Thanks to A for bringing this article to our attention.

Source: BBC News: Cabinet faces: old and new

When I think of Brown jetting off to the USA to meet George Bush at the White House, there’s something wrong with that image. The same is true of Brown jetting off to the Middle East, Africa, even Europe, to meet with other world leaders. It could simply be that Blair was PM for 10 years, and he had a high international profile, which Brown has yet to attain.

For the duration of Brown’s premiership, I have a feeling that he will be a domestic PM, in the sense that his policies will be UK-focused rather than international. To be fair, there is a great deal to do in the UK, and the BBC has provided a useful summary of the issues Brown faces: What’s in Brown’s in-tray?. In short, he has to sort out the NHS, education and security. It’s a well known fact that despite increased spending in the NHS and education, there has been little improvement. Why? I suspect it’s all been swallowed up in red tape, a common issue within British society.

This week, Brown announced his new Cabinet, and the one politician I’ve got my eye on is David Milliband, the new Foreign Secretary. He had a blog when he was in the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and if he has one as Foreign Secretary, I’ll definitely be subscribing to its feed. He’s also young, Jewish, and most importantly, not afraid to criticise the United States and Israel. There’s been enough pussyfooting around – time for some harsh words and more common sense on the international field.

These are interesting times for British politics.

Afghanistan

Strictly speaking, the war in Afghanistan began with the September 11, 2001 attacks. Attributed to Al-Qaeda, an international alliance of militant terrorist organisations established in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, the attacks prompted the US to declare war on Afghanistan on 7 October 2001. This was the beginning of the war on terrorism.

A curious thing apparently occurred following the attacks. Members of bin Laden’s family, who were in the US at the time of the attacks, were granted extraordinary White House privileges to fly out of U.S. airspace. According to Vanity Fair, at least four flights with about 140 Saudis, including roughly two-dozen members of the bin Laden family, flew to Saudi Arabia that week without even being interviewed or interrogated by the FBI (( Propaganda Matrix, “Bin Laden family allowed 9/11 leave” )). It is almost certain that at the time, bin Laden was a main suspect for the September 11 attacks, so why arrange for his family to be flown out?

An aerial bombing campaign was initiated against Afghanistan by the US and the UK, with the ultimate aim of capturing bin Laden, destroying Al-Qaeda, and removing the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbour to Al-Qaeda. The Taliban regime was overthrown, but the invasion has largely failed, with the future of Afghanistan now hanging in the balance. It has a weak government, Taliban forces are re-emerging and the poppy fields are ripe with opium.

So then, what was the point of invading Afghanistan? Osama bin Laden is apparently still at large and Afghanistan is the largest supplier of heroin world-wide – 90% of the world’s opium comes from Afghanistan (( Baldauf, S and Bowers, F, “Afghanistan riddled with drug ties”, The Christian Science Monitor )). The invasion has elevated human rights infringement of women somewhat, but with the resurgence in Taliban forces, these rights are again under threat.

Iraq

Turning our attention to Iraq, George W Bush decided that evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq could not be ignored, and on 20 March 2003 the US invaded Iraq with the support of the UK. The Iraqi government and military collapsed within three weeks. Of course, Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi dictator, was eventually captured, tried and executed.

Why was the decision taken to invade Iraq? Initially, the rationale was that Iraq posed a threat due to weapons of mass destruction, which then turned into a crusade promoting freedom and democracy (( Stevenson, Richard W., “Aftereffects: The President; Bush, Visiting Michigan, Promises All Iraqis a Voice in New Government”, The New York Times, 29 April 2003 )). However, the overriding rationale was the continuation of the war against terrorism, in a similar vein to that of the invasion of Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11.

If one thinks about it, Iraq is a major producer of oil. Therefore, the US had an economic interest in the invasion of Iraq. There are sources to suggest that Saddam Hussein had planned to require Euros for all oil sales, rejecting the US Dollar. This would have been detrimental to the value of the US Dollar. By invading Iraq, the US was able to protect its interest (( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Petroleum )).

Terrorism

The war on terrorism / struggle for freedom and democracy has so far resulted in the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. However, it’s rather curious that other nations world-wide subject to human rights infringments, the will of cruel dictators and of civil war and unrest, are largely ignored.

Iran

The current human rights situation in Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is poor. According to Amnesty International, dissidents who oppose the government non-violently face harassment, torture and execution (( Amnesty International, “Iran” )). Additionally, the Human Rights Watch has stated that “[r]espect for basic human rights in Iran, especially freedom of expression and assembly, deteriorated in 2006. The government routinely tortures and mistreats detained dissidents, including through prolonged solitary confinement” (( Human Rights Watch, Essential Background: Overview of human rights issues in Iran” (Human Rights Watch World Report 2007, 31 December 2006 )).

Iran has also refused to stop the Iranian nuclear enrichment program, sparking fears of a potential nuclear conflict.

Where’s the US invasion? Well, Iran does have access to nuclear weapons, so a bit of a risk perhaps? Also, it’s right next door to Iraq, so it would look a bit dodgy if the US invaded; insomuch that it would appear that the US is trying to take over the world.

North Korea

Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, among others, accuse North Korea of having one of the worst human rights records of any nation, with a severe restriction on political and economic freedoms. North Korean defectors have testified as to the existence of detention camps with an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 inmates, and have reported torture, starvation, rape, murder and forced labour. (( http://hrnk.org/hiddengulag/toc.html )) A man who claims to be a former prison guard and army intelligence officer said that in one camp, chemical weapons were tested on prisoners in a gas chamber (( BBC News, “Access to Evil”, 29 January 2004 )). According to another claimed former prisoner, pregnant women inside the camps are often forced to have abortions or the newborn child is killed (( http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gashc3859.doc.htm )).

Where’s the US invasion? Of course, there’s no oil in North Korea.

Zimbabwe

There have been widespread reports of various civil and political human rights abuses throughout Zimbabwe, in particular against opponents of the government. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch the government of Zimbabwe violates the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of assembly and the protection of the law. There are assaults on the media, the political opposition, civil society activists, and human rights defenders (( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe#Human_rights )).

Where’s the US invasion? Of course, there’s no oil in Zimbabwe.

There are several similar examples.

Countries that are reported to host Al-Qaeda cells include:

• Pakistan;
• India; and
• Somalia.

Countries where human rights infringements are reported to exist include:

• Belarus;
• Burma;
• China;
• Cuba;
• Eritrea;
• Ethiopia;
• Russia;
• Sudan;
• Turkmenistan; and
• Uzbekistan.

In light of the above, the US government under the lovely George W Bush has a lot to answer for. Afghanistan can probably be put down to a knee-jerk reaction to the appalling atrocities of September 11 and the war against terror, but why has there been little or no action against other contries where Al-Qaeda cells are reported to exist? The Iraq invasion is not quite so clear-cut, and the excuse of “freeing the Iraqi people and restoring democracy” doesn’t quite wash, as the same is arguably needed in numerous other nations around the world.

What is global warming?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess information on climate change and its impact. It’s Fourth Assessment Report is scheduled for release soon, but past assessments have predicted that global temperatures will rise by the end of the 21st century of between 1.4C and 5.8C. This will cause glaciers at the North and South Pole to melt, thereby raising sea levels. After all, the melted water has to go somewhere.

Why are us humans getting the blame?

Global warming is attributed to CO2 emissions, which is mainly caused by pollution from vehicles on the road. The Guardian devised this little chart in 1996 showing examples of countries where the most CO2 emissions come from.

Imagine the millions of cars being used ever day, all sputtering out CO2 emissions, not to mention lorries, vans, motorbikes, and even aircraft. A more detailed chart with all the main culprits can be found here. CO2 emissions are also caused by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture.

All these things are carried out or used by humans. No wonder we’re getting the blame.

What are the likely effects?

If the world does get warmer, then countries throughout the world will suffer from a knock-on effect with precipitation and sea level rises. In effect, some parts of the world will be submerged in water. For example, the small island of Tuvalu in the Pacific is already experiencing severe flooding, damaging homes and affecting drinking water. The rising sea levels could even submerge some of the coastal towns in the UK.

Not only that, rising sea levels are likely to have a devastating effect on many species of life on Earth. Marine life immediately springs to mind, particularly those that survive in colder waters, and the coral reefs.

The world will also see more extreme weather, and this is something that’s already happening. See here and here.

What is the world doing about it?

Not enough. This is probably the latest development, whereby leading world politicians and industrialists have reached a new, non-binding agreement to set up a global market to cap and trade CO2 emissions and that a limit should be set for maximum acceptable CO2 levels in the atmosphere. These talks were informal, and do not represent official government policy.

I think this sums up the current situation – NOT ENOUGH IS BEING DONE. World leaders are either ignorant or choosing to ignore the issue. The reasons that spring to mind for this apparent lack of action are probably:

1. Oh, there’s plenty of time to sort out the problems.
2. Ah, don’t worry, the situation isn’t that serious; these scientists are just being paranoid.
3. No way, saving the world will cost too much money.

Or perhaps they’re just too stupid or at a loss to do anything about it?

What can we do about it, as individuals?

• Recycle, recycle, recycle.
• Use public transport.
• Change all your light bulbs to more environmentally-friendly kinds (did you know that all light bulbs, big or small, emit CO2?).
• If you have to use cars, buy cars with low CO2 emissions (you will even get tax breaks for doing so).
• Lobby governments to do something about it. After all, they’re the ones with the money and the power to save the world.

It certainly seems to be a sorry state of affairs. What are you going to do about it?