by Alex Evans | Oct 12, 2007 | Conflict and security, Global system, Middle East and North Africa
From Wired.com: former US infantry officer Robert Bateman has an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune today, which has some interesting insights into Blackwater’s modus operandi in Iraq (see also earlier GD post here):
I know something about Blackwater USA. This opinion is both intellectually driven as well as moderately emotional. You see, during my own yearlong tour in Iraq, the bad boys of Blackwater twice came closer to killing me than did any of the insurgents or Al Qaeda types. That sort of thing sticks with you. One story will suffice to make my point.
The first time it happened was in the spring of 2005. For various reasons, none of which bear repeating, I was moving through downtown Baghdad in an unmarked civilian sedan. I was with two other men, but they had the native look, while I was in my uniform, hunched in the back seat and partially covered by a blanket, hoping that the curtains on the window were enough to conceal my incongruous presence, not to mention my weapons. It was not the normal manner in which an Army infantry major moved around the city, but it was what the situation called for, so there I was. We were in normal Baghdad traffic, with the flow such as it was, in the hubbub of confusion that is generated when you suddenly introduce more than 1 million extra vehicles in the course of two years into a city that previously had only a few hundred thousand vehicles, and no real licensing authority.
As we approached one semi-infamous intersection along the main route used by Blackwater between the International Zone (a.k.a. the Green Zone) and the Ministry of Interior, one of Blackwater’s convoys roared through. Apparently, Blackwater’s agents did not like the look of us, the main body of cars in front of them. Their response was, to say the least, contrary to the best interests of the United States effort in Iraq. Barreling through in their huge, black armored Suburbans and Expeditions, they drove other cars onto the sidewalk even as they popped off rounds from at least one weapon, though I cannot say if the shots were aimed at us or fired into the sky as a warning. I do know one thing: It enraged me … and Blackwater is, at least nominally, on our side.
But imagining that incident from an Iraqi perspective made it clear to me that though Blackwater USA draws its paycheck from Uncle Sam, it’s not working in Uncle Sam’s best interests. If I was this angry, I can only imagine the reactions of the tens of thousands of Iraqis who encounter Blackwater personnel on a regular basis.
But of course, you’d be an idiot to suggest that Blackwater is in any way trigger-happy.
by David Steven | Oct 12, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
A UN body and a US Democrat – it’s the reddest of red rags for the American right…
Update: Breaking:
Although former Vice President Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize this week for his work as a global-warming performance artist, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled early today that President George Bush would receive the gold medal, the diploma and the $750,000.
Update II: Jonas Kyratzes:
Seriously, people. There are certainly more disgusting figures than Gore – Bush, Kerry, Blair, etc. But just because he’s occasionally put forth an idea which isn’t catastrophically idiotic (Bush), appallingly opportunistic (Kerry) or just butt-crawlingly evil (Blair), doesn’t mean he should be elevated to being the god of the Vaguely Progressive There’s Something Wrong With The World But We Refuse To Use Our Brains To Analyze It movement.
Pajamas Media has a huge round-up, which is mostly in the same vein.
It’s the Gore-problem in a nutshell. He’s persuaded a lot of Americans to take climate seriously, but left others even more entrenched in their belief that it’s a ‘vast left-wing plot‘.
Update III: Time to consult the Goracle…
Update IV: Rush Limbaugh: Gore should hand the award over to “genuine agents of peace: General Petraeus, the U.S. military, and its commander-in-chief [George Bush].
Iain Murray has an especially helpful suggestion: “Who Else Should Al Gore Share the Prize With? How about that well known peace campaigner Osama Bin Laden, who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance – and that of the Nobel committee – in his September rant from the cave.”
Melanie Phillips: “Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Gore— along with the wretched Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change whose own untruths would fill a book — perfectly symbolises a western world that has lost its reason and its capacity to tell truth from lies.”
Fox News’ Greg Gutfeld: He’s killing the planet through hypocrisy and blame. If you disagree with him, you’re a heretic and if you agree with him, you’re doomed.
by Alex Evans | Oct 12, 2007 | Middle East and North Africa, North America
While we’re on the subject of US policy on the Middle East, take a look at the letter to Bush and Condi in the new edition of the NYRB from Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinksi, the ISG’s Lee Hamilton, Ted Sorensen, Paul Volcker and others (co-ordinated behind the scenes by Scowcroft, Gareth Evans and Steve Clemons).
It’s essentially a stiff a pep talk in advance of Bush’s Israeli-Palestinian peace conference in late November. “Failure,” they say, “risks devastating consequences”. And in blunt contrast to the more incrementally focussed Road Map, the signatories say that the talks need to cut to the chase on final status issues: “Because a comprehensive peace accord is unattainable by November, the conference should focus on the endgame and endorse the contours of a permanent peace, which in turn should be enshrined in a Security Council resolution.” In practice:
- “Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;
- “Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;
- “Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;
- “A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees’ deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;
- “Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.”
And while the letter welcomes the administration’s decision to invite Syria to the talks, they say there’s still some way to go as far as relations with Hamas are concerned: “we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organisation is far preferable to its isolation”.
by Alex Evans | Oct 12, 2007 | Middle East and North Africa, North America
I’m wading through Bob Woodward’s outstanding State of Denial. The first few chapters are almost entirely devoted to a detailed discussion of the early years of the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld, who must surely win some kind of prize for the boss from hell. But then (page 75) comes a fascinating vignette about Saudi Arabia’s posture on US-Israeli relations, during an episode in August 2001.
According to Woodward, Crown Prince Abdullah was so appalled by seeing an Israeli soldier first push and then step on an elderly Palestinian woman that he dispatched Bandar bin Sultan – Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the US and all-purpose political fixer – to the White House with an unprecedented message:
“Mr President,” Bandar began, “this is the most difficult message I have had to convey to you that I have every conveyed between the two governments since I started working here in Washington in 1982.”
Bandar’s message continued that while US policy on Israel had in the past been balanced – as when Bush senior had suspended loan guarantees to Israel over illegal settlements – this was no longer the case. “The Crown Prince has tried to find many excuses for this administration and we couldn’t.” Ariel Sharon had been permitted to “determine everything in the Middle East”. The message wenton, “What pained the Crown Prince more is the continuance of American ignorance of Israel upholding policies as if a drop of Jewish blood is equal to thousands of Palestinian lives.”
Then came the action line. “Therefore the Crown Prince will not communicate in any form, type or shape with you, and Saudi Arabia will take all its political, economic and security decisions based on how it sees its own interest in the region without taking into account American interests anymore because it is obvious that the United States has taken a strategic decision adopting Sharon’s policy.”
Naturally, the Administration was stunned. Colin Powell is quoted as demanding of Bandar, “What the fuck are you doing? You’re putting the fear of God in everybody here. You scared the shit out of everybody.” But by August 29, Bush had sent a two page letter to Abdullah that began, “Let me make one thing clear up front: nothing should ever break the relationship between us. ” The letter went on:
“I firmly believe the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and to live peacefully and securely in their own state, in their own homeland, just as the Israelis have the right to live peacefully and safely in their own state.”
As Woodward observes, “it was a much bigger step than President Clinton had ever taken. Even as Clinton had tried to fashion a Middle East peace agreement as his legacy, he had never directly supported a separate Palestinian state.” Crown Prince Abdullah, Woodward continues, was relieved. But he had one further ask: “…it is very essential that you declare your position publicly which was stated in your letter. Such a declaration at this level will eliminate the common impression prevailing in the region of the US bias to Israel.” And then:
Bush agreed to come out publicly for a Palestinian state. A big rollout was planned for the week of September 10, 2001.
In the event, Bush would not make his speech calling for a Palestinian state until June the following year, and it would be April 2003 before details of the ‘Road Map’ were released following the appointment of Mahmoud Abbas as Palestinian Prime Minister – by which time the intifada had been fermenting for another eighteen months.
by David Steven | Oct 11, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Global system
Is it just me or are good statistics on climate change ridiculously hard to get hold of?
The natural point of comparison is with development indicators. Want a ranking of where countries sit on the rich/poor continuum? Try the Human Development Index which “measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living.” Data are available for 177 countries and stretch back to 1980. There are oodles of similar indicators.
Or want to know about HIV/AIDS in, say, Mozambique. UNAIDS has stats for 2006 that include:
- Basic facts – number of people living with HIV; prevalence rate; deaths due to AIDS; number of AIDS orphans etc.
- Behavioural data – proportion of men and women who have had casual sex in the past twelve months; who used a condom when they last had casual sex; who had sex before they were fifteen; and who correctly identify ways to prevent HIV.
- Policy data – in particular, how much of its own money a government is spending on the epidemic.
The data are easy to find, easy to read and have been carefully selected. They’re also there for every country in a standard format. Read them and you feel you really know the epidemic.
So, let’s turn to climate change.
A dataset for concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere is not too hard to find, but I am struggling to find a current figure for all greenhouse gases, expressed as a carbon dioxide equivalent. Search for CO2e and you hit a Cantor Fitzgerald trading company and plenty of glossaries, but not the figure itself. (Alex tells me it’s around 455ppm.)
What about emissions? What I’d like to know, for as many countries as possible, are:
- Per capita emissions and trend (perhaps as an average rate of change over a 5-year period).
- Greenhouse gas intensity (how much a country emits to make a dollar of GDP) and trend.
- Annual rate of emissions growth, dating back to at least 1990 (the Kyoto baseline year).
- Climate stabilisation targets that countries have taken on under Kyoto or have set themselves.
EarthTrends gives me per capita emissions, but only to 2003, and only for greenhouse gases separately; a single CO2e figure could be calculated quite easily, but it’s not there. It’s similar for carbon intensity – data to 2002 and no data at all for other greenhouse gases. Getting their data is a pain too. No rankings. Hard to get all a country’s data in one place. And so on.
UNFCC, meanwhile, has data on total CO2e emissions. For countries without Kyoto targets, however, data often stops at 1994. The Kyoto countries make it to 2004.
Wikipedia lists Kyoto obligations and also EU targets for 2012, but I haven’t been able to find a comprehensive list of the patchwork of formal and informal commitments countries have taken on. Even the US has a target, to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18% between 2002 and 2012.
So…
- Climate data is patchy and often dated…
- …by God, it’s hard to find…
- …and even when you find it, the formatting is terrible. Look again at the HIV/AIDS data – a masterpiece of selection and layout in comparison.
- Rankings are also under-supplied. The US target sounds (even!) less impressive when you see that it produces only a couple of thousand dollars of GDP for each tonne of carbon emitted, putting it 39th on this list, and 4.5 times less efficient than top country, Switzerland.
- We are a million miles (kilometres?) from settling on standard data measures. When a leader says they favour a 550ppm atmospheric ceiling – do they mean carbon or carbon equivalent?
- CO2e, surely, should be the gold standard. What do we need to do to get everyone to accept that?
Look, this is dull but, surely also, a big deal.
Information – like a stable climate – is a global public good. You badly need everyone to be using the same data sources. Even if they disagree, you want them to do so using a common set of facts and concepts (that’s why we have the IPCC).
And that’s before we get to data on the human drivers – the opinions, attitudes, decisions and behaviours on which a low-carbon economy must be built (or not as the case may be). As Alex mentioned earlier, we’re writing a paper on this at the moment for the London Accord.
What do electorates believe and why? What deal on climate are they prepared to accept? Which groups are driving the debate in country? And what influence are they seeking to exert?
Look how illuminating behavioural data are for HIV/AIDS. In Mozambique, 84% of men have had sex with a casual partner in the last year, while only a third of them used a condom the last time they had casual sex. There, in a nutshell, you have the reason why one in six adults are HIV positive.We have nothing as good as this for climate.
There is one consolation though. When so much of this problem seems almost beyond solving, at least this is one deficit that can be quickly, easily and cheaply put right.
Update: Real Climate points out that there are two different CO2 equivalents floating around:
Firstly, it is often used to group together all the forcings from the Kyoto greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O and CFCs), and secondly to group together all forcings (including ozone, sulphate aerosols, black carbon etc.). The first is simply a convenience, but the second is what matters to the planet.
Imagine debating the economy if people used terms like ‘inflation’ or ‘GDP’ to mean completely different things!
