This is an issue that has been around since Bush administration. Obama administration has intensified the economic sanctions in effort to stop the enrichment of uranium but to no avail. In fact, Iran has "announced legislation intended to disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, a vital
Persian Gulf shipping lane, and "it's" testing missiles in a desert drill
clearly intended as a warning to Israel and the United States." Iran Takes Defiant Steps Over New Sanctions .
As it stands right now, there is a stand off between the West and Iran. Since neither side is willing to give ground on their demands, the negotiation talks are going nowhere fast.-Iran nuclear stand-off: Travelling circus of talks continues .
Here is a borrowed summary ( from the article above) of the demands of each side :
World's powers want Iran to "stop the enrichment of uranium to 20%; close a heavily-fortified enrichment facility near the city of Qom; and export its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. " ; while Iran wants "a recognition of Iran's right to enrich uranium, a lifting of sanctions and a discussion of regional issues including Syria."
Since the last talks have ended in stalemate, both parties have agreed on continuing talks on low-level experts' meetings. Whatever the level is, both sides need to understand that you need to give a little to receiving something back. Right now, Worlds powers are literally trying to bully the nation into submission. Anyone knowing anything about Middle East nations will tell you that they are not lacking anything in the pride department. USA is making the same mistake it constantly makes with Russia... and most of other weaker countries for that matter, using threats to make their point . Washington needs to understand that after recent recession fiasco, they do not have the same bite as they used to. They will have to learn how to give concessions and compromises rather than orders and threats, especially in the case of pride driven nations such as Russia and Middle East countries. The demands of the Word's powers are simply unrealistic at this point : stop doing everything ( involving YOUR uranium enrichment) and give us everything you have.... or ELSE. Sounds more like a hold up than negotiating talks. Especially since Iran's biggest enemy and USA ally- Israel- is considering pre-emptive military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as the talks unfold. The whole situation is lacking a woman's touch, so to speak. Rather than discussing the issues, similarities, problems and solutions in a constructive manner, the nations are sizing whose "gun" is bigger.
Israel and USA need to come to terms with the fact that Iran has uranium and it can do whatever it wants with it. Threats and aggressions will only fuel the Iran's wish to defy the West. Concessions need to be made on the amount of uranium allowed to be enriched by Iran. They will do it anyway! So one might as well give a reasonable amount for Iran to enrich, in exchange for some form of monitoring of their nuclear facilities. In the same way, Iran should be allowed to stockpile a certain amount of 20% enriched uranium, while giving their promise not to use it for any pre-emptive or offensive action - in fear of risking retaliation by international community. Although at this time this might seem extreme to Washington or Israel, the continuation of the talks in the current manner is not exactly getting them anywhere. In fact, they are pissing off Iran on daily bases, while Iran is in the continuous process of militarization. This hardly seems like a very clever move.
Moreover, Iran is concerned with the Syrian situation that is greatly destabilizing the region - which is also a huge concern of the Word's powers. This is a great opportunity for the West to start building a positive relationship with Iran to solve the issue, while creating trust. The opportunity to work together on one issue can greatly facilitate cooperation on other issues as well. If Washington helped Iran to be a stabilizing force in the Middle East - as it did before - then perhaps Iran would not see them as a great evil and concede to their demands on uranium enrichment.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
Thoughts on Russia and Assad
Why Russia is standing by Syria's Assad - Lovely, LOVELY article. Although I already shared my thoughts on Syria crisis, I just had to take a shot at this article. It definitely portrays Russia as "the big bad wolf" ( or more like "big bad bear" in Russia's case ...) because of it's support for Assad's regime on political principle. Russia's principle is that USA/Western states should not intervene in political matters of other nations. Moreover, Western states should not military help to bring down the offending government and install one that is more to their liking. In my opinion, it's not only a solid point of view in principle, but should be one in practice as well. The article states that Western states' have "responsibility to protect" and to accomplish this they have the right to intervene in the political maters of other countries. We know better what is best for you... arrogant, no? How can a coalition of countries that has a different system of moral beliefs, cultural beliefs, religious beliefs and political views know what is BEST for a country that is completely opposite from them? Even better, try to MILITARILY impose their "beliefs" on that country??? Is it because in the past they have had such a great track record of supporting positive governments of the country in crisis???
USA is no angel and no better than Russia by any means. Right now they are selling arms to Assad's opposition ( or are about to) and they are judging Russia for it's arms sale o.O . Don't judge others what you have done yourself.
For example, USA's track record with tyrants is extensive so don't judge Russia as if you're blame free.
Let's look at the government USA suported in the past and what type of USA friendly government Syria can look forward to :
Additional Info:
Why Russia Won't Yield on Syria - Great interview! A must! Describes the situation without biases.
USA is no angel and no better than Russia by any means. Right now they are selling arms to Assad's opposition ( or are about to) and they are judging Russia for it's arms sale o.O . Don't judge others what you have done yourself.
For example, USA's track record with tyrants is extensive so don't judge Russia as if you're blame free.
Let's look at the government USA suported in the past and what type of USA friendly government Syria can look forward to :
- U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
- 1970s USA supported brutal Shah of Iran Pahlevi & its brutal police force SAVAK -
- Formed under the guidance of United States and Israeli
intelligence officers in 1957, SAVAK developed into an effective
secret agency. Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal
authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely.
SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin
facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well.
SAVAK's
torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting
brokon glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to
the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these
activities were carried out without any institutional
checks.
At the peak its influence under the Shah SAVAK had at least 13 full-time case officers running a network of informers and infiltration covering 30,000 Iranian students on United States college campuses. The head of the SAVAK agents in the United States operated under the cover of an attache at the Iranian Mission to the United Nations, with the FBI, CIA, and State Department fully aware of these activities. In 1978 the deepening opposition to the Shah errupted in widespread demonstrations and rioting. SAVAK and the military responded with widespread repression that killed thousands of people - article on SAVAK - USA installation of Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlevi into power
- 1980s allaince with Bin Laden -
- "While studying civil engineering and economics at King Abdulaziz University, Bin Laden became a disciple of the Muslim Brotherhood and Abdullah Azzam, founder of the Hamas militant group.From 1986 to 1988, he raised money for the mujahedeen and fought alongside guerrillas battling to expel the Soviets from Afghanistan with America's help." -Osama Bin Laden's transformation: Rich Saudi scion to U.S. ally to Public Enemy No. 1
- Bin Laden—from friend to foe of US imperialism
- A nice summary of 8 other embarrassing allies of USA - America's Other Most Embarrassing Allies
Additional Info:
Why Russia Won't Yield on Syria - Great interview! A must! Describes the situation without biases.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Thoughts on scientists' 'death' of evidence funeral
CBC readers react to scientists' 'death' of evidence funeral: The Conservatives strike again! (And just for the record, I am not anti-conservative but I am anti-Harper at this time.) They are introducing the budget cuts into research area. I am not against cuts if they are well justified. However, cutting money supply to the research area can hardly be ever justified. As I read this morning some of the comments from the public for this move, I was completely horrified. Although the majority is against these cuts, there are some people that think research should not be left unaffected by the cuts because other areas have suffered. So if I suffer, everyone else should suffer too, then we can all be one big miserable family :) . Oh come on! It is clear that some areas are important than others....and some areas should be untouchable. Now, I want to talk about the claim some people made that the researchers should seek funding from private sectors.
The government should not be cutting funding to research, because this area is ESSENTIAL to progress of any healthy nation. If we do not go forwards... that's right, we roll backwards. If the researchers start seeking funding from the private sector to fund their projects, then the research only beneficial the people without great financial benefit will be negatively affected. Every potential private company needs to make sure that the findings are financially beneficial to their company. It is quite unlikely that these companies will promote research that shows the negative affects of the greenhouse gases on the environment. Especially, when the solution to that problem is for the companies to buy more expensive machinery that is environmentally friendly. Let's face it, anything that is environmentally friendly is more expensive for the companies to acquire. What about cancer research? What company will actually fund that? Any pharmaceutical company knows that it will make more money on putting costly bandage solutions to deal with the problem, rather than dealing with the direct cause. We need the research area to be financially backed up by a source that is working for the good of people, not for the good of the profit. The invisible hand of the market is not going to take care of the research that does not produce big bucks. It is that simple!
As the world seems to be going slowly to hell, we need the innovative research to move us away from the path of destruction and towards more environmentally-friendly sustainable ways! And it will not be easy or profitable to do that, but the point is that it MUST to be done in order for Earth to continue house the human race, or any race for that matter. We need research that is in-your-face and that is radical for us to be able to deal with all the current world problems in fast enough pace. This research will not bring any financial profit and thus won't/can't be funded by private and profit-driven companies. It is the government's job to take care of the areas that are favourable for the public, but are not guided by the invisible hand. SO, do the job that you were elected to do Mr. Harper.
The government should not be cutting funding to research, because this area is ESSENTIAL to progress of any healthy nation. If we do not go forwards... that's right, we roll backwards. If the researchers start seeking funding from the private sector to fund their projects, then the research only beneficial the people without great financial benefit will be negatively affected. Every potential private company needs to make sure that the findings are financially beneficial to their company. It is quite unlikely that these companies will promote research that shows the negative affects of the greenhouse gases on the environment. Especially, when the solution to that problem is for the companies to buy more expensive machinery that is environmentally friendly. Let's face it, anything that is environmentally friendly is more expensive for the companies to acquire. What about cancer research? What company will actually fund that? Any pharmaceutical company knows that it will make more money on putting costly bandage solutions to deal with the problem, rather than dealing with the direct cause. We need the research area to be financially backed up by a source that is working for the good of people, not for the good of the profit. The invisible hand of the market is not going to take care of the research that does not produce big bucks. It is that simple!
As the world seems to be going slowly to hell, we need the innovative research to move us away from the path of destruction and towards more environmentally-friendly sustainable ways! And it will not be easy or profitable to do that, but the point is that it MUST to be done in order for Earth to continue house the human race, or any race for that matter. We need research that is in-your-face and that is radical for us to be able to deal with all the current world problems in fast enough pace. This research will not bring any financial profit and thus won't/can't be funded by private and profit-driven companies. It is the government's job to take care of the areas that are favourable for the public, but are not guided by the invisible hand. SO, do the job that you were elected to do Mr. Harper.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Thoughts on Sustainable Fisheries
First of all, I would like to mention that I am a full fledged Pescatarian - which is sort of a lazy vegetarian. In nutshell, a pescetarian diet shares many of its components with a vegetarian diet, but it includes fish and shellfish. Consequently, the idea of sustainable fisheries is very important to me.
The first time the issue was brought to my attention was when I stumbled upon the video the End of the Line. It really made me think about how my diet effects the today's world and the future ecosystem. Some "fun" facts for you to make note of:
The warning signs are everywhere, as the scientists cry out for the governments to take active action and pay attention to this serious issue. UN is on-board with the scientific community as well :UN report urges improved fisheries management to help ensure food security . The information is out there and the red flags are all over the place - so to speak. However, the more I speak to people about this, the more hope I loose in humanity. People just do not care. Let's look at some of those excuses:
What about the environmental effects? Have you ever heard of the food chain? I don't even need the scientific facts to know that once the oceans are empty, the ripple effect through the food chain will be catastrophic. Perhaps you don't care because you'll be dead by then. Don't count on it. "Leading scientists such as Daniel Pauly suggest that if we continue to catch and eat fish at the current rate, the oceans and seas will be empty within 40 years" -Sea the Truth So in 2048, the oceans will be empty if we keep going at current rate. Thus it is very likely it'll happen in your lifetime. If not, it will definitely happen within the lifetime of your children. Don't we care about the legacy we are leaving to our children.. it'll be a harsh world to bring your kids into.
So what can YOU do, as a one single individual? Well, nations are made up of single individuals... . If everyone starts taking the responsibility for their actions and take action to prevent a catastrophe then CHANGE WILL HAPPEN. Here's how you can do your part:
If you like to eat seafood:
If you like to fish then :
The first time the issue was brought to my attention was when I stumbled upon the video the End of the Line. It really made me think about how my diet effects the today's world and the future ecosystem. Some "fun" facts for you to make note of:
- Globally, some 75 per cent of wild marine fish are now said to be either fully-exploited or overfished, according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation1
- In European waters, some 80 per cent of stocks are recorded as overfished, according to the European Commission.2
- The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2012 report notes that the sector is a source of income for 55 million people.
- The problem is that in Europe some 50 per cent of the quotas set by politicians are higher than scientists say are sustainable.3
The warning signs are everywhere, as the scientists cry out for the governments to take active action and pay attention to this serious issue. UN is on-board with the scientific community as well :UN report urges improved fisheries management to help ensure food security . The information is out there and the red flags are all over the place - so to speak. However, the more I speak to people about this, the more hope I loose in humanity. People just do not care. Let's look at some of those excuses:
- I have other problems to deal with.
- What can I do? I am just one person. I can't make a difference.
- We'll cross that bridge when we get there.
- Let others/scientists worry about this. I'll worry about being good at my job specifically.
- I don't make enough of a negative impact to try to fix the problems others have created.
- I don't eat fish.
What about the environmental effects? Have you ever heard of the food chain? I don't even need the scientific facts to know that once the oceans are empty, the ripple effect through the food chain will be catastrophic. Perhaps you don't care because you'll be dead by then. Don't count on it. "Leading scientists such as Daniel Pauly suggest that if we continue to catch and eat fish at the current rate, the oceans and seas will be empty within 40 years" -Sea the Truth So in 2048, the oceans will be empty if we keep going at current rate. Thus it is very likely it'll happen in your lifetime. If not, it will definitely happen within the lifetime of your children. Don't we care about the legacy we are leaving to our children.. it'll be a harsh world to bring your kids into.
So what can YOU do, as a one single individual? Well, nations are made up of single individuals... . If everyone starts taking the responsibility for their actions and take action to prevent a catastrophe then CHANGE WILL HAPPEN. Here's how you can do your part:
If you like to eat seafood:
- Find & buy sustainable seafood : http://www.seachoice.org/search/ .
- Very useful search engine! Takes only one second to check if the seafood you're serving for dinner is sustainable. Don't be lazy. You use it and do your part.
- Places where you can definitely buy sustainable seafood : http://www.seachoice.org/our-partners/partner-map/
- There are several in/near Toronto and one in Montreal. Ottawa lucked out it seems. However, if you are in BC or the interior provinces you're in luck. Or check out these retailers: http://www.seachoice.org/our-partners/retailers/
If you like to fish then :
- Practice Carbon-conscious Fishing
- Use Lead-free Tackle
- Practice Catch and Release, Unless you Hook an Invasive Species
- Pack Out Everything You Pack In
- When You Keep Your Catch, Use Every Part of It - Compost
Monday, July 9, 2012
Thoughts on Syrian Crisis
ARTICLE : Stronger sanctions urged by Friends of Syria
This is as good of a place to start as any. When reading the article above, I was overwhelmed by emotions. None of them were positive. I've only been watching the events unfold in Syria for few months, while the upraising has began about 16 months ago. The situation is seemingly getting worse and there is a lot of uproar in the international community. This uproar, in and out of itself, is mind-boggling to me. Yes, the situation is horrible : people are dying and homes are destroyed. The death toll thus far is between 10, 000 to 14, 000 - depending on the source. Yet these numbers are not in themselves that outrageous, when compared to other conflicts in the world. For example: "The International Rescue Committee says 45,000 people are dying every month in the central African state - a total of 5.4 million dead over the past decade." - DR Congo death toll more than 5m
Really, Syrian crisis hardly seems like a crisis when you take the state of other nations into the account. Why is all this buzz then? Oil? Political agenda of western states to to put in power a more USA friendly government? Perhaps. I rather doubt that the uproar of the international community is due the sincere concern of those nations. Otherwise, their concern would be placed more appropriately. What I found really interesting about this article is Clinton's comment:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Russia and China "must pay a price" for blocking UN sanctions that might force Assad to step down."I don't think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all — nothing at all — for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime," she said. "The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price. Because they are holding up progress, blockading it. That is no longer tolerable.""
Oh, the irony! China will pay "a price" to whom? To the nation it loans billions of dollars on weekly basis to make sure its economy doesn't belly up in anouther week? Really Clinton, do not bite the hand that feeds you or you may get slapped. Oh, the arrogance! USA is threatening Russia and China, two of the major players in the world! Why? Because they disagree! Well, we all know how much democratic nations do not like being disagreed with! You either agree, or will take our democracy and run you over with it. True? Maybe? What about Iraq, Libya or Egypt? (Egypt: Islamists Kill Man For Walking With His Fiancee In Public Before Marriage, ‘It Is An Abomination’ - USA supported government in action) Or any other war, USA marched its big bum into... . IN WHAT CASE, did anything actually turn out great for the country/political player USA tried to "help". Anymore help, and it seems we're going to be face to face with WWIII.
I think, disagree if you wish, that perhaps we need to need to take a step back before thinking about jumping into the crisis in the Middle East or other Muslim countries. Urge peace, help develop infrastructure, use economic sanctions, send humanitarian aid... but DO NOT think that you know better how to solve the political problems of the countries whose belief system are not familiar with. If they want a new government, let them fight for it themselves. In this way, they will only be able to blame themselves for the state of their country. Perhaps consider Russian's stance on the situation :
"A senior Russian official said July 9 that Moscow is halting its weapons sales to Syrian authorities until the situation there calms down.Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the G20 summit June 20 that only the Syrian people have the right to decide whether their president, Bashar Assad, steps down. Putin said not all Syrians want a change in leadership and that all parties need to negotiate a solution to end the bloodshed.Russia reiterated June 9 that despite its growing concerns about the conflict, it will continue to oppose the outside use of force to end it." Syria in crisis
Stop supporting armed conflict. Supporters of the current government ( Russia) and supporters of the opposition (Western countries) should stop heating up the conflict by selling the arms to the friendly side. Military support of the opposition should never be an option, because it cuts down on their chances of becoming a legitimate government. Legitimate government should be chosen by people not by guns, especially not by foreign arms! Keep your arms in your country, don't extend them into the territory of others or they might get burned as they did in Iraq, Libya, Korea, Afghanistan.
Food for thought: "The Arab Spring replaced the harsh order of hated dictators with a flowering of neophyte democracies. But these governments--with weak mandates, ever shifting loyalties and poor security forces--have made the region a more chaotic and unstable place, a place more susceptible than ever to rogue provocateurs fomenting violent upheavals, usually in the name of faith," writes TIME's Bobby Ghosh.
This is as good of a place to start as any. When reading the article above, I was overwhelmed by emotions. None of them were positive. I've only been watching the events unfold in Syria for few months, while the upraising has began about 16 months ago. The situation is seemingly getting worse and there is a lot of uproar in the international community. This uproar, in and out of itself, is mind-boggling to me. Yes, the situation is horrible : people are dying and homes are destroyed. The death toll thus far is between 10, 000 to 14, 000 - depending on the source. Yet these numbers are not in themselves that outrageous, when compared to other conflicts in the world. For example: "The International Rescue Committee says 45,000 people are dying every month in the central African state - a total of 5.4 million dead over the past decade." - DR Congo death toll more than 5m
Really, Syrian crisis hardly seems like a crisis when you take the state of other nations into the account. Why is all this buzz then? Oil? Political agenda of western states to to put in power a more USA friendly government? Perhaps. I rather doubt that the uproar of the international community is due the sincere concern of those nations. Otherwise, their concern would be placed more appropriately. What I found really interesting about this article is Clinton's comment:
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Russia and China "must pay a price" for blocking UN sanctions that might force Assad to step down."I don't think Russia and China believe they are paying any price at all — nothing at all — for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime," she said. "The only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price. Because they are holding up progress, blockading it. That is no longer tolerable.""
Oh, the irony! China will pay "a price" to whom? To the nation it loans billions of dollars on weekly basis to make sure its economy doesn't belly up in anouther week? Really Clinton, do not bite the hand that feeds you or you may get slapped. Oh, the arrogance! USA is threatening Russia and China, two of the major players in the world! Why? Because they disagree! Well, we all know how much democratic nations do not like being disagreed with! You either agree, or will take our democracy and run you over with it. True? Maybe? What about Iraq, Libya or Egypt? (Egypt: Islamists Kill Man For Walking With His Fiancee In Public Before Marriage, ‘It Is An Abomination’ - USA supported government in action) Or any other war, USA marched its big bum into... . IN WHAT CASE, did anything actually turn out great for the country/political player USA tried to "help". Anymore help, and it seems we're going to be face to face with WWIII.
I think, disagree if you wish, that perhaps we need to need to take a step back before thinking about jumping into the crisis in the Middle East or other Muslim countries. Urge peace, help develop infrastructure, use economic sanctions, send humanitarian aid... but DO NOT think that you know better how to solve the political problems of the countries whose belief system are not familiar with. If they want a new government, let them fight for it themselves. In this way, they will only be able to blame themselves for the state of their country. Perhaps consider Russian's stance on the situation :
"A senior Russian official said July 9 that Moscow is halting its weapons sales to Syrian authorities until the situation there calms down.Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the G20 summit June 20 that only the Syrian people have the right to decide whether their president, Bashar Assad, steps down. Putin said not all Syrians want a change in leadership and that all parties need to negotiate a solution to end the bloodshed.Russia reiterated June 9 that despite its growing concerns about the conflict, it will continue to oppose the outside use of force to end it." Syria in crisis
Stop supporting armed conflict. Supporters of the current government ( Russia) and supporters of the opposition (Western countries) should stop heating up the conflict by selling the arms to the friendly side. Military support of the opposition should never be an option, because it cuts down on their chances of becoming a legitimate government. Legitimate government should be chosen by people not by guns, especially not by foreign arms! Keep your arms in your country, don't extend them into the territory of others or they might get burned as they did in Iraq, Libya, Korea, Afghanistan.
Food for thought: "The Arab Spring replaced the harsh order of hated dictators with a flowering of neophyte democracies. But these governments--with weak mandates, ever shifting loyalties and poor security forces--have made the region a more chaotic and unstable place, a place more susceptible than ever to rogue provocateurs fomenting violent upheavals, usually in the name of faith," writes TIME's Bobby Ghosh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)