With Carbon Dioxide Emissions at Record High, Worries on How to Slow Warming

 

Upon stumbling on this reading on the New York Times the discussion about climate change seems to be gaining importance. Much of it is due to the meeting on climate change that is going to be held at Doha, Qatar for the last round of talks under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. But this meeting according to the New York Times will achieve barely anything because of the unwillingness of countries to actually fulfill emission targets. Previous targets set in 2009 for limiting the warming of the planet to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will not be achieved. Instead of reducing as carbon emissions developing countries such as China and India are increasing their coal related emissions because of these countries high concentration on coal. A criticism is made to developed nations who have decreased their carbon emissions by displacing their emission burdens to other developing countries by simply transferring manufacturing to those countries. In the case of the United States progress has been made for reducing its carbon emissions and increasing the supply of natural gas. But though the United States has made some achievements it is still one of the most carbon emitting countries. What this article seems to point out in general is that though agreements are made for possible emission targets these are in reality never going to be achieved. As the year’s pass rather than trying to meet their goals of reduction they are actually increasing emissions. Inevitably their goals of limiting global warming and carbon emissions will become unattainable if this trend continues. Though people have high hopes for the Doha summit the actual progress in reducing emissions is may be too difficult with emissions at a record high. I agree with this article because it seems to difficult to make anyone accountable for reducing carbon emissions. Countries are finding ways to work around their reductions like moving manufacturing abroad or in the case of China who still wants to be considered a “developing country” to be allowed to continue its emissions. Reductions are difficult to achieve but growing climate changes and rising global temperature tells us that global warming is something that we cannot push-off for too long.

Read Full Post »

North Korea says its missiles can reach the United States

“SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea claimed Tuesday to have missiles that can reach the American mainland, and it said that the recent agreement between the United States and South Korea to extend the range of the South’s ballistic missiles was increasing the risk of war on the Korean Peninsula”

This past Sunday an agreement between the United States and South Korean was made to extend its missile range. In retaliation to this agreement North Korea responded by stating that they too have long-range ballistic missiles that could reach the “heart”  of the United States as stated in the New York Times. North Korea criticizes South Korea for being a puppet of the United States and also stated that they do not hide the fact that their armed forces keep South Korea and US military bases in Korea, Guam, Japan as possible scope of strike. North Korea has even propaganda that shows their missiles hitting the United States capital as way to prove their point that the too are ready with long-range ballistic missiles. Though there is talk if whether to believe that North Korea does posses long-range missiles it is still a problem for the United States if North Korea does have these capabilities. This article in the New York Times brings to me the question if whether the United States thought thoroughly of the possible consequences of this agreement and whether or not they thought North Korean would do nothing in response to this agreement since the possession of ballistic missiles has always been a huge concern for the United States in North Korea. It is said that this could increase the risk of war in the Korean peninsula. These questions that I present, I believe can be tied back to the in class discussion of decision-making and whether if in this case did the United States make the right choice with this agreement?

Related articles

• North Korea claims US is within its missile range (foxnews.com)
• North Korea Says Its Rockets Could Hit Continental US (blogs.voanews.com)
• North Korea says its missiles can reach US (guardian.co.uk)
• North Korea claims US within range of its missiles (worldnews.nbcnews.com)
• U.S. dismisses North Korean threat (upi.com)
• US to Allow SKorea to Have Longer-Range Missiles (abcnews.go.com)

Read Full Post »

The Empire Strikes Back: United States’ Use of Armed Drone Technologies

Armed Predator drone firing Hellfire missile (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/12/take_two_drones_and_call_me_in_the_morning?page=0,1

This article discusses the risks involved with the transition to and utilization of armed drone technologies in the United States modern warfare techniques. The author addresses serious points about the political, economic and moral costs of using these new technologies. In addition, she posits that the transparency (or rather opacity) of the United States’ policy in creating a structure for the use of drone strikes has only paved the way for other states’ (as well as non-state actors) to utilize such technology in the future.

The use of armed drone technologies has become a much more affordable and dependable means of weaponry for the United States; however, it highlights the desensitization of warfare and the dependency for remote-controlled weapons systems for our future. The fact that a drone strike can kill targeted militants from the safety of an office building creates a mental distancing as well as magnifying the ease of doing so.

The United States’ transparency in releasing official numbers of those actually killed or affected by these drone strikes makes analyzing the repercussions of such technology difficult. As the United States continues to pave the way in new military technology policy, other states will begin to adopt similar policies of military use which could create a rather messy and unprecedented foreign policy landscape.

Related articles

• Drone economics: A business case for the killing machines…. (passivevoices.wordpress.com)
• Ask the experts: Drones (pbs.org)
• Drones (pbs.org)

Read Full Post »

What is grand strategy and why do we need it? – By Peter Feaver | Shadow Government

What is grand strategy and why do we need it? – By Peter Feaver | Shadow Government.

Students who want a bit more of a discussion about grand strategy and its relevance may want to take a peak at this 2009 post by Peter Feaver.

The term, “grand strategy,” may strike some as odd and perhaps a bit high-falutin’. As near as I can tell, the last time the New York Times usedthat term in a news story (as opposed to a book review) was back in 1999when Judith Miller used it to frame the debate over Kosovo. There was a brief mention to it in a May 2001 op-ed on Bush’s forthcoming defense policy review, which was largely a discussion of Andrew Marshall, the grand strategist of the Pentagon.)

Grand strategy is a term of art from academia, and refers to the collectionof plans and policies that comprise the state’s deliberate effort to harnesspolitical, military, diplomatic, and economic tools together to advance thatstate’s national interest. Grand strategy is the art of reconciling endsand means. It involves purposive action — what leaders think and want. Suchaction is constrained by factors leaders explicitly recognize (for instance,budget constraints and the limitations inherent in the tools of statecraft)and by those they might only implicitly feel (cultural or cognitive screensthat shape worldviews).

Related articles

• America’s Path: Grand Strategy for the Next Administration
• Peter D. Feaver: Barack Obama’s feckless foreign policy
• Is Peter Feaver Serious?
• Grand Strategy in the Classroom
• Take the Peter Feaver challenge!
• Where Have All the Foreign Policy Experts Gone?
• Jentleson and Kupchan: Mitt Romney’s dangerous path abroad

Read Full Post »

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Kagame?

Image by US Army Africa via Flickr

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/opinion/09iht-edlandow.html?_r=2&ref=global

Writing in the New York Times, Charles Landow describes the Kagame Dilemma.

Kagame has made his country one of Africa’s development stars. The economy is growing, the streets are clean and secure, corruption is under control, and women enjoy a prominent role. Between 2000, when Kagame took office, and 2008, Rwanda’s total economic output and per capita income more than doubled. The primary school completion rate rose from just over one-fifth to just over half. Life expectancy increased from 43 years to 50.

Kagame is also positioning Rwanda strongly for future growth. The country was named the top reformer in the World Bank‘s Doing Business 2010 ranking, vaulting up 76 places from its 2009 ranking. Rwanda also gained ground in Transparency International‘s Corruption Perceptions Index, moving from 102nd place in 2008 to 89th in 2009. Clearly work remains to be done, but the trends are positive.

Kagame has become a much-feted figure. In 2009 alone, according to his campaign Web site, he was honored by the Clinton Global Initiative, the United States Fund for Unicef and Florida State University, among others (including, we should admit, University of the Pacific).

But a whiff of repression now lingers over Kagame’s record, giving many supporters second thoughts. In the months before the presidential election, the deputy leader of an opposition party and the deputy editor of an opposition newspaper were killed; a prominent politician who intended to challenge Kagame was arrested; other opposition parties were excluded from the election; and a former head of the army and Kagame critic was shot in South Africa, where he had fled. (The government has denied involvement in the violent incidents.)

Here in a nutshell, we can see the difficulty in choosing among foreign policy goals and priorities. Rwanda’s success would in many ways be a success for US foreign policy and global development efforts. But it has been clear for some time that Kagame is not untainted. Indeed, one wonders how anyone could emerge from the horror of 1994 untainted. Dealing with Rwanda and Kagame will require nuance. Unfortunately, like the irony-resistant residents of the Oregon town in which the 1987 Steve Martin Roxanne was set, we don’t set a high priority for nuance.

Related Articles

• UN chief in Rwanda faces Kigali ‘outrage’ over report (calgaryherald.com)
• Rwandan president sworn in for second term (cnn.com)

Read Full Post »

Why So Little Attention for Pakistan?

Image by DFID - UK Department for International Development via Flickr

Why Are So Many Donors Ignoring Pakistan? | The Progressive Realist
This is a question I have been asking myself and which now seems to be on the minds of much of the foreign policy blogosphere.  It is actually hard to exaggerate the scale of the catastrophe now taking place in Pakistan.

Twenty percent of Pakistan is under water, and it’s getting way, way less attention – and more importantly – financial support – that the earthquake in Haiti generated. It’s true that in terms of initial casualties, the situation in Haiti was far worse, but the long-term impact of the Pakistani floods is going to dwarf the catastrophe in Haiti. That fact is apparently being ignored, by both the media and donors.

The New York Times has probably got it about right. The August-vacation factor may be more important than you would think.  My diocese, for example, has been quick to announce a second collection in the face of other disasters, but hasn’t for Pakistan because the priest who authorizes second collections is on vacation (and apparently doesn’t do Blackberry).  I suppose, too, that given Pakistan’s, shall we say, ambiguous role in the GWOT generally and Afghanistan specifically, may Americans may not be moved to sympathy.

Related articles by Zemanta:

• Floods in Pakistan: After the deluge
• Saskia Sassen: Pakistan’s Floods Reveal an Emerging Geopolitics
• Aid only trickles to Pakistan’s monsoon disaster
• Why Western donors are snubbing Pakistan after giving to Haiti

Read Full Post »