While at university several years ago a little-known BBC4 documentary series became popular amoung my (Politics and International Relations) course mates. First broadcast in early 2003, journalist Ben Anderson posing as aninquisitive 'tourist' presented a strangely knowledgable travel programme from the six countries President Bush had recently described as an 'Axis of Evil'. This excellent series applied a long-standing television-format to some of the least known countries of the world and provided a highly entertaining, much-needed backdrop to our daily studies. The cult success of the series allowed it's producers to take the idea and run with it.
As a result, in May 2005, following on from Holidays in the Axis of Evil, journalist, potential boy-band member, and thoroughly nice-bloke Simon Reeve picked up where Ben Anderson left off. Titled 'Places that don't Exist', Reeve travelled to the world's breakaway states and unrecognised nations. One of best shows in this series covered the Caucuses and the regions several states that were trapped in international limbo. You can check out an interview with Reeve here, download the video here, or watch a full version of the Caucuses episode below.
The reason this show has so much value is the snap-shot it provides of life in Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia before the Russia-Georgia conflict. Throughout the episode, Reeve warns of the real possibility of the stalemate in the region flaring into a full-scale military conflict. When watching, I remember being sceptical of Reeve's claims, but why wouldn't I be? Russia entering into post-Cold War military conflicts? Really?
'...informed observers are floating the idea of “provisional delisting” that allows the North Koreans to move first privately, but save face in the process — here is how it goes:
North Korea agrees to a verification protocol that is limited to the 38 nuclear-related sites in the North Korean declaration, which includes anytime access and environmental sampling. Pyongyang hands this agreement over to the Chinese, who hold it in escrow.
The President of the United States publicly announces that North Korea is not involved in terrorism (which, by happy coincidence, is true) and that he is de-listing North Korea provisionally on the expectation that North Korea will resume disablement activities and agree to a verification. If North Korea fails to agree to a verification scheme within some decent interval, he can simply place Pyongyang back on the list, right between Iran and Sudan. (For some reason, the State Department tends to list the states alphabetically, instead of by date of listing.)
The Chinese release the North Korean agreement, held in escrow, announcing that the North Koreans have in fact agreed to a verification proposal acceptable to the US. “How wise,” Wang Yi will opine, “of the Great Power to move first, allowing the smaller, weaker party to save face.” He will say this without any hint of irony, which is an advantage to being Chinese.
It sounds smart, but does President Bush have the stomach for such a move? Perhaps, anything can happen in the final months of a lame-duck presidency.
Everything else looks nicely in order; a face saving technique for the isolated regime, a back-room statement of intentions by the North Koreans to settle US nerves, and the Bush Administration able to claim a late success while North Korea talks of triumph in the face of the Evil Satan. It is certainly the only sensible solution which has emerged to pull North Korea away from beginning re-processing, so I support it.
As this blog develops I aim to deliver more than my current offering of written comment and analysis. I will be hosting downloadable and streamable video and audio from here onwards. As I am unlikely to be the creator of this content, this probably places me in contravention of numerous copyright and intellectual property laws. More so as most of the content I will be posting will be difficult to obtain in a blog-friendly format anywhere else. So I would like to present this disclaimer as an appeal to any disgruntled content providers.
Your content is posted here with no intention of deriving profit, influence, or any personal gain from it's distribution. I am including this content on the blog in the spirit of fair use. I do not seek to undermine your copyright or the intellectual property of the content's original creator. I am posting this content to provide further information to the readers of this blog, and to act as further reference to the ideas and comments contained within the blog. If, as a content provider, you feel I have unfairly used this content within my blog, please contact me requesting the content is removed and I will be happy to assess the legitimacy of your complaint. If I feel your request is valid, I will remove the content from my blog.
Myself an amateur photographer, I've always taken a strong interest in photo reportage and the imagery of war. A powerful photograph will burn deep into a persons memory and not only outlast the most salient of arguments, but transcend it.
The War of Terror has like Vietnam before it been defined by the the imagery of photo journalists. Now with the democratisation of comment and ready access to tools such as camera phones, we also have the advent of the citizen journalist. This has given a striking new aesthetic to photo reportage from the worlds trouble spots, whether it be a US soldiers photographs of the Abu Gharib torture or a suicide bombers final words. This development is to be celebrated for imagery is essential in human understanding, especially in the complex psychological environment of war. But make no mistake, there will still always be space for the stark beauty and silent commentary which only the 'magic eye' of the photojournalist can generate and detect.
I posted recently on the financial cost Russia has paid for it's war with Georgia. Although this conflict has certainly had a significant affect on the current state of the RTS Index, it appears the downturn is part of a wider trend which began in May.
'The benchmark RTS index has lost 46 percent of its value since its peak in May, representing a paper loss of about $700 billion for Russian companies.'
'On Friday the RTS, which peaked in May at 2,487, rebounded slightly, rising 3.36 percent to close at 1,342. The country’s other main stock exchange, the MICEX, was rose 6 percent on Friday, after weeks of heavy losses.'
'...one indication that Russian politics lubricated the market slide here, however, investors have pulled nearly $5 billion this year from emerging market funds with a heavy Russia weighting, according to EPFR Global.'
'For next year, Russian officials are projecting federal revenue growth of 1.8 percent, compared with an estimated 13.8 percent this year. Just in the last week, the value of Russia’s hard currency reserves has dropped $8.9 billion. The ruble is down 6 percent since the war in Georgia.'
Why is this happening? Too much state ownership, too much manipulation, too much politics, too much violence and too much risk in the market.
Despite my previous objection to commenting on Sarah Palin, the US Republican Vice Presidential candidate has entered the US national security debate in a big way, making her fair game. The excellent Danger Room picks up on the story and highlights this quote, stating her view that NATO should expand to include Georgia.
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help ... We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
Hawkish to say the least. I can't believe these comments are unadvised, which makes me worry further about the trajectery of the McCain political team. Speaking of which, I thought John McCain was the foreign policy and defence expert?
Almost within the same news cycle, Sarah Palin drew a direct comparison between Iraq and 9/11, a connection which has already been widely discredited and finally disproven by the press, opposition and adminsitration alike.
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
She continued...
"I believe that America has to exercise all options in order to stop the terrorists who are hellbent on destroying America and our allies," she said after several questions on the topic. "We have got to have all options out there on the table."
You can find the full article generated from this interview including a section of the original interview here.
On Saturday (13th September 2008), BBC Radio 4's Beyond Westminster hosted a fascinating discussion on the nature and future of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United Nations. Those invited onto the programme did an excellent job of examining the complex world both organisations now find themselves deeply involved in. I have no further comment to add to this discussion, so I have posted my (very) rough notes below.
UN & NATO relied upon by the Western world as the ‘twin pillars of peace’.
John Bolton (former US Ambassador to United Nations). UN is at best an irrelevance and at worst an obstacle. The two biggest threats to the world are terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The world sees its existential threats as the same as America. Feels the UN has an inability to ‘resolve’ conflicts. Peacekeepers are stationed on conflict lines and can remain there for decades arguably helping maintain the status-quo/maintain the unresolved conflict. A proponent of the creation of a League of Democracies.
David Hanney (Britain’s Ambassador to the UN). Skeptical of the possibility of removing the veto power for certain nations. He was the author of 100 recommendations made to Koffe Annan, UN Secretary General, on how to reform the ‘outdated’ organization structure. These recommendations included the ‘responsibility to protect’ idea, stating that the UN had a responsibility to protect the people of a country if the country was unable to do so. In contrast to John Bolton’s view, he believes the UN to be ‘indispensable but not very effective’.
Maurice Jochams (Senior NATO Official and Director of NATO Operations in Afghanistan). Since 9/11 the geographical scope of NATO has increased dramatically. He believes that although Georgia joining NATO could be perceived as provocative by the Russians, it should be in their interests as having democratic countries on their borders will increase stability.
Simon Jenkins (Author and Journalist). Believes NATO should be disbanded as it is outdated and outmoded. Russia and Britain have been belligerent in recent years. As an organisation which prevented Soviet expansion into Europe, it was excellent. Now though, there is nothing positive to be gained from taunting Russia by allowing membership from Poland, CzechRepublic, etc. Russia will eventually respond aggressively to what it views as an aggressive threat. Russia is not stable enough to start enraging. NATO has gone back to being an ‘artificial confrontation organisation’ and it is dangerous. UN Security Council membership should be decided on some definition of power and some idea of a ‘being a policeman in an area where there is none’. The UN is a vast gravy train, and it is a wonder that anything gets done at all. It is at its best when it is a forum.
Dr. Paul Cornish (International Security Programme – Chatham House). NATO mishandled the build-up to and aftermath of the Georgia war but did not cause Russian tanks to cross into Georgian territory. Russian attempts to join NATO were mischievous. The recent conflict in Georgia will now be used by numerous Balkan and Caucus states as proof of their need to join NATO so as to shield them from the Russian threat. The war in Afghanistan is not going well and it is due to the lack of cohesion between the NATO members. On the UN, he believes that as spheres of influence, diplomatic conflicts and the high-wielded power of the veto become more commonly used [following the post-9/11 example of the United States perhaps] the UN is again becoming paralysed.
Margo Light (Professor of International Relations - LSE). Believes NATO to be the cause of the Georgia war which it now fights to contain. NATO has expanded too far already and should not accept the Ukraine and Georgia as members. The UN has benefited hugely when the US has acted as one of the main protagonists of the UN. In recent years all the US has sought to do is undermine the organisation and this significantly discredits and disarms the organisation.
While at university several years ago a little-known BBC4 documentary series became popular amoung my (Politics and International Relations) course mates. First broadcast in early 2003, journalist Ben Anderson posing as aninquisitive 'tourist' presented a strangely knowledgable travel programme from the six countries President Bush had recently described as an 'Axis of Evil'. This excellent series applied a long-standing television-format to some of the least known countries of the world and provided a highly entertaining, much-needed backdrop to our daily studies. The cult success of the series allowed it's producers to take the idea and run with it.
Posts
