The General Assembly of the United Nations has just announced its new president. Former Nicaraguan foreign minister Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann has been selected after running unopposed by anyone from the Latin American states of whose turn it was to hold the position. Upon the announcement of his selection Mr. Brockmann revealed his own plans to make the United Nations a more democratic institution. That's a pretty high and mighty position considering the fact that he didn't really have to compete agains anyone to gain his elected position!
Anyway...
The main component to Brockmann's plans for democratization is to change the amount of power the Security Council holds in international politics. Also targeted in his plans for democratization are the IMF, World Bank and the UN bureaucracy.
I applaud Mr. Brockmann for coming out and voicing his strong opinions on the problems with the United Nations system but what he is actually saying makes me think that he does not actually understand his position is. First of all, as president of the General Assembly, Mr. Brockmann cannot change the IMF and World Bank (which are not even UN bodies) and is unlikely to be able to influence much amongst the secretariat of the United Nations (which is an entirely separate body in the UN system). Secondly, to alter the powers of the Security Council (e.g. remove/reorganize the vetoes), one would have to change the UN charter. To do this would entail gaining the support of two-thirds of the members of the UN including the five veto-wielding powers (Great Britain, France, Russia, Germany and the United States). Now considering that the great powers cannot come to a consensus on pressing issues like Darfur and Zimbabwe, how does Brockmann expect them to agree on this? Furthermore, the vetoes themselves hold a certain level of distinction for their possessors. They confer the ability to directly influence the United Nations both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. The five Great Powers will not agree to relinquishing their vetoes because it would weaken their position in international politics. For example, the vetoes held by Great Britain and France represent their level of power and influence in the immediate post-1945 period, not their current level of influence, holding on to their vetoes are paramount to these declining powers. In the past, there have been calls for reform to the Security Council, many of which included increasing the number of veto votes to include the current power states like China, Brazil, India, etc. The great powers would not agree to this because it would diminish their stature in the system, so to think that they would agree to completely letting go of their special status is extremely naive.
Like I said, I applaud President Brockmann for his ambition but I believe he seriously needs to temper this ambition with a heavy dose of reality.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Election Musings
Here are a few things that have been going through my mind while watching coverage of the Canadian Federal Election:
Women
I applaud Stephane Dion for his initiative to nominate 106 female candidates in this election. I agree with the fact that there are not many women in Canadian politics but that is pretty much the only thing that we agree upon. Women are just over 51% of the population but held only 58 seats (at my last count) in the 304 seat House of Commons (which is less that one fifth of the seats). Clearly these percentages do not match up... but should they? Canada's parliamentary system follows the "First Past the Post System." This system has many advantages and disadvantages which are largely influenced by whether or not one benefits or suffers from this system. Despite the many calls for electoral reform, Canada, currently, does not employ any facet of proportional representation in its voting practices. This probably has some influence in determining how many women are elected each election. But then again, maybe not.
Unlike the recent surges in political activity that the US Presidential election has seen, female politicians in Canada have not been able to attract a near level of response. Canada has had its share of female political leaders from Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough to current Green Party leader Elizabeth May. None of these leaders though have been able to rouse the same level of support and activity that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Pallin have. It is probably stands to reason that a majority of voters in Canada do not focus on gender when choosing who to vote for. This educated guess leads me to make another hopefully educated ;) assumption in that Canadian voters tend to vote for who is most qualified and represents their interests the best. This is to say that if a female candidate is well qualified and truely connects with the interests of their electorate then she is likely to garner a fair amount of support. On the other hand, campaigning on the platform of being a woman and gender representation is not likely to garner as much support. As a voting citizen of Canada, I would like to think that we are voting for the most qualified candidate in elections and not based on factors of proportional representation.
Note: If I offend anyone with these views I am sorry but these thoughts are based on my recent years of political study and not because I believe women lack the capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the position or that women belong in the private sphere as opposed to public office.
The Carbon Tax
While watching one of Liberal leader Stephane Dion's recent speeches on CPAC, the thought hit me: "Okay so if we decide to accept your Carbon Tax plan, how would we know that it is working?" The Carbon Tax that Dion is proposing has no legitimate means of evaluation to determine if it is effective in its endeavour or even doing what it says it will. Examining Greenhouse emissions would not be the proper the indicator of this as the two things are not directly connected. Greenhouse Gases are likely to lessen in the next few years with the recent attention that global warming has received. Clean technology is growing in capabilities and becoming less expensive to own which increases the public's ability to access it and incorporate it into their lives. This will have a positive effect on decreasing GHG's. Also, the astronomical oil prices of late are forcing people to conserve their dependence on carbon based fuels and towards more environmentally friendly and cheaper means so that they do not go broke paying for the petroleum-based products we have grown to use so readily. These shifts in consumption will lower GHG's independently of the Carbon Tax, so any success by the tax would be undetectable.
Introducing a policy so invasive and costly without a reliable means of monitoring its efficacy is wreckless and irresponsible. This renegade tax would be used to fund a Liberal governments excessive spending and would unjustly add to the increasing cost of living for Canadians. When the next election would be called the Liberals would likely yell from mountain top so that everyone could hear how their Carbon Tax was so effective in reducing Green House Gases when their decline would largely be a separate phenomenon. In the end, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party are using the environment as a crutch to raise taxes and increase their ability to spend.
One final thought: I LOVE NOT HAVING CLASS ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS!!!!!!
- blenCOWe
Women
I applaud Stephane Dion for his initiative to nominate 106 female candidates in this election. I agree with the fact that there are not many women in Canadian politics but that is pretty much the only thing that we agree upon. Women are just over 51% of the population but held only 58 seats (at my last count) in the 304 seat House of Commons (which is less that one fifth of the seats). Clearly these percentages do not match up... but should they? Canada's parliamentary system follows the "First Past the Post System." This system has many advantages and disadvantages which are largely influenced by whether or not one benefits or suffers from this system. Despite the many calls for electoral reform, Canada, currently, does not employ any facet of proportional representation in its voting practices. This probably has some influence in determining how many women are elected each election. But then again, maybe not.
Unlike the recent surges in political activity that the US Presidential election has seen, female politicians in Canada have not been able to attract a near level of response. Canada has had its share of female political leaders from Audrey McLaughlin and Alexa McDonough to current Green Party leader Elizabeth May. None of these leaders though have been able to rouse the same level of support and activity that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Pallin have. It is probably stands to reason that a majority of voters in Canada do not focus on gender when choosing who to vote for. This educated guess leads me to make another hopefully educated ;) assumption in that Canadian voters tend to vote for who is most qualified and represents their interests the best. This is to say that if a female candidate is well qualified and truely connects with the interests of their electorate then she is likely to garner a fair amount of support. On the other hand, campaigning on the platform of being a woman and gender representation is not likely to garner as much support. As a voting citizen of Canada, I would like to think that we are voting for the most qualified candidate in elections and not based on factors of proportional representation.
Note: If I offend anyone with these views I am sorry but these thoughts are based on my recent years of political study and not because I believe women lack the capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the position or that women belong in the private sphere as opposed to public office.
The Carbon Tax
While watching one of Liberal leader Stephane Dion's recent speeches on CPAC, the thought hit me: "Okay so if we decide to accept your Carbon Tax plan, how would we know that it is working?" The Carbon Tax that Dion is proposing has no legitimate means of evaluation to determine if it is effective in its endeavour or even doing what it says it will. Examining Greenhouse emissions would not be the proper the indicator of this as the two things are not directly connected. Greenhouse Gases are likely to lessen in the next few years with the recent attention that global warming has received. Clean technology is growing in capabilities and becoming less expensive to own which increases the public's ability to access it and incorporate it into their lives. This will have a positive effect on decreasing GHG's. Also, the astronomical oil prices of late are forcing people to conserve their dependence on carbon based fuels and towards more environmentally friendly and cheaper means so that they do not go broke paying for the petroleum-based products we have grown to use so readily. These shifts in consumption will lower GHG's independently of the Carbon Tax, so any success by the tax would be undetectable.
Introducing a policy so invasive and costly without a reliable means of monitoring its efficacy is wreckless and irresponsible. This renegade tax would be used to fund a Liberal governments excessive spending and would unjustly add to the increasing cost of living for Canadians. When the next election would be called the Liberals would likely yell from mountain top so that everyone could hear how their Carbon Tax was so effective in reducing Green House Gases when their decline would largely be a separate phenomenon. In the end, Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party are using the environment as a crutch to raise taxes and increase their ability to spend.
One final thought: I LOVE NOT HAVING CLASS ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS!!!!!!
- blenCOWe
Sunday, September 7, 2008
I'm Baaaaaaack!!!!
After a long absence from blogging, I am back. Football camp is over and I am back to school and have more time on my hands. This is a great thing because I am excited for the election that finally became official today.
Watching the leaders on television today was interesting. Some thoughts I had this morning while watching them were:
- Dion is still uninspiring
- Layton is pushing harder than ever to become the choice of the left wing
- Duceppe is ... well... he's just there
- May speaks well but strikes me as any other Green Party candidate: someone who is entertaining but will not be taken seriously (as an option) by the majority of voters
- Harper seems strong and well prepared for this election
I can't wait to see how this election plays out. I expect a lot of slander from the opposition parties and a harsh dose of reality, provided by the Conservatives, as to how successful the other leaders would be as Prime Ministers.
In my mind, there is no doubt the Conservatives will become the government again. The question in my mind is whether or not a majority will be reached.
Oooooh the election fever is growing
- blenCOWe
Watching the leaders on television today was interesting. Some thoughts I had this morning while watching them were:
- Dion is still uninspiring
- Layton is pushing harder than ever to become the choice of the left wing
- Duceppe is ... well... he's just there
- May speaks well but strikes me as any other Green Party candidate: someone who is entertaining but will not be taken seriously (as an option) by the majority of voters
- Harper seems strong and well prepared for this election
I can't wait to see how this election plays out. I expect a lot of slander from the opposition parties and a harsh dose of reality, provided by the Conservatives, as to how successful the other leaders would be as Prime Ministers.
In my mind, there is no doubt the Conservatives will become the government again. The question in my mind is whether or not a majority will be reached.
Oooooh the election fever is growing
- blenCOWe
Monday, August 25, 2008
Excused Absence
To anyone that reads this blog,
I'm taking a bit of a hiatus from posting because I'm in the middle of football camp getting ready for the season.
I realize news and politics never sleeps but at the end of the day I'm banged up and bruised and all I want to do is lay down with a bag of ice.
I'll be back in a couple of days.
- blenCOWe
I'm taking a bit of a hiatus from posting because I'm in the middle of football camp getting ready for the season.
I realize news and politics never sleeps but at the end of the day I'm banged up and bruised and all I want to do is lay down with a bag of ice.
I'll be back in a couple of days.
- blenCOWe
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Russia's already won
According to the BBC, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has been able to broker a deal between Russia and Georgia to come to a peaceful resolution to the recent fighting in and around South Ossetia.
This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.
I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.
- blenCOWe
This sounds all and good but Russia has already achieved what it wanted in sending troops into Georgia. The ensuing peace process will take a long time to complete and until then, Georgia will be prevented from gaining full membership into the NATO alliance. Russia will likely drag its feet in completing the peace process just to prolong the time before Georgia can become a member. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to Russia if the peace process is ever completed because Georgia alone does not present a threat to the large federation and having already achieved its aims it has nothing really to gain from the process. Thus Russia wins.
I predict a long a fruitless negotiation coupled with a stalled NATO membership campaign.
- blenCOWe
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Russia's true intentions
Like most people around the world, my recent free time has been dominated by watching the Olympics and cheering on my home nations (Great Britain and Canada). Nevertheless, my ears perk up when I hear the few stories that are reported concerning the war in Georgia/South Ossetia.
The more I think about it, I truly believe that Russia's intervention has had nothing to do with protecting the separatists in South Ossetia. Okay, so Russia has allowed the granting of passports to the people of the breakaway region and battled the Georgian forces who were attempting to restore stability in the area. If this was all that Russia was doing I would believe that their intentions were honourable. But that's not all that Russia is doing...
Recent stories about the conflict have shown that the conflict as is stands now has engaged in more than protectionist movements. Russian forces have sunk a Georgian boat, destroyed a civilian airport and refused a Georgian offer for a ceasefire. In taking these actions, Russia is showing a desire to expand the conflict into the rest of Georgia and have it continue.
Also, Russia has attacked a major pipeline that provides oil to the West. This pipeline is a major economic source for the Georgian people and pumps approximately 1% of the world's oil. This show's a deliberate attempt to further this conflict past not only the people of South Ossetia but the rest of Georgia and the West.
But why are they doing this? South Ossetia cannot be that valuable to the Russian Federation and as already mentioned, this conflict is going beyond just the separatist ambitions of the small area.
Well what about the oil? Unlikely. The pipeline is not that strategic of a target.
So why does Russia believe this such an important situation to escalate what could have remained relatively benign?
Just throwing this out there... but as I've already posted, we're seeing a return to Cold War style politics.
Russia's determination to destabilize the Georgian state might be Russia's bloody response to the missile shield currently being built by NATO in central Europe. Russia has already broached the subject of placing strategic bombers in Cuba and has agreed to sell $2 billion worth of weapons systems to Venezuala and Hugo Chavez.
These first two moves came in response to the missile shield but why this move, and why now?
Well the last one is easy: the Olympics provides cover for the Russians to avoid being crucified in the media for the moves they have made beyond protecting the separatists. By the time the world awakens from its Olympic daze, the majority of the damage and atrocities of war will have already taken place.
Now for the other why...
Georgia is a strong ally of the United States and is campaigning for its inclusion into the membership of the NATO alliance. If that were to occur then Russia would have to feel more threatened than it ever has because a member of the western alliance and strong ally of the US would be right up on its doorstep. I realize the Russia already is member of NATO that shares a border with Russia (Latvia) but Georgia has the increased likelihood of having missile systems placed on its soil because of its geographic proximity to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. This will increase the fear already instilled in Russia by the missiles going into Poland.
Georgia's membership however is not guaranteed. While a promise has been given that it will become a member, there is no timeline attached to it. This is what is likely enticing the Russians to take this plan of action. As long as Georgia is in this destabilized state, it will not be invited into full membership in NATO because to do so would embroil NATO into the conflict based on its collective security agreements. Therefore, the members of NATO will not vote to include Georgia if it will mean that they will be involved in battling the Russians because of the large scale conflict that would likely ensue despite the already existing commitments to Afghanistan. Georgia, in effect, would be the fuse to the next world war.
So much for Russia's benevolent intentions!
-blenCOWe
The more I think about it, I truly believe that Russia's intervention has had nothing to do with protecting the separatists in South Ossetia. Okay, so Russia has allowed the granting of passports to the people of the breakaway region and battled the Georgian forces who were attempting to restore stability in the area. If this was all that Russia was doing I would believe that their intentions were honourable. But that's not all that Russia is doing...
Recent stories about the conflict have shown that the conflict as is stands now has engaged in more than protectionist movements. Russian forces have sunk a Georgian boat, destroyed a civilian airport and refused a Georgian offer for a ceasefire. In taking these actions, Russia is showing a desire to expand the conflict into the rest of Georgia and have it continue.
Also, Russia has attacked a major pipeline that provides oil to the West. This pipeline is a major economic source for the Georgian people and pumps approximately 1% of the world's oil. This show's a deliberate attempt to further this conflict past not only the people of South Ossetia but the rest of Georgia and the West.
But why are they doing this? South Ossetia cannot be that valuable to the Russian Federation and as already mentioned, this conflict is going beyond just the separatist ambitions of the small area.
Well what about the oil? Unlikely. The pipeline is not that strategic of a target.
So why does Russia believe this such an important situation to escalate what could have remained relatively benign?
Just throwing this out there... but as I've already posted, we're seeing a return to Cold War style politics.
Russia's determination to destabilize the Georgian state might be Russia's bloody response to the missile shield currently being built by NATO in central Europe. Russia has already broached the subject of placing strategic bombers in Cuba and has agreed to sell $2 billion worth of weapons systems to Venezuala and Hugo Chavez.
These first two moves came in response to the missile shield but why this move, and why now?
Well the last one is easy: the Olympics provides cover for the Russians to avoid being crucified in the media for the moves they have made beyond protecting the separatists. By the time the world awakens from its Olympic daze, the majority of the damage and atrocities of war will have already taken place.
Now for the other why...
Georgia is a strong ally of the United States and is campaigning for its inclusion into the membership of the NATO alliance. If that were to occur then Russia would have to feel more threatened than it ever has because a member of the western alliance and strong ally of the US would be right up on its doorstep. I realize the Russia already is member of NATO that shares a border with Russia (Latvia) but Georgia has the increased likelihood of having missile systems placed on its soil because of its geographic proximity to Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. This will increase the fear already instilled in Russia by the missiles going into Poland.
Georgia's membership however is not guaranteed. While a promise has been given that it will become a member, there is no timeline attached to it. This is what is likely enticing the Russians to take this plan of action. As long as Georgia is in this destabilized state, it will not be invited into full membership in NATO because to do so would embroil NATO into the conflict based on its collective security agreements. Therefore, the members of NATO will not vote to include Georgia if it will mean that they will be involved in battling the Russians because of the large scale conflict that would likely ensue despite the already existing commitments to Afghanistan. Georgia, in effect, would be the fuse to the next world war.
So much for Russia's benevolent intentions!
-blenCOWe
Monday, August 4, 2008
Defending Louise Arbour
Outgoing UN Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour has been receiving a lot of negative press lately as she prepares to end her term without an attempt for re-appointment. Watchdog NGO, Human Rights Watch has been recently critical of her time in office, claiming that she was not critical enough of major powers Russia and China.
Her record shows that she did not criticize either of these global giants during her term but she has been effective in criticizing some of the worst human rights violaters in the world. The list of her most criticized violaters includes Burma, the DRC, Iran, Israel, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Uganda. I don't know about anyone else but when I think of places where human rights violations are prevalent the aforementioned are the places that first come to mind.
Furthermore, it has become increasingly made public that the Human Rights Council suffers from bloc voting. This has been able to curtail some of the things that the Council could have done. Much like the Security Council, the states protect their allies even if they are violaters of human rights. Currently China and Russia are both on the Human Rights Council which places the Human Rights Commissioner in a difficult position; if he or she (in this case) is critical of powerful states like China and Russia then those states are likely to make life difficult in the Council in order to protect themselves. This doesn't mean that the Commissioner abandons the pursuit of human rights in those countries, just that they do so in a way that doesn't leave stranded the human rights of those in more troubling areas.
Commissioner Arbour has been outspoken against some of the worst violators in the world, which has been her job. Rather than try to tarnish her term and the work she has done with useless diatribe let's honour her contribution and then look to the future.
- blenCOWe
Her record shows that she did not criticize either of these global giants during her term but she has been effective in criticizing some of the worst human rights violaters in the world. The list of her most criticized violaters includes Burma, the DRC, Iran, Israel, Zimbabwe, Sudan and Uganda. I don't know about anyone else but when I think of places where human rights violations are prevalent the aforementioned are the places that first come to mind.
Furthermore, it has become increasingly made public that the Human Rights Council suffers from bloc voting. This has been able to curtail some of the things that the Council could have done. Much like the Security Council, the states protect their allies even if they are violaters of human rights. Currently China and Russia are both on the Human Rights Council which places the Human Rights Commissioner in a difficult position; if he or she (in this case) is critical of powerful states like China and Russia then those states are likely to make life difficult in the Council in order to protect themselves. This doesn't mean that the Commissioner abandons the pursuit of human rights in those countries, just that they do so in a way that doesn't leave stranded the human rights of those in more troubling areas.
Commissioner Arbour has been outspoken against some of the worst violators in the world, which has been her job. Rather than try to tarnish her term and the work she has done with useless diatribe let's honour her contribution and then look to the future.
- blenCOWe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
