The success of the Beijing Olympics is under threat. However if it wasn’t, this wouldn’t be an accurate litmus test of China’s ability as an international power. A success under a fragile situation would effectively prove to the world that China is a developed country.
Sources
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSHKG24696120080604 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/wl_nm/china_tibet_dc_2 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake_538 http://www.reuters.com/article/olympicsNews/idUSN0541055220080605 http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar/08/world/fg-darfur8 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7419756.stm http://www.amnesty.org/en/human-rights-china-beijing-olympics
The Global Food Crisis
June 10, 2008
Background
Currently the world is facing a food crisis. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) reported that prices around the globe have increased over 53% in the first three months of this year. In addition there are reports of food shortages occurring around the globe.
U.S. News and World Report, a news magazine that comments on global issues, declared that the “dramatic food price escalation has numerous causes.” They range from rising cost of fuel, which increases the cost of farming and transportation of food, to the rapidly increasing demand for food due to rapidly developing countries such as China and India.
The rising cost and shortages of food has caused riots in numerous countries including Mexico, Haiti, Argentina, Egypt, Somalia, Afghanistan and Mongolia.
Recent Events
Earlier this month, leaders from 181 countries met in Rome to discuss the current food crisis in a United Nations (UN) conference. The main issues discussed in the three day meeting were:
International Aid: Counties have pledged over $1 billion in food aid to alleviate famished people around the globe. (The picture below shows aid workers giving bread to Pakistanis). However many non-governmental organizations lamented about being ignored and excluded from the discussions. They also questioned the plan’s ability to solve long term problems. Despite these complaints the summit decided to discuss long term solutions for a later meeting.
Trade Restrictions: Tariffs and trade quotas (where only a limited amount of commodities are allowed to be imported or exported) all raise the price of food. Sometimes the price increases for the nation that produces the crops and sometimes for the nation that imports the crops. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), a research group financed by various governments, reported that trade restrictions raise cereal prices by 43%. There was a general acknowledgement that trade restrictions contributed to the food crisis. Some countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and India agreed to lift some bans. While other major food producing countries, such as Egypt, did not lift any restrictions as they benefited from the high food prices (also known as food inflation).
Biofuel: Nothing much was achieved on the issue of biofuel. Most of the debate was just countries criticizing each other. Brazil, the United States and other major biofuel producing countries furiously debated over whether sugar cane or corn was best crop for producing biofuel. Brazil, an advocate and largest producer of sugar cane based ethanol, attacked corn-based ethanol, suggesting that it was “bad ethanol.” The biofuel producing countries also had to defend the use of biofuel from other countries. Developing nations claimed that biofuels were a major cause of the food shortage and price increases.
Analysis
The conference is a start to solving the food crisis. However, long term food and agriculture problems have not been solved due to failure to discuss a practical and serious long term solution. Most countries in the conference attempted to appear caring and sympathetic in the international spotlight by addressing and admitting that a food problem existed. Though, no permanent and drastic changes have been made in existing policy due to national interest of each individual country. Such as in the trade restrictions debate, some of the countries were not willing to sacrifice part of their economy to help the famished people around the globe. Although fund raising seems to have been successful, only the future would tell if nations are willing to keep their commitment to help the global society.
Sources
Image – http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/04food.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7439015.stm http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2008/05/09/8-ways-to-fix-the-global-food-crisis_print.htm http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/06/05/food.summit/?iref=mpstoryview http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11502285 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/world/04food.html?hp http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hL0HvIfNZQ2nMgFdy9dSKLZ7t2Gw http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7431734.stm
The Foundation Of Current International Politics
June 3, 2008
What allows the current condition of international politics to exist? What prevents the world from descending into violence and anarchy? What stops countries from hastily resorting to violence instead of using diplomacy in resolving disagreements?
Without the United Nations (UN) international politics as we know it may cease to exist. They were created in 1945 to prevent wars and serve as an international forum for countries. They intervene in economic, social, and diplomatic issues between countries. They are the heart of rational politics and the center of activity and discussion in the world.
Recent events in Syria, reveal the United Nations involvement in ensuring rational political discussion. The Israeli military sent planes to destroy a building in Syria that was allegedly a nuclear reactor under development. This strained existing tensions between the two countries. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a sub-division of the United Nations, mediated between the two countries. Syria allowed the IAEA to inspect potential missile sites in the country and in exchange the IAEA denounced Israeli aggression. (Picture of the Director General of the IAEA to the left).
The UN halted a possible war by finding an acceptable compromise by both countries. If the UN did not intervene further through the IAEA, it is likely that Israeli would have attacked other alleged nuclear reactors. If provoked enough Syria and their allies may retaliate, starting another war against Israel in the Middle East. This would end political discussion between the nations.
The UN also intervenes in underdeveloped and unstable countries in order to encourage human rights and economic development. In turn, this creates rational and accountable governments that are willing to resort to diplomacy before war.
Prominent German political scientist, Angela Kane commented about the UN’s efforts to reform Ecuador’s corrupt and unstable government. She remarked, “I am struck… by… how well the United Nations system worked together in forging a common response [among various government branches].” The situation in Ecuador reveals the UN’s effectiveness in developing accountable governments that have a sense of social responsibility.
Past events act as empirical evidence of what international politics would be like without the UN.
In September 1938, representatives from Britain, France, Italy, and Nazi Germany met to discuss the future of Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland region. Nazi Germany demanded that they were given permission to annex this neighboring region. The three other countries agreed on the condition that Germany would not annex the rest of Czechoslovakia. Then it was made official when the Munich Agreement was signed. However, several months later Germany violated the agreement and annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, without any military resistance from the international community.
Before the UN was created international agreements were not backed by an international watch group. Countries could break agreements at anytime without immediate consequences. There were no established rules. The international community was essentially in a state of anarchy with no regulations.
After the UN was established rules and treaties were enforced. In 1945, Korea was divided into two along the 38th parallel forming North Korea and South Korea. In 1950, North Korea crossed the line and attempted to invade South Korea. The UN responded to the invasion and violation of the treaty with a counter offensive. Eventually after several years of fighting an armistice line was made roughly along the 38th parallel and the treaty was enforced.
The United Nations has been the foundation for current international politics in many apparent and subtle ways. Without it, the dynamics of international relations would be drastically altered.
Sources
Image – http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_syria
Quote – http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2006/issue1/0106p21.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAEA http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080602/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_syria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab-Israeli_conflict http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sga869.doc.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Conference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
Georgian Unmanned Spy Planes
May 29, 2008
Background
The region of Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia, a former state of the USSR, in 1992. Despite efforts by the Georgian army to quell the rebellion, the secessionist movement still successfully broke ties with the Georgian central government. Many observers believe that the Russian government helped the secessionist movement due to existing strained Russian-Georgian relations. The observers also believe that the secession movement only succeeded because of Russian assistance.
Recent Events
Underlying tensions in the region were revived when an unmanned Georgian spy plane was allegedly shot down over the Abkhazia region on April 20. The Abkhazia separatist government claims that it shot down a plane on April 20 and five more planes in May. However, Georgia furiously denies these allegations as propaganda designed to create tension. They declared that they never flew any spy planes over the Abkhazia region. An United Nations investigation commission refuted both countries’ claims and stated that a Georgian spy plane was shot down on April 20 by a Russian fighter jet.
The reports sparked protest in Georgia over Russian aggression. The picture below shows the wave of patriotism that swept the country in the face of a foreign threat. Georgian citizens are bluntly stating their demands and advocating it.
The Georgian government had an equally strong response. They demanded an apology and full reparations but the Russian government refused to comply. The Russian government released an official statement declaring that the information used in the investigation was “not objective.”
Analysis
The Georgian protest raises a big question: Why would the Russians invade a neighboring country’s airspace and shoot down a foreign country’s plane? Do they not realize that it would spark waves of protest and make Russia seem like an aggressive nation in the eyes of the international community?
In order to understand fully why the Russians shot down the Georgian spy plane on April 20 a background with a more international scope is required.
Georgia has close relations with the western world and especially the United States. (This is evident as the US gave $85.7 million to Georgia in the fiscal year of 2006.) Georgia is strategically located because it contains important oil pipelines, such as the Baki-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline, that transports oil from the Caspian Sea to world markets. Georgia’s presence threatens Russia’s power in the region by allowing western counties to have significant influence of the oil industry in the region.
Even more disturbing to Russia is Georgia’s attempts to get membership in NATO, a military alliance of North American and European countries. If Georgia joins NATO, then NATO troops and missiles could be placed right by Russia’s borders, compromising their national defense.
Russia sees Georgia as a potentially dangerous threat that needs to be neutralized. They are halting the growth of the Georgian threat by destabilizing the country, so they cannot focus their efforts on developing western alliances. By supporting the Abkhazia separatist (by providing weapons in the early 1990s secessionist movement and by shooting unmanned spy planes) the Russian government is making significant progress in destabilizing Georgia and in turn halting the threat.
Russia is subtly reminding Georgia maintain some diplomatic distance with western nations, by shooting down the spy plane in April 20. They are also hinting to Georgia that they have a military that is capable of taking over the country.
Russia probably does not care about the Georgian government’s protest or international opinion regarding this issue. Diplomatic scorn is a small cost when preventing a potentially fatal threat.
Sources
Map - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102477.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3261059.stm http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKL122951520080512 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080527/wl_nm/georgia_russia_dc_3 http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0506/p99s01-duts.html http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/66198.htm http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9006669&contentId=7015093
Myanmar and International Relief
May 26, 2008
Background
The Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar (Burma) on May 2. Initially, 62,000 people were reported killed or missing but as time passed the numbers increased. The junta (Burmese government) accepted international aid, however denied foreign relief workers access into the country, insisting that they would handle all rescue efforts on their own. The international community responded with outrage, demanding that the government open up the country. Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, declared that if nothing was done, the situation would become a “man-made catastrophe.”
Recent Events
In a recent 52 nation meeting, the junta dramatically changed their policy by allowing international relief workers unrestricted access to most devastated regions in the country. In exchange, the international community pledged to donate more money, under the condition that the junta would not revert back to its old policy.
Despite this agreement, there were still tensions between the international community and Myanmar. France sent a military ship carrying 1,000 tonnes of aid, to the devastated Irrawaddy Delta. However the junta redirected the ship to Thailand, declaring that only civilian vessels could deliver international aid. This shocked the French government and the United Nations who stated that the military vessels were only there for humanitarian reasons.
The international community and Myanmar also disagreed on the condition of the nation. The junta stated that the most critical phase has passed and reconstruction has begun. However, the United Nations Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, disagreed and predicted that relief efforts would last for at least another six months.
Although there were still disagreements, many relief agencies were optimistic that international aid would reach the people of Myanmar and continued with preparations to enter the most devastated regions.
Analysis
The recent meeting marks the end of the diplomatic stalemate between the international community and Myanmar. Myanmar bowed down to international pressure in the meeting with the concession that foreign relief workers would be allowed unrestricted access to the most devastated regions. The concession also reveals that the situation in the country is rapidly worsening. At first the junta thought that they could contain the situation but now they realize that there military cannot provide adequate relief to there citizens. They may have realized this earlier, however in order to appear strong within the international community, they probably waited for an meeting, where a shift in policy would seem decisive and controlled.
The junta’s policy of allowing only civilian ships to deliver aid reveals that they still do not trust foreign nations. This policy was enacted to prevent a strong foreign influence. They are probably afraid of the United States, French, and British military staying to interfer or supervise the upcoming 2010 Myanmar elections, after they acomplish their humanitarian mission. They also probably fear that the United States will attempt to remove the junta due to claims of human rights abuse or enacts reforms on the government.
The debate on the condition of the nation is vital as it would decide how international aid would be given. By stating that relief efforts would last at least another 6 months, the United Nations could convince nations and relief agencies to donate more money and sent more people to rebuild the nation. On the contrary the junta wants to lower foreign influence in order ensure their control over Myanmar. By stating the disaster is over and reconstruction has begun, they hope to fade from the international spotlight, lowering foreign intervention.
The Current World
May 23, 2008
Currently the world is heading into darkness, with raging natural disasters, food shortages, and tensions between countries. At this critical time in history, how the international community works together (or lack thereof) diplomatically, socially, and economically will affect many generations that have yet come.
This blog is dedicated to commenting, discussing, and analyzing international politics in this critical time in history. It will comment about an individual county’s politics and how it may change the dynamics of world politics. It will discuss about current events, what led to it, and what should or would happen. It would also analyze conflicts and tensions between countries.
Unlike most blogs and news stations, this blog will analyze the facts and make reasonable conclusions before taking sides. This site will offer fresh and insightful discussion that has not been tainted with prejudice or extreme biases. By doing so it provides a unique opinion that most blogs do not provide. It will cover a wide variety of issues that involve international affairs, as opposed to a select few countries.
The pratice of not taking sides is important as many news shows or radio channels take sides, give people what they want to hear and act for profit. This pratice of not telling the truth or the whole truth is deeply disturing. In this important topic that affects the entire world, people deserve to know what is actually happening and not recieve propaganda. With such an important topic that affects the world, people deserve to hear the truth. It matters deeply to me that people know accurate information and read rational discussions about the current world.
