by Andrew Pickering | Jun 15, 2009 | Africa, Economics and development, Europe and Central Asia, Global system
Development charity One.org has released its annual report examining how far G8 countries are meeting their Gleneagles commitment to double aid to Africa. The US, Japan and Canada are headed towards meeting or exceeding their pledges, while Germany and the UK are said to be ‘striving’ towards their ‘big commitments’. Unfortunately, France and Italy are letting the rest of us down. Apparently, they account for 80% of the shortfall in aid increases. Italy’s efforts in particular are described as an ‘utter failure’. Bob Geldof is quoted as having commented in a characteristically forthright manner:
Poor, sad Italy. That their economy is in such a disastrous meltdown condition that they must steal from the poor, rob the ill and snatch education from the minds of the young not only beggars the imagination, but must also surely beggar the soul of that most beautiful country. Shame on you. Your government disgraces you.
‘Nuff said.
by David Steven | Jun 14, 2009 | What we're watching
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlu-qx8ohL8&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
by Alex Evans | Jun 13, 2009 | Middle East and North Africa
Andrew Sullivan provides a helpful graph plotting the ratio of Ahmadinejad to Moussavi votes in six different counts. That ratio proves to be remarkably consistent at each count:
Sullivan’s conclusion:
They didn’t even attempt to disguise the fraud. Which, to me, tells me they panicked. This graph is a red flag to Iran and the world.
Update: Nate Silver’s done a fairly comprehensive rebuttal of this graph – see here. He concludes,
these results certainly do not prove that Iran’s election was clean. I have no particular reason to believe the results reported by the Interior Ministry. But I also don’t have any particular reason to disbelieve them, at least based on the statistical evidence … I am not suggesting that any and all statistical analysis purporting to show tampering in Iran’s election results will turn out to be fruitless. I am merely suggesting that this particular analysis is dubious; it is not a smoking gun.
by Peter Hodge | Jun 13, 2009 | Conflict and security, East Asia and Pacific
Australian army signaller on patrol in East Timor, 2007 (photo: David Axe).
American strategist Tom Barnett thinks that Australia’s Defence White Paper is “a true work of goofy strategic paranoia”. He’s perplexed by Canberra’s “recent mental shift” and “sudden fear-mongering”.
I’m not sure why Barnett’s perplexed. Maybe it’s to do with the White Paper’s starting point, that over the next few decades Australia faces an uncertain and risky strategic situation. Or that Australia plans to buy 12 new submarines, 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and sea-based land-attack cruise missiles.
I’ve read the White Paper and I don’t sense a “recent mental shift”. Canberra’s attitude towards Asia has long been one of guarded optimism: engage actively with regional powers, and thereby benefit from Asia’s growing prosperity, but be ready to defend Australia if things go wrong. It’s hard to quarrel with the idea that Australia’s strategic situation is uncertain and risky. Key dynamics include China’s rise as a great power, the greater reach of its military forces, the reaction of other Asian powers to China’s rise, and the relative decline of American power in the region.
Australia also faces the prospect of further turmoil in the island chain to its north – the so-called Arc of Instability – which stretches from Indonesia to Melanesia. Over the past 20 years this archipelago has seen a lot of conflict, with Australian forces intervening in East Timor, Bougainville, Solomon Islands and Tonga.
While Australia places great stock in its alliance with the US, self-reliance is the cornerstone of defence policy. Australia needs to be able to deter potential enemies and defend itself from attack. Hence the emphasis on enhancing maritime, strike, intelligence and surveillance capabilities.
With this in mind, Canberra’s stance doesn’t look like goofy paranoia and fear-mongering. It just seems cautious and prudent.
by Leo Horn Phathanothai | Jun 12, 2009 | Climate and resource scarcity
At the end of his three day visit to Beijing this week Todd Stern, the US Climate Change Envoy, held a press conference with the Chinese press at which he said that China was doing great and the US didn’t expect China to commit to a cap on its greenhouse gas emissions (unsurprisingly this made the first page of the China Daily, the main English language mouthpiece of the Communist Party).
Ironically, this comes just days after the China Daily misquoted Wen Jiabao as saying that China would commit to emissions reduction targets in its 12th Five Year Plan, when in fact what he said was that China would consider introduce emissions intensity targets (see article here).
Readers of the China Daily would thus be forgiven for thinking that China was poised to introduce a carbon emissions reduction target, only to be told by the US that this wasn’t necessary or expected!
Many in the environmental community here (in Beijing) were stunned by Todd Stern’s comments: although there are reasonable grounds for conceding on this particular point, given absolute targets are a negotiation red line for the Chinese (not least because they are unrealistic in the short run), many feel that this upfront concession and the notable softening in tone would likely reduce the US’s leverage in pushing on other points, and preempted any discussion in particular on sectoral targets, something the Chinese would have been open to discussing (incidentally I do not see how Todd Stern’s remarks would preempt a discussion on sectoral caps). Todd Stern’s remarks are all the more surprising when considering his aggressive posturing ahead of the visit. The Times reported that:
America’s leading climate change negotiator will urge China to make a commitment to cutting greenhouse gas emissions during meetings in Beijing this week, as the US seeks to avoid the collapse of the next global warming treaty.
Just a couple of weeks earlier, Pelosi and Kerry were in town trying to persuade the Chinese leadership that any deal that didn’t include a firm commitment to emissions reduction by the Chinese would get torpedoed in Congress. The Chinese can be forgiven for feeling confused!
