Obama speaks! (finally)

Barack Obama finally commented on the situation in Gaza this afternoon during a Q&A session with reporters following a briefing on his proposed economic plan. Frankly, the comment itself was nothing exciting or insightful - a concern for the human cost on both sides, a hope that a cease fire would be reached soon - but it was good to finally hear something from the president-elect.

Obama did explain why he hasn't spoken on the conflict sooner, and it does make some sense. He basically cited the old American political axiom that "politics ends at the water's edge." What that means in plain English, is that while Democrats and Republicans may squabble incessantly on domestic issues, when it comes to foreign policy we are all on the same page, so any foreign power should forget about trying to exploit feuds between US politicians to weaken our security. That's why when you see US politicians abroad, they will almost never say anything negative about the foreign policy of the current president, even if they disagree with it and even if they were vocal critics of it while back in the United States.

Obama feels it's only right to continue this policy when it comes to dealing with foreign affairs. He explained that's why he is publicly discussing his plans to stimulate the economy, but why he's not offering suggestions about what he would do when it comes to Israel/Palestine. He did wrap up by saying he had plans and ideas and that he would be taking action as soon as he was sworn in on the 20th, and that he would be strongly engaged with the Middle East.

My opinion? It all seems reasonable. I think he could have made the "concern for..." statement last week though, saying you hope that Israeli and Palestinian children can sleep at night without worrying about being killed isn't a terribly controversial position to take. I do think it puts more pressure on him now to offer up a vision of the peace process that is markedly different from that of the Bush Administration. It will be interesting to see what he does.

How the Taliban is winning hearts and minds

I wanted to post this story from Scotland's Sunday Herald newspaper on the resurgence of the Taliban since Afghanistan is high on the list of Pres.-elect Obama's priorities. According to the story, the Taliban is now operating freely less than an hour's drive from the capital, Kabul, and right under the noses of the Afghani police. Worse yet, the locals, for the most part, don't seem to mind.

"If you have a problem the Taliban solves it. In the government offices there is only corruption and bribery," explained one minibus driver in Wardak, an important town on Afghanistan's main highway to Kabul. Over the past year the Taliban has gained control over Wardak, and while last year murder and robbery were commonplace, today the streets are safe, though Taliban justice is harsh - beatings, cutting the hands off robbers and hangings are all common punishments. Still, in the villages people seem willing to put up with the Taliban and the security they bring, rather than dealing with the Afghani police and government, who are viewed as thoroughly corrupt.

It's an important story for several reasons. First, it shows that Afghanistan is far more than a military problem - to get rid of the Taliban, the Afghan government, the one we basically installed, needs drastic reform, Afghanis are not going to follow leaders they think are only interested in exploiting them. Second, the situation now seems a lot like the 1990s when the Taliban first came to power. After the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 and the US lost interest, the country descended into near anarchy as different factions fought for power. Finally people were willing to put up with the fundamentalist views and strict laws of the Taliban simply because they were tired of the chaos.

It also helps explain the situation in Gaza today. Hamas won elections in 2006 because years of Israeli embargoes of the Gaza Strip left the area destitute - there were (and are) chronic shortages of food, gasoline, power and cash, unemployment is around 50%, and what would pass for civil society elsewhere in the world is basically non-existent. Gazans were fed up with the promises of a homeland from the Palestinian Authority, the "national" government of Palestine, that never came to pass, as well as the rampant corruption of the PA. Hamas, on the other hand, offered Gazans food, fuel and financial aid - the social services that basically did not otherwise exist (outside of the UN food program, when it was able to get supplies to operate). So they voted Hamas.

So while people may not agree with the views of the Taliban or Hamas, they do appreciate the social services they provide (and that their respective governments do not). Something to think about the next time some one asks why people support them.

Aussies say go green: eat camels, 'roos

Save the Earth, eat a camel (or kangaroo).

That's the message from Australian scientists who think that eating the two animals would be an excellent way to help the environment in Australia (and in the case of the kangaroo for the rest of the world as well). It turns out that bovine digestive gas expulsions (otherwise known as cow farts and burps) make up a significant chunk of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, kangaroos, on the other hand, are apparently far less, um, gassy - venting only small amounts of polluting gas. While it may sound silly, scientists have come to realize that cattle pass a lot of methane gas as they digest their food, those methane emissions go into the atmosphere, adding to the global warming problem (some farms have even launched test projects to recapture that now-wasted gas and use it to produce power). So by switching to a "cleaner burning" livestock (kangaroos), scientists in Oz figure they can reduce the country's greenhouse gas footprint.

The reason for putting camels on the menu is a little different. Australia happens to be home to one of the world's largest populations of wild camels, a remarkable feat considering that the animals aren't even native to the continent. In the 19th century camels were imported to Australia to work as beasts of burden in the hot, dry Outback region. It turns out they were a little too well suited to the climate, and a few escapees have blossomed into a population estimated at over one million animals today. Unfortunately a million non-native animals running around the Outback is having a terrible effect on the local ecosystem. Culling the camel population, scientists say, is the best way to protect the Outback ecology and suggest that eating them is better than just letting them rot in the desert.

Both camels and kangaroos have been used as food in parts of the world for thousands of years. Turning them into livestock in Australia though poses some problems - kangaroos are not domesticated (like cows) and don't take well to traveling, making shipping them alive a problem, while the feral camel population tends to live in extremely remote parts of the Outback, so getting them to market would be a costly and difficult process.

But there’s certain logic to the suggestion. And for you adventurous foodies out there, the folks at the site Food Down Under have 56 recipes for kangaroo (including Aussie Kangaroo Pie and Char-Broiled Kangaroo with Pancetta), I was even able to track down one recipe for camel.

Bon Appetit!

Survey shows public and pols differ on Israel/Gaza conflict

While US politicians from George Bush to the Dems leader in the Senate Harry Reid have been lining up to offer their support for Israel and their condemnation of Hamas (all except for the eerily silent Barack Obama...), Salon's Glenn Greenwald reports on a new poll that shows the American public is much more divided on the issue.

According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll, Americans are nearly evenly split 44%-41% on whether Israel was justified in launching their military action against Gaza. And in what could be a troubling sign for Obama, when you ask that question only of Democratic voters, you find overwhelming opposition to Israel's actions 55%-31%, Democrats apparently want a diplomatic solution to the problem instead. Depending on what Obama's position on the conflict eventually turns out to be, he could face a real protest from among some of his staunchest supporters.

Digging a little further into the Rasmussen numbers you find that while three-quarters of Republicans view Israel as an ally of the United States, only 55% of Dems agree. And half of the adults surveyed think Israel's action in Gaza will result in terrorist attacks here in America, while two-thirds think it will spark a region-wide Arab-Israeli war.

And speaking of US politicians... New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg made an emergency trip to the Mid East today to stand "in solidarity" with the Israelis. His trip included a visit to the town of Sderot, where during his brief stay, he was whisked off to a bomb shelter during what had to be the best-timed terrorist rocket attack in history (hey if you think I'm being cynical, check out the Daily News' comment page).

I have to say that I really like Mayor Mike, but over the past few months New York City has fallen into a severe major economic crisis - Wall Street is shedding jobs by the tens of thousands, the city's budget is billions of dollars in the red, and the city is cutting social services and boosting mass transit fares just to keep up. It's nice that Bloomberg wants to offer his support to the citizens of Israel, but his first duty should be to the people who elected him, the citizens of NYC.

Next time Mike, send a card.

Dumb newsreader question of the day (thanks to MSNBC)

Sadly, if you watch enough of the cable news channels, you get used to hearing dumb questions asked by the folks reading the news, but this one, courtesy of MSNBC's Alex Witt this morning, deserves some special recognition.

She was reading a story about the conflict in Gaza. Apparently an Israel soldier who was wounded in the fighting, also on the same day happened to have his house struck by a rocket fired by Hamas forces in Gaza. Now most people would find this pretty ironic, Alex thought to ask if Hamas had deliberately targeted the soldier's house.

The immediate problem with this question is that a Qassam rocket is basically it is a giant bottle rocket with a small bomb strapped to its nose, and if you have ever lit a bottle rocket, you know they’re impossible to aim. The best Hamas can do with a Qassam is to point it in the general direction they would like it to fly, light it and hope the thing doesn't blow up in their face (which one did last week, killing two Palestinians, half the total number of Israelis killed by Hamas rockets so far in this conflict). So there is no way Hamas could drop one of these things on a specific house.

I'm ok with thinking Alex didn't know this much about the Qassam, but how did she think some Hamas rocket crew would even know the address of a specific soldier? Did she think one Hamas guy turned to another and said: "hey, look over there, isn't that Pvt. Rabin? Quick, bring out your laptop and look up the Sderot phone book, and get Google Maps up too!"

Oh Alex...

Russian Navy wants bases around the world

Reuters is reporting that on Sunday Russia's military command approved a plan put forward by the Russian Navy to permanently station Russian warships in bases around the world.

In the past two years Russia has started sending its Navy on maneuvers far from the Russian coast for the first time since the end of the Soviet Union, the highest-profile trip came late last year when a task force of Russian ships visited Venezuela and Cuba. The Russian frigate Neustrashimy (“Fearless” in Russian) has also been busy escorting commercial vessels in the pirate-filled waters off of Somalia for the past few months - foiling several pirate attacks in the process.

The Reuters report didn't mention any specific bases besides one Russia is hoping to establish in the Georgian-region of Abkhazia (which Russia considers now to be an independent country), but Russia is also upgrading facilities at the Syrian port of Tartus for its navy to use and the Neustrashimy has docked at the port of Aden in Yemen (at the south end of the Arabian peninsula) to resupply while working off Somalia. Aden was another place where the Soviet Union once had a naval base. There has been informal talk at different times about Russia trying to base ships in Libya and Vietnam, and Russia has discussed with Somalia about building ties between their two nations, which could in theory include stationing ships there as well.

Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the Russian military's deputy chief of staff, said that decisions on where to base ships would have to be "considered very carefully." One factor that might temper Russia's grand naval plans is money - not only would Russia likely need to build or renovate port facilities at sites around the world, they also need to acquire more ships - the Russian Navy is still trying to rebuild from the collapse of the Soviet Union almost 20 years ago now. With oil prices off $100 from their highs last year, the Navy's plans are likely to get scaled back. At the same time, joining the piracy task force, along with the cruise to the Caribbean, show that the Russian Navy plans on making its presence felt in the world’s seas.

The futility of Gaza

I've heard it said that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting to get a different result. By that measure, what's happening now in Gaza is madness indeed.

After a weeklong bombing campaign, Israel finally sent the ground troops into Gaza. Their reason for the Gaza offensive is that modern political catchall, "national security". But why this action will bring Israel the security it seeks when all the other times they have bombed, shelled, embargoed, invaded and occupied the Gaza Strip haven't is a mystery. Do the Israelis really think that after an offensive that leaves their houses in rubble, their families and neighbors dead that the Palestinians will stand up in unison and proclaim their love to their Israeli brothers? Do they really believe that if they just make life in Gaza City unpleasant enough the Palestinians will overthrow Hamas and turn the region over to a government Israel approves of? Keep in mind that Hamas won an election - one independent observers called the fairest ever held in the Arab Middle East - because the Gazans were tired of the corruption and never-fulfilled promises of Fatah (the political wing of the Palestinian Liberation Organization) of a Palestinian state. Is it realistic to think that the Gazans will kick out one government to take back another they've already rejected?

You would have thought that Israel would have learned from their campaign against Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon in 2006, that for Hezbollah then and Hamas now, when facing off against the vastly superior Israeli military, just surviving the battle is enough to claim victory. So even as Israel enters Hamas-controlled Gaza, even as they (claim to) target the houses of Hamas' leaders, and the places where they build their crude rockets, Israel is setting the ground for their own defeat. Because Israel has said it doesn't intend to re-occupy the Gaza Strip, once they decide enough damage has been done, their military objectives have been met and withdraw, if one Hamas leader can crawl from the rubble, if one Qassam rocket can corkscrew through the sky, Israel has lost, again.

What's perhaps the most frustrating thing about the whole Israel-Palestine debacle is that everyone basically knows what the solution is: the oft-discussed two-state solution. Israel has to withdraw from the lands it has occupied since the 1967 war (Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights), it has to dismantle the hundreds of settlements it has built (which are illegal under international law and never should have been put up in the first place), and it has to allow for the creation of a viable Palestinian state - one where the Palestinians control their own borders and natural resources. The Palestinians have to give up the 'right of return' to lands that are now part of Israel (though compensation should be paid for people with legitimate land claims) and to fully renounce terrorism, which shouldn't be too difficult if they were actually to have a viable country of their own where young men would have a good chance of getting a job and an education what would be the motivation to be a terrorist?

The problem is lack of will, not lack of answers. As long as Yasir Arafat was the leader of the Palestinians, they never seemed truly willing to commit to a two-state solution, but he has been gone from the scene now for years. Frankly now its the Israeli leaders who aren’t committed to the two-state solution (for example allowing the expansion of West Bank settlements even after promising to halt their construction during peace negotiations), and an administration in the United States unwilling to hold their feet to the fire to get them to fully engage with the peace process.

So while leaders dawdle, people - on both sides - suffer, and the world's most pointless war goes on, and on, and on...

Ukraine and Russia continue gas fight

It's already day three of the Russia-Ukraine gas standoff.

As threatened, Russia's Gazprom cut off supplies of natural gas to Ukraine after they failed to make good on $2 billion in back payments owed to the Russian company. The problem for Gazprom is that to ship gas to (still paying) customers in further west in Europe they have to pump it through pipelines that cross Ukraine. Countries in central Europe and the Balkans region have reported drops in the supply of gas flowing to them, making Gazprom accuse Ukraine of stealing some of the gas as it flows through their country - something Ukraine strongly denies.

When this whole problem will be solved is anyone's guess. Ukraine says that it has enough natural gas stored to meet their domestic needs for several weeks. They had also earlier claimed that they paid an intermediary company $1.5 billion to pass along to Gazprom, though Gazprom said they never received the payment. Negotiators from Ukraine's national gas company Naftogaz left Moscow on December 31, and so far have no plans to go back. While Russia originally wanted Ukraine to pay $418 per 1,000 cubic meters for gas this year, they made a counter-offer of only $250 per, a price Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called "humanitarian aid" for Ukraine (whose economy is in serious trouble). Ukraine rejected that price as well, saying they only wanted to pay $201 per 1,000.

The price of gas has been a sore point between the two countries - for years Russia sold Ukraine (and other countries that once were part of the Soviet Union) natural gas at a price well below fair market value, something governments in Western Europe complained about bitterly. So Russia has been gradually raising the price to bring it in line with what they charge other countries further west, but as the price has gone up, so has Ukraine's debt owed to Gazprom.

The BBC today speculated on several theories as to why the two countries are involved in the gas crisis, but I don't think there is a big mystery here. Ukraine owes Gazprom a lot of money, so Gazprom has cut them off until they pay off their debt. Pretty simple, actually. Try this experiment at home - don't pay your phone bill, or electricity bill for a few months, run up a debt with the company and see if they threaten to cut off your service (spoiler: they will).

As the BBC says though Russia is likely to use the Ukraine problem as an argument in favor to move forward with two controversial pipeline projects to bring natural gas to Europe. The first is Nord Stream, a pipeline that would run from Russia under the Baltic Sea directly to Germany. Poland and Lithuania are bitterly opposed to Nord Stream because the pipelines bypass their countries, denying them the chance to charge Russia transit fees for shipping gas across their territories. The other project is South Stream (creative naming, I know), which would carry gas from Russia and Central Asia under the Black Sea and across the Balkans to tie into existing gas pipeline networks in central Europe. South Stream has been duking it out for international support with the proposed Nabucco pipeline, backed by the US and European Union, that would bring much of that same gas via Azerbaijan and Turkey, bypassing Russia entirely thus making Europe less reliant on them for their energy supplies (incidentally "Nabucco" references an opera by Verdi about freeing the Israelites from slavery, so at least they're more creative in the naming department). The problem is that there's probably not enough gas to make South Stream and Nabucco viable, so arguments have been going on about which to fund, which is why if Russia can prove that Ukraine has been siphoning off gas that doesn’t belong to them (they hope) it will strengthen their argument for building the most direct pipeline routes possible.

Gaza ground, PR campaigns begin

Earlier this afternoon, Israel began its expected invasion of the Gaza Strip. So far the details are sketchy as to what's going on inside Gaza (thanks to a news blackout), the news channels keep showing the only same loops of film of Israeli soldiers, glowing green and wraith-like in the nightvision scopes the camera crews used, along with massive explosions giving a hellish cast to the Gaza skyline.

Aware of how these images look played over and over on TVs around the world, the Israeli government also launched a full-scale public relations campaign, their spokespeople offering up the same lines again and again - that Israel wants peace with the Palestinians, that Israel is only acting in self-defense and that they were doing their utmost to avoid civilian casualties. Though the death totals to this point in the conflict - four Israelis to four hundred (and counting) Palestinians make that last one a bit hard to swallow. That's why I thought this piece from the Foreign Policy Journal "Top 5 Lies About Israel’s Assault on Gaza" was a good counterpoint to the spin cycle on the cable news channels. Hamas is far from blameless in this current mess, but Israel deserves their share of the burden as well - for example while Hamas never completely stopped lobbing rockets into southern Israel during the six-month cease-fire, Israel also failed to live up to their end of the bargain by not lifting the embargo it had slapped on Gaza and only allowing a trickle of goods and humanitarian supplies into the territory.

The example of last August’s Russia-Georgia conflict is a good one to keep in mind at a time like this. The early story (in the US media at least) was one of big, bad Russia attacking little, democratic, peace-loving Georgia. As time went on though, we learned that Georgia deserved more than their fair share of the blame for the conflict. In the days to come there will be a lot of spin put on the Gaza conflict, spin best viewed with a skeptical eye.

One final note - yesterday Pres. Bush condemned Hamas' rocket attacks as an act of terror against Israel, mentioning their use of Grad rockets in particular. The Grad (a crude, unguided weapon) was also the missile Georgian forces used when they attacked Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, in the middle of the night, igniting the conflict last August, which begs this question to Pres. Bush - doesn't that make our allies, the Georgians, guilty of a terrorist act as well?

Happy New Year

For the first post of the year, I wanted to wish you, dear readers, all the best for 2009!
I took a few days off for the holiday, but with a war starting in the Gaza Strip, gas shortages in Europe and a tsunami warning in Indonesia, it's time to get back to work.
Let's hope the year ends better than it seems to be starting...

-E.