Sunday, December 14, 2008
Update
Thursday, June 26, 2008
World Oil: World oil demand is surging as supplies approach their limits.
By Paul Roberts
In 2000 a Saudi oil geologist named Sadad I. Al Husseini made a startling discovery. Husseini, then head of exploration and production for the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco, had long been skeptical of the oil industry's upbeat forecasts for future production. Since the mid-1990s he had been studying data from the 250 or so major oil fields that produce most of the world's oil. He looked at how much crude remained in each one and how rapidly it was being depleted, then added all the new fields that oil companies hoped to bring on line in coming decades. When he tallied the numbers, Husseini says he realized that many oil experts "were either misreading the global reserves and oil-production data or obfuscating it."
Where mainstream forecasts showed output rising steadily each year in a great upward curve that kept up with global demand, Husseini's calculations showed output leveling off, starting as early as 2004. Just as alarming, this production plateau would last 15 years at best, after which the output of conventional oil would begin "a gradual but irreversible decline."
That is hardly the kind of scenario we've come to expect from Saudi Aramco, which sits atop the world's largest proven oil reserves—some 260 billion barrels, or roughly a fifth of the world's known crude—and routinely claims that oil will remain plentiful for many more decades. Indeed, according to an industry source, Saudi oil minister Ali al-Naimi took a dim view of Husseini's report, and in 2004 Husseini retired from Aramco to become an industry consultant. But if he is right, a dramatic shift lies just ahead for a world whose critical systems, from defense to transportation to food production, all run on cheap, abundant oil.
Husseini isn't the first to raise the specter of a peak in global oil output. For decades oil geologists have theorized that when half the world's original endowment of oil has been extracted, getting more out of the ground each year will become increasingly difficult, and eventually impossible. Global output, which has risen steadily from fewer than a million barrels a day in 1900 to around 85 million barrels today, will essentially stall. Ready or not, we will face a post-oil future—a future that could be marked by recession and even war, as the United States and other big oil importers jockey for access to secure oil resources.
Forecasts of peak oil are highly controversial—not because anyone thinks oil will last forever, but because no one really knows how much oil remains underground and thus how close we are to reaching the halfway point. So-called oil pessimists contend that a peak is imminent or has actually arrived, as Husseini believes, hidden behind day-to-day fluctuations in production. That might help explain why crude oil prices have been rising steadily and topped a hundred dollars a barrel early this year.
Optimists, by contrast, insist the turning point is decades away, because the world has so much oil yet to be tapped or even discovered, as well as huge reserves of "unconventional" oil, such as the massive tar-sand deposits in western Canada. Optimists also note that in the past, whenever doomsayers have predicted an "imminent" peak, a new oil-field discovery or oil-extraction technology allowed output to keep rising. Indeed, when Husseini first published his forecasts in 2004, he says, optimists dismissed his conclusions "as curious footnotes."
Many industry experts continue to argue that today's high prices are temporary, the result of technical bottlenecks, sharply rising demand from Asia, and a plummeting dollar. "People will run out of demand before they run out of oil," BP's chief economist declared at a meeting early this year. Other optimists, however, are wavering. Not only have oil prices soared to historic levels, but unlike past spikes, those prices haven't generated a surge in new output. Ordinarily, higher prices encourage oil companies to invest more in new exploration technologies and go after difficult-to-reach oil fields. The price surge that followed the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, for example, eventually unleashed so much new oil that markets were glutted. But for the past few years, despite a sustained rise in price, global conventional oil output has hovered around 85 million barrels a day, which happens to be just where Husseini's calculations suggested output would begin to level off.
The change is so stark that the oil industry itself has lost some of its cockiness. Last fall, after the International Energy Agency released a forecast showing global oil demand rising more than a third by 2030, to 116 million barrels a day, several oil-company executives voiced doubts that production could ever keep pace. Speaking to an industry conference in London, Christophe de Margerie, head of the French oil giant Total, flatly declared that the "optimistic case" for maximum daily output was 100 million barrels—meaning global demand could outstrip supply before 2020. And in January, Royal Dutch Shell's CEO, Jeroen van der Veer, estimated that "after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand."
To be sure, veteran oilmen like de Margerie and van der Veer don't talk about peak oil in a geologic sense. In their view, political and economic factors above ground, rather than geologic ones below, are the main obstacles to raising output. War-torn Iraq is said to have huge underground oil reserves, yet because of poor security, it produces about a fifth as much as Saudi Arabia does. And in countries such as Venezuela and Russia, foreign oil companies face restrictive laws that hamper their ability to develop new wells and other infrastructure. "The issue over the medium term is not whether there is oil to be produced," says Edward Morse, a former State Department oil expert who now analyzes markets for Lehman Brothers, "but rather how to overcome political obstacles to production."
Yet even oil optimists concede that physical limits are beginning to loom. Consider the issue of discovery rates. Oil can't be pumped from the ground until it has been found, and yet the volume discovered each year has steadily fallen since the early 1960s—despite dazzling technological advances, including computer-assisted seismic imaging that allows companies to "see" oil deep below the Earth's surface. One reason for the decline is simple mathematics: Most of the big, easily located fields—the so-called "elephants"—were discovered decades ago, and the remaining fields tend to be small. Not only are they harder to find than big fields, but they must also be found in greater numbers to produce as much oil. Last November, for example, oil executives were ecstatic over the discovery off the Brazilian coast of a field called Tupi, thought to be the biggest find in seven years. And yet with as much as eight billion barrels, Tupi is about a fifteenth the size of Saudi Arabia's legendary Ghawar, which held about 120 billion barrels at its discovery in 1948.
Smaller fields also cost more to operate than larger ones do. "The world has zillions of little fields," says Matt Simmons, a Houston investment banker who has studied the oil discovery trend. "But the problem is, you need a zillion oil rigs to get at them all." This cost disparity is one reason the industry prefers to rely on large fields—and why they supply more than a third of our daily output. Unfortunately, because most of the biggest finds were made decades ago, much of our oil is coming from mature fields that are now approaching their peaks, or are even in decline; output is plummeting in once prolific regions such as the North Sea and Alaska's North Slope.
Worldwide, output from existing fields is falling by as much as 8 percent a year, which means that oil companies must develop up to seven million barrels a day in additional capacity simply to keep current output steady—plus many more millions of barrels to meet the growth in demand of about 1.5 percent a year. And yet, with declining field sizes, rising costs, and political barriers, finding those new barrels is getting harder and harder. Many of the biggest oil companies, including Shell and Mexico's state-owned Pemex, are actually finding less oil each year than they sell.
As more and more existing fields mature, and as global oil demand continues to grow, the deficit will widen substantially. By 2010, according to James Mulva, CEO of ConocoPhillips, nearly 40 percent of the world's daily oil output will have to come from fields that have not been tapped—or even discovered. By 2030 nearly all our oil will come from fields not currently in operation. Mulva, for one, isn't sure enough new oil can be pumped. At a conference in New York last fall, he predicted output would stall at 100 million barrels a day—the same figure Total's chief had projected. "And the reason," Mulva said, "is, where is all that going to come from?"
Whatever the ceiling turns out to be, one prediction seems secure: The era of cheap oil is behind us. If the past is any guide, the world may be in for a rough ride. In the early 1970s, during the Arab oil embargo, U.S. policymakers considered desperate measures to keep oil supplies flowing, even drawing up contingency plans to seize Middle Eastern oil fields.
Washington backed away from military action then, but such tensions are likely to reemerge. Since Saudi Arabia and other members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries control 75 percent of the world's total oil reserves, their output will peak substantially later than that of other oil regions, giving them even more power over prices and the world economy. A peak or plateau in oil production will also mean that, with rising population, the amount of gasoline, kerosene, and diesel available for each person on the planet may be significantly less than it is today. And if that's bad news for energy-intensive economies, such as the United States, it could be disastrous for the developing world, which relies on petroleum fuels not just for transport but also for cooking, lighting, and irrigation.
Husseini worries that the world has been slow to wake up to the prospect. Fuel-efficient cars and alternatives such as biofuels will compensate for some of the depleted oil supplies, but the bigger challenge may be inducing oil-hungry societies to curb demand. Any meaningful discussion about changes in our energy-intensive lifestyles, says Husseini, "is still off the table." With the inexorable arithmetic of oil depletion, it may not stay off the table much longer.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Millenium Development Goals
1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. Extreme poverty is a state in which people cannot meet basic needs for survival. The World Bank characterizes extreme poverty as living on US $1 or less per day. It is estimated that 1.1 billion people currently live under these conditions. It is most common in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America.
- Halve the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day (from 1990-2015)
- Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people. Decent work refers to opportunities for women and men to obtain work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO), Decent Work involves opportunities for work that is productive and delivers a fair income, security in the workplace and social protection for families, better prospects for personal development and social integration, freedom for people to express their concerns, organize and participate in the decisions that affect their lives and equality of opportuniyu and treatment for all women and men.
- Halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger (from 1990-2015)
The number of people in developing countries living on less than US $1 a day fell to 980 million in 2004; down from 1.25 billion in 1990. The proportion of people living in extreme poverty fell from nearly 19 percent over this period.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=0&indicator=0&cd
2. Achieve universal primary education
- Ensure that children everywhere will be able to complete a full course of primary schooling
682 million children worldwide are enrolled in primary school. But there are still around 77 million children who are missing out on a primary education.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=1&indicator=0&cd
3. Promote gender equality and empower women
- Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education, preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015.
In 2006, 13 women were heads of state or government compared to 9 in 2000 and 12 in 1995. A record number of women took up top positions in 2006 – in Chile, Jamaica, Liberia, the Republic of Korea and Switzerland.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=2&indicator=0&cd
4. Reduce child mortality. Child mortality refers to the death of infants and children under the age of five. About 26,000 children die every day, mainly from prevetable causes. In 2006, 9.7 million children under five died. About half of child deaths occur in Africa. UNICEF estimates that one million child deaths could be prevented annually at a cost of US $1 billion/year (about $US 1000 for each child).
- Reduce by two-thirds the under-five mortality rate (from 1990-2015).
Under-five mortality rates dropped from 185 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 166 per 1,000 in 2006.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=3&indicator=0&cd.
5. Improve materal health
- Reduce by three quarters the maternal mortality ratio (from 1990-2015). Maternal mortality is the death of a woman during or shortly after a pregnancy. In 2000, the United Nations estimated global matermal mortality at 529,000, of which less than 1% occurred in the developed world.
- Achieve universal access to reproductive health. Reproductive health implies that people are able to have a responsible, satisfying, and safe sex life and that they have the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when, and how to do so. Men and women have the right to be informed of and to have acces to safe, effective, acceptable, and affordable methos of fertility regulation of their choce, and the right of access to appropriate health care services that will enable women to go safely through pregnancy and childbirth and provide couples with the best chance of having a healthy infant.
Since 1990, every region has made progress in ensuring that women receive antenatal care at least once during their pregnancy. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the least progress has occurred, more than two thirds of women receive antenatal care at least one time during pregnancy.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=4&indicator=0&cd.
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
- Have halted and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS
- Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it
- Have halted and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases
As of December 2006, an estimated 2 million people were receiving antiretroviral therapy in developing regions. This represents 28 percent of the estimated 7.1 million people in need.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=4&indicator=0&cd.
7. Ensure environmental stustainability.
- Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and porgrammes; reverse loss of environmental resources.
- Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss
- Halve the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation.
- By 2020, to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers.
The proportion of protected areas globally has steadily increased, and a total of about 20 million square kilometres of land and sea were under protection by 2006.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=6&indicator=0&cd.
8. Develop a global partnership for development.
- Develop further an open trading and financial system that is rule-based, predictable and non-discriminatory. Includes a commitment to good governance, development and poverty reduction—nationally and internationally.
- Address the special needs of the least developed countries. This includes tariff and quota free access for their exports; enhanced program of debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries; and cancellation of official bilateral debt; and more generous official development assistance for countries committed to poverty reduction.
- Address the special needs of landlocked and small island developing States.
- Deal comprehensively with the debt problems of developing countries through national and international measures in order to make debt sustainable in the long term.
- In cooperation with developing countries, develop and implement strategies for decent and productive work for youth.
- In cooperation with pharmaceutical companies, provide access to affordable essential drugs in developing countries.
- In cooperation with the private sector, make available the benefits of new technologies, especially information and communications
The world's poorest countries pay over $100 million every day to the rich world.
This goal has not yet been achieved. A world map with the current statistics can be found at http://www.mdgmonitor.org/map.cfm?goal=7&indicator=0&cd.
Countdown to 2015: 6 years 227 days
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Hell could break loose in South America
Quite recently, the Colombian government celebrated the death of the second most important FARC leader, "Raul Reyes", who was located thanks to anonymous tips, and was bombed miles into the Ecuatorian border. Following this event, President Uribe talked to the nation and expressed his gratitude of the military, the police, and the Ecuatorian President Rafael Correa for cooperation. Several people didn't celebrate, however, because such a loss was seen as the prelude to conflict: several saw coming a more intense war from FARC, or the death of hostages such as Ingrid Betancourt, the famous French-Colombian ex-candidate.
It seems so far, however, it might be a lot more serious. Following this event Chavez denounced the attack as an act of war as Ecuatorian soil was bombed. He felt it was an act of aggression not only from Colombia, but also from the North American Empire. Later on, he removed the Colombian ambassador and moved troops to the Colombian border. He is clearly on the side of FARC.
Things have gotten more complex. Today President Correa (ironically, days after having allowed for the attack to happen and President Uribe to thank him) declared it was the most blatant act of aggression against his country, and immediatly moved to do the same: he removed the ambassador and moved troops to the frontier. As I write, Caracol, a major Colombian t.v. network, is emitting a speech from Colombian General Oscar Naranja, leader of the national police, who is revealing to the public documents from the recently dead guerrilla leader "Raul Reyes" which reveal that both President Correa of Ecuador and Chavez have held ties to FARC and have been expressing their desire to support it politically and economically.
All I have to say is that Colombia is easily being surrounded, and so far it only has the U.S. as its ally. Besides Correa and Chavez, President Ortega of Nicaragua (correct me if mistaken) has been claiming the islands of San Andres and Providencia, which have belonged to Colombia for years. Coincidentially, Ortega is also a leftist, along with Correa and Chavez.
As far I see, nothing can really happen for now, but it won't be like this forever. North Americans have been focusing on their election year, and so I will give you a little warning: Hillary Clinton has expressed a desire to cease military and economic support for Colombia, as well as bringing about an end to the Free Trade Agreement (TLC) with Colombia, as she has expressed belief in Colombia being the responsible for the drug problem in this country. I believe that if she indeed intends to break ties with Colombia, she might as well be giving it away to the new socialist (or bolivarian...same thing) bloc in South America, and then Chavez won't be such a small threat.
For those who can vote: please don't let this happen. Get educated about all the possibilites of who you choose as president. A Chilean man recently said that all the world should be allowed to vote to elect the American president, because whoever takes that post will affect what happens in most of our countries. I don't disagree much with that fact.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Bethlehem 2007 A.D.
Photograph by Christopher Anderson
This is not how Mary and Joseph came into Bethlehem, but this is how you enter now. You wait at the wall. It's a daunting concrete barricade, three stories high, thorned with razor wire. Standing beside it, you feel as if you're at the base of a dam. Israeli soldiers armed with assault rifles examine your papers. They search your vehicle. No Israeli civilian, by military order, is allowed in. And few Bethlehem residents are permitted out—the reason the wall exists here, according to the Israeli government, is to keep terrorists away from Jerusalem.
Friday, February 1, 2008
It's Up to the People
Once again, they are getting an advantage over much of the population. They are administering justice - people are now going to them to resolve issues instead of going to government courts.
And the Taleban are arming themselves. They are even testing their weapons out during the day. Some are already very near the capital, Kabul.
"I think it is a major threat. What moves people is not ideology, but an unstable environment among the existing networks of clans, tribes, aggrieved people, drug traffickers, opportunists, and unemployed youth. It is the kind of problem that can be solved only with the establishment of good governance.", says the former Afghan Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalali.
It seems like we've forgotten Afghanistan.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
"Why Gay Marriage Should Not be Legal"
- Being gay is not natural. Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
- Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
- Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
- Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
- Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
- Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
- Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
- Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only have one religion in America.
- Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
- Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars or cellphones.
I do not intend to offend anyone with this post. I only would like to show the absurdity of this whole debate. I hope you agree.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
From the Back Seat
It is rather appalling that in the midst of the fracas and lack of tranquility, a policeman, who claims training from a top institution in Kenya will let his adrenalin take the best of him. Hundreds of innocents Kenyans have ended up six feet under or in dilapidated hospital beds as a result of a bullet wound that was inflicted by a man in uniform. Before pointing fingers or crossing over to the other side of the fence(the peoples' side), I'd like to sit on the fence and be neutral. so maybe Kenyans have an adrenalin than is way beyond control and someone, preferably God, needs to swing his hand and slap the entire country back to its senses. Police are genuinely required constitutionally to use any means within their reach to ensure the SAFETY of the citizens of Kenya. A number of options are presented to them in this regard namely:
- Rubber bullets
- Water from fire trucks
- Tear gas
- Peaceful negotiations which should actually be priority
From the back seat,all is clear and the view is perfect but if you take the front seat, you will be oblivious of the obvious as events will pass you faster than you can say, "Raila, the People's President". Kenya is not in the front seat so Kibaki, stop treating us like we are.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Who Will Rule Us After the Next 9/11?
By Ron Rosenbaum
Oh, god. I'm reluctant to write this particular column. I've been scarred by this kind of story before. I've learned that it's difficult to write about the sources of paranoia without spreading paranoia.
But the subject, NSPD-51—that's National Security Presidential Directive 51—and the attendant explosion of blogospheric paranoia about it deserve attention. Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that NSPD-51 is a blueprint for a coup in the guise of plans for "continuity of government" in the event of a national emergency (such as a terrorist attack during an election campaign). Even if you don't believe, as I don't, that it will be used as a pretext for canceling the upcoming presidential election and preserving "continuity" of this administration in office.
Nonetheless, the specifics of the directive are a matter of legitimate concern that has not been given the urgent and sustained attention it deserves by Congress or the mainstream media.
I first became aware of the extent of the paranoia when I read the following comment, which was appended to an essay Naomi Wolf wrote for the Huffington Post:
Scenario for 2008: Sometime in middle to late summer, perhaps early fall, a "terrorist attack," or a natural disaster occurs, allowing Bush to suspend the elections in the name of "national security," and take the control of the government via the "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20," released by the WH May 9th of this year. He could remain in control as long as he wanted. Now, wouldn't THAT be an interesting nightmare?
Crazy, right? Well after I read it I Googled "NSPD-51" and got something like 36,000 hits. (HSPD-20 is essentially the same directive under a different title.) Most of the ones I sampled elaborated on the "nightmare" coup scenario above. Of course, Google hits are not evidence of the facts, only of the temper of the times, and the times are seething with paranoia.
But that doesn't mean NSPD-51 doesn't deserve careful scrutiny. Consider that an election-eve al-Qaida attack, for instance, is not inconceivable. What if a nuclear device goes off in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles the weekend before the election and a warning is issued that the other two cities will be hit on Election Day?
Who will decide whether the elections in those heavily Democratic states should be put off or whether the entire election should be postponed until ... when? Until the bodies are cleared, the gamma radiation has subsided? Just how wise and fair—and constitutional—are the brand-new mechanisms for "continuity of government" that NSPD-51 has put into effect with almost no prior and little subsequent discussion last May?
And there's another paranoia-inducing element of the story: The existence of "classified continuity annexes" whose content has been kept secret even from the House Committee on Homeland Security. A troubling aspect of the story that, so far as I know, only one mainstream media reporter, Jeff Kosseff of the Portland Oregonian, has pursued.
As it happens, I had a troubling experience in the past writing about paranoid fears that an unpopular president will cancel a presidential election. The experience helped turn me into a conspiracy theory skeptic, so let me briefly recount that incident—which, curiously enough, also involved the Portland Oregonian—so you'll understand the perspective I bring to the question.
Return with me to 1970, another moment of seething paranoia two years before Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign, before Watergate was even a gleam in Gordon Liddy's eyes. A time of war and of an increasingly frustrated and suspicious anti-war movement. It was my first year as a reporter, and the whole episode started with a cab driver from Staten Island.
As historian and frequent Slate contributor David Greenberg recounts it in his thoughtful book Nixon's Shadow, "the rumor [that Nixon had a secret plan to cancel the '72 presidential election] first appeared in print on April 5 in the Portland Oregonian, the Staten Island Advance and other Newhouse-owned newspapers. According to the item, the administration had asked the RAND Corporation ... to study whether 'rebellious factions using force or bomb threats would make it unsafe to conduct an election' and how the president might respond. Ron Rosenbaum, a reporter from the Village Voice, heard about the article from a Staten Island cab driver and investigated. He reported in The Voice on April 16 that RAND and the administration denied that any such study existed, but then playfully pointed out that they would surely deny it if it were true. Rosenbaum added that the country would just have to wait until 1972 to see."
Lesson here: Don't get too "playful" when writing about conspiracy theories. The problem with being "playful" back then was that much of the anti-war movement read the Voice at the time, and my story ignited a firestorm of paranoia. Soon there were "documents" of dubious authenticity circulating that purported to be RAND memos outlining plans to round up and lock up leaders of the anti-war movement. Eventually Pat Moynihan, then a Nixon consigliere, thundered against the rumor as an example of the intrusion of irrationality into politics.
The thing is, there's nothing wrong with planning for "continuity of government," especially in the nuclear age. Planning for continuity doesn't necessarily mean plotting a coup, although that's the way my story was read and spread. (Of course, meanwhile—proving that reality can outrun paranoia—the Nixon administration was planning to subvert the election, anyway, with the assortment of illegal actions and dirty tricks that became known as Watergate.)
Still, there's nothing I feel the need to apologize about for pursuing that story then (or this one now). Indeed, it was marginally possible back then, when the anti-war movement had become massive and some were turning to violence, that the RAND Corp. might have been involved in planning how to maintain "continuity" in the face of violent disruptions.
But the fact that the extreme worst-case scenario didn't happen in 1972 (no coup attempt) left one big question unanswered—and NSPD-51 illustrates it still hasn't been settled in any satisfactory way: What are the contingency plans for holding or postponing a national election in the midst of a traumatic national emergency?
I've studied the actual presidential directive, which you can find here.
In many respects, it's innocuous. It doesn't, for instance, tamper with the procedures for presidential succession in case, say, the chief executive and vice president are killed. And there's a value to requiring that every government agency prepare a plan to deal with a catastrophe.
But consider provision 2E of the directive:
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency. (Italics mine.)
Do you see those five weasel words "as a matter of comity"? Just what elements of the legislative and judicial branches will be allowed to participate in "executing constitutional responsibilities" and "providing for orderly succession [and] appropriate transfer of leadership"?
In other words, who gets to call the shots? What does comity mean in this context? Informally, it means good-natured, good-faith camaraderie. In its jurisprudential sense, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as "the principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to the laws or decisions of another."
In other words, in the weasel-speak of NSPD-51, it implies that one or more branches of the government will have to cede power to another. And since everything is to be "coordinated by the president," I'm guessing that the members of the Supreme Court left alive and some congressional leaders left alive (How chosen? What party balance?) will in effect have to sit around a big conference table and do a lot of "ceding" to the executive.
And given the current state of relations between Congress and the executive, such comity will not necessarily translate into camaraderie.
If it comes down to whether to pull the nuclear trigger, who will get to vote, and how large a majority will be required to launch?
Comity—that innocent-sounding word—could well turn out to be the excuse for junking those pesky checks and balances the Founding Fathers seemed so obsessed with. For an indeterminate period of time.
The document is also hazy on when our new continuity policies will be set in motion. The directive tells us that they'll kick in whenever the nation faces a "catastrophic emergency." But look how vaguely "catastrophic emergency" is first defined:
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.
Worse, "catastrophic emergency"—woefully vague to start out with—is later expanded to include even "localized acts of nature and accidents" as well as "technological or attack-related" emergencies.
In other words, even if you don't believe the most sinister paranoid coup theories, the document does nothing to allay one's fears that it could be used in a sinister way.
I wish I did, but I see nothing in the document to prevent even a "localized" forest fire or hurricane from giving the president the right to throw long-established constitutional government out the window, institute a number of unspecified continuity policies, and run the country with the guidance of the "National Continuity Coordinator" and with the "Continuity Policy Coordination Committee" for as long as the president sees fit.
This order has been issued by executive fiat and has not been subjected to any public examination by the other two branches, which have behaved in a supine way that suggests how they'll behave when comity time arrives and urgent decisions on the fate of the nation and perhaps the world (nuclear retaliation being what it is) need to be made immediately.
The fact that Congress has not scrutinized and challenged the potential here for an emergency-situation power grab is scandalous, unacceptable.
Let Congress pass a law posthaste nullifying the directive, and then when the executive nullifies the nullification, challenge it in the courts. I can't believe even this Supreme Court, with its deference to executive power, could take this clownishly drafted document seriously.
It's not that others haven't noticed the problem. The Wikipedia entry on NSPD-51, for instance, cites rational warnings against it from both right and left:
Conservative activist Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the [left wing] National Lawyers Guild have interpreted this as a break from Constitutional law in that the three branches of government are equal, with no single branch coordinating the others. … The directive does not specify whose responsibility it would be to either declare a catastrophic emergency or declare it over.
Good point. And then there are the final two provisions of the NSPD, which mysteriously refer to unseen secret "annexes" to the directive. Needless to say, if what they've made public is so shameless in its disregard for the Constitution, the following two sections on secret provisions don't allay suspicion:
(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.
(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.
So, how many secret annexes are there in addition to "annex A," and what kinds of things do they say that even the paranoia-inducing public document can't include?
Here's where Jeff Kosseff of the Portland Oregonian comes in. In an e-mail to me, he said he believed he was the first mainstream media reporter to pursue the classified annex issue (although Charles Savage reported on the disturbing public aspects of the directive itself in the Boston Globe in May).
Kosseff told me he got onto the story when Oregon Rep. Peter DeFazio expressed puzzlement that he was having trouble seeing what was in the classified "annexes." DeFazio was a member of the homeland security committee and cleared to read classified material in a supersecure "bubble room" designed to prevent any kind of surveillance. But DeFazio's initial request was, as Kosseff reported, "denied" by the White House, which cited national security concerns.
DeFazio said this was the first time he had been denied access to classified documents. He brought in the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, Bennie Thompson, and the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Management, Investigation and Oversight, Chris Carney, to back his request for access to the classified annexes.
In a phone conversation, Jeff Kosseff told me the latest development. In August, these requests were denied as well. On grounds of "national security."
I don't want to be alarmist, I have no evidence there's a coup brewing. But I think the American people and their congressional reps deserve some say in how they will be ruled when the ordinary rules go out the window in a national emergency. For one thing, what will happen to the Bill of Rights' guarantees of individual liberty and the courts that are supposed to enforce them?
If you ask me, setting aside any paranoid fantasies, it is clear on the most basic level—read it yourself—that NSPD-51 is the creation of irresponsible incompetents, bulls in the china shop of our constitutional framework. It is a recipe for disaster. For a catastrophe of governance that would match whatever physical catastrophe it followed and threaten the re-establishment of constitutional democracy. It would make the partisan warfare over the 2000 election in Florida seem like child's play. We might recover from a disaster but we might never recover from the "continuity coordination" that followed, "coordination" that could forever undermine any faith in the actual continuity of constitutional liberty in America since it would put it at the mercy of any president who wants to "coordinate continuity" rather than govern legally.
I think it's urgent that we bring these questions out of the shadows of phony comity. I'd urge readers to call or e-mail their members of Congress and senators now. Call for an emergency joint congressional hearing to end this farce, give us some transparency about what our government will do if we suffer another 9/11. Let all branches of government participate in the attempt to reach some consensus on rational and effective continuity planning. Something more specific and sophisticated than the clumsy but dangerously Orwellian "Continuity Coordination Committee."
Friday, January 18, 2008
Did democracy die along with Bhutto?
Pinning our hopes on Bhutto was a big mistake, said William Dalrymple in The New York Times. With her Western diplomas, extensive Washington contacts, and abundant charm, she posed as a freedom-loving democrat. But she was “a natural autocrat’’ who believed that ruling Pakistan was her birthright; when she was prime minister in the 1990s, Pakistan was rife with repression, torture, and political killings. Even in death, said Rosa Brooks in the Los Angeles Times, Bhutto’s arrogant sense of entitlement continues to shape Pakistan. Her will named her 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as her successor as party chair. She designated her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as “co-chair and quasi-regent” until Bilawal graduates from Oxford. That’s a commitment to dynasty, not democracy.
Even as the U.S. searches for a new Pakistan policy, said Robin Wright in The Washington Post, Bush is clinging to the old one. He still wants to “prop up” Musharraf, believing him essential to the country’s security. So the White House is trying “to forge a new moderate center” to work with him. Why bother? said Peter Galbraith in The Boston Globe. Musharraf has shown himself to be an utterly unreliable ally. Of the billions we’ve given him to fight the war on terror, he’s squandered half of it “for use against India.” Instead of destroying Islamic militants, he’s allowed them to sink roots and proliferate, undermining Pakistan’s safety and ours alike. “The United States needs to be tough with Pakistan, not gullible.”
Fortunately, said Amir Taheri in the New York Post, reports that Pakistan is poised to self-destruct are greatly exaggerated. Its nuclear arsenal is secure. The army is stable. And contrary to popular belief, the “Islamists are not about to seize power.” At best, their fractured parties command 11 percent or 12 percent of the vote. The best solution to Pakistan’s problems is “more, not less, democracy.”
In the short term, that means settling for half a loaf, said Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post. It’s in our best interests to have democracies in this critical region of the globe, even if the democracy practiced in each country is a “local variant.’’ In Afghanistan, this means accepting “the power of warlords”; in Iraq, it means giving Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds autonomy in a system of decentralized federalism. “And in Pakistan, it means accepting both the enduring presence of feudal politics and the pre-eminent role of the military.” It’s not ideal, but “that is not a reason for giving up on it”—especially when you consider the alternative.
--The Week Vol. 8 Issue 344
Sunday, January 13, 2008
World food prices- Rise again...
http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/47985/2008/00/4-124656-1.htm
Update: January 14, 2008
Due to the rise in world food prices, the global community has responded with the creation of an independent fund which will now provide food and much needed supplies for those countries who ask for rudimentary goods such as grain and water. These basic goods are used to feed those workers who in turn cultivate high demand imported agricultural goods. Despite the far reaching effects of the recent surge in food prices, the global community has established this fund backed with $17 million dollars.
However, there is concern within the UN that the new fund will not meet the demands of impoverished countries. Stemming from a sheer lack of supply the UN fears that by the end of the year the requests for basic commodities will not be properly fulfilled. A hefty fee of 107 billion dollars is needed to fund those countries, creating a huge disparity in assets and demands.
Not surprisingly severe droughts and an unprecedented lack of supply is the cause for the recent spike in prices. Furthermore the price of crude oil has risen in kind with food making shipping even more expensive, thus making a sound exchange process rather pricey. Interestingly most farms are watered through precipitation rather than irrigation. This capricious relationship between farmer and mother nature has recently been plagued with misfortune.
Finally, the director of FAO (The UN Food and Agriculture Organization) Jacques Diouf stressed the temporary nature of the fund. However Diouf hints that longer programs must be established to fully wrestle the crisis of rising food prices.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/e907a284ee2f0d9ab2c368dafa127cc6.htm
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Somalia – Quest for Stability and Development
The issue of Somalia is important because it remains and unresolved conflict that is almost two decades long. People have been refugees for many years, without neither a permanent home nor way of sustainment. Many are located in the bordering states of Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, and Yemen. Others keep suffering within Somalia as a result of conflict and the inability of the government to properly take care of its people. The Ethiopian intervention in Somalia reignited tensions between Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Somalia, which increased the destabilization of the region.
To resolve the instability and problems of Somalia, it is necessary to come to an agreement not only within the country but also with its bordering states. Ethiopia and Eritrea still have diverging views over their shared border. Eritrea has backed the Union of Islamic Courts while Ethiopia has supported the TFG. Eritrea allegedly gave weapons to the Union during the 2006 conflict in Somalia, so as to draw the Ethiopian troops away from the Eritrea-Ethiopia border. The reliance of the TFG on Ethiopian troops during the conflict has left many Somalis and pro-Union forces refusing to accept the TFG’s legitimacy and rejecting reconciliation initiatives. A mediator is necessary to unite the different groups inside Somalia along with the TGF, such as the African Union or the United Nations. Since France and the United States have interests in the region, they may also become involved in the negotiations. The arms embargo the United Nations has placed on Somalia must be fully enforced with aid from the international community. Nevertheless, the TFG should be allowed to develop a stronger military force, one which is diverse in its composition, so as to prove its authority in Somalia and not have to rely on the Ethiopian military in case of future conflicts. Plans for the reintegration of Somali refugees must be formed and developed to bring back the people to areas in the country where they can develop their own communities and be safe from any conflict. Humanitarian aid must be provided to help the Somali population and refugees create communities and ways of sustenance and development.
In 2000, Eritrea and Ethiopia signed a peace agreement and Ethiopia accepted its new land-locked status. The international community must place emphasis on both nations in maintaining the terms of this peace agreement. Even though the region of Somaliland provides port facilities and trade ties for Ethiopia, another possible resolution to Ethiopia’s lack of an outlet to the ocean should be sought so as to appease the country. Both countries should be discouraged from intervening in Somali affairs.
Coutry Profile – Somalia
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/country_profiles/1072592.stm