EESI Briefing on Green Jobs

I'm putting up anther video on green jobs. This one was an Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) briefing on Capitol Hill in October 2008 -- yes, I know, this is like a pre-historic post in Internet time terms, but I feel it's still useful. I was one of four panelists, speaking about the report we wrote for UNEP. (Bracken Hendricks of CAP was another panelist, plus we had speakers from the US Conference of Mayors and from Johnson Controls).

The Power of Symbolism

UN at Geneva_Broken Chair-08
Originally uploaded by mgrenner57

Symbolism is important. In front of UN headquarters in Geneva, a gigantic "broken chair" calls attention to the world's landmines and cluster bombs. It was initially installed in 1997 and intended as a temporary display, but the failure of some major powers to sign the landmine convention led to the chair becoming a more permanent fixture.

In light of the fact that so-called "small arms" cause much of the killings and maimings in today's violent conflicts, this seems a more appropriate sculpture than the twisted anti-aircraft gun barrel that's on the opposite end of the same square.

But the extent of militarism in this world demands far more symbolic statements. As just one suggestion, it would be telling to create a sculpture with two piles of money, one representing military spending, the other for instance spending to reduce poverty, or address climate change, etc. You can imagine that the first pile is huge, the second barely visible in comparison.

Flickr

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

Interview on Green Jobs

See my interview with E&E News' Monica Trauzzi, at http://www.eenews.net/tv/2008/10/23/.

This is from late last year, but still relevant.

Global Policy in Brief: Who are the Real Pirates?

I posted the following item on the new "Global Policy in Brief" blog (check it out!):

The three movies that have so far been released in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series have grossed about $2.7 billion in worldwide ticket sales and another $615 million in DVD sales in the United States alone. The antics of Johnny Depp’s character have also spawned Disney theme park rides, spinoff novels and video games, and countless other adaptations and promotions. This celebration of outlaws has delighted millions of movie-goers and generated handsome profits for the (Western) world’s entertainment complex since 2003.

But no such amusement was triggered by modern-day, real-life pirates some 8,000 miles away, off Somalia. After a U.S. captain was captured and held for ransom, a media frenzy ensued. Celebrity columnist Tom Friedman bemoaned that we live“In the Age of Pirates.” Calls for stepped-up military intervention to confront the rising threat of piracy grew more insistent. In fact, a militarized response has been in the making for some time. In August 2008, Combined Task Force 150—a multinational force set up under the aegis of the “war on terror”—was tasked with patrolling the Gulf of Aden. The UN Security Council adopted French-drafted Resolution 1838, endorsing air and naval attacks against acts of piracy.

Western commentators express bewilderment at the fact that instead of being suppressed, piracy seems to be spreading, with more daring ship takeovers farther from the Somali coast. Not only is there an unwarranted faith in military solutions, but much of the media coverage also conveniently sidesteps the broader context. Outside intervention has long succeeded in creating greater misery for ordinary Somalis:

Under dictator Mohamed Siad Barre (who held power from 1969 to 1991), large amounts of weapons were supplied first by the Soviet Union and, after Somalia and its rival Ethiopia switched superpower patrons in the late 1970s, by the United States.After the dictator’s fall, U.S. weapons were captured by ruthless warlords. The ensuing anarchy helped lead to an ill-fated U.S./UN intervention in the early 1990s.

In late 2006, the Bush administration encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia in order to overthrow the Islamic Courts Union, even though the ICU had finally re-established a degree of calm and order. And as analyst Bill Hartung noted in January 2007, “the U.S. has been a central player in the Somali civil war” by backing anti-ICU warlords, providing arms and intelligence to Ethiopian forces, and trying to kill ICU leaders with AC-130 gunships.

Part of the rationale of foreign intervention off Somalia is to protect fishing boats from piracy. Arguably, however, foreign (mostly European and Asian) fishing fleets there are essentially illegal (since there is no functioning government that can regulate activity in Somali waters). Growing numbers of local fishermen have been impoverished. The value of the poached fish is perhaps three times as much as pirates garner in ransom payments.

There is also evidence that toxic and nuclear wastes have been dumped off the Somali coast by European companies as far back as the early 1990s. Johann Hari explains that “Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a "tax" on them. […] No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters – especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies.” Hari quotes one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali: “We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas.”

Confronted by the naval might of the world’s leading powers, Somalia’s pirates have shown themselves to be resourceful and cunning. But they are no match for the industrialized world’s media and entertainment complex that one moment glorifies celluloid make-believe pirates and another takes great care to gloss over the reasons for very real modern-day piracy in one of the world’s most destitute areas.

The End of Empire?

What a relief:  the nightmare of the last 8 years is over, even though the legacies of these years will still be with us for quite some time, irrespective of what Barack Obama does.  But what a contrast we saw on display today.  Obama - Bush:  scholar v. frat boy, skilled orator v. mangler of language, multilateralist v. unilateralist, unifier v. divider.

It is almost a trademark of Obama's that he delivers speeches extremely well, and today was no different.  There was much to be liked about his speech, but I felt that there were aspects that left something to be desired.  First listening to the speech, then reading it, I struggled to pin down what left me less than happy about it.  

I finally concluded that, for my taste, Obama was too eager to sound the notes that one typically hears in Washington, DC.  Reclaiming world leadership when the first order is for the U.S. to catch up, regain some standing by demonstrating sincere engagement, a willingness for true give-and-take.  During the last 8 years, the world has not stood still, and while many will be happy to have a more cooperative United States, this is no longer a unipolar world.  The United Sates does not so much need to lead as to show a willingness to play along in a complex world.

The range of issues where collaboration rather than a simple claiming of the mantle of leadership is needed is awe-inspiring:  the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestine), Afghanistan-Pakistan, the world financial and economic crisis (the need for a global new deal), the climate crisis -- to cite just some of the most pressing topics.

In many of these areas, there is a desperate need for a decisive break with a militarism that, while elevated under George Bush, has been deeply-ingrained in the United States for a much longer period of time.  The United States may possess overwhelming firepower, but this cannot and will not resolve the world's manifold problems and crises.  Empire needs to be repudiated, not just because it is unworkable and is rejected by the world's majority, but also because it threatens to undermine all of Obama's goals.  He needs to be mindful of LBJ's experience, who saw his "Great Society" dreams founder by the deepening Vietnam quagmire.

Obama's cabinet nominations beg the question whether the new President is prepared to challenge militarism and Empire.  We will see whether it is his him or his key advisors--Hilary Clinton, Robert Gates, etc.--who effectively call the shots.  We will see just how much Obama is his own man, and whether the neocons, the chicken hawks, the media armchair strategists manage to drag him in a more centrist or even conservative direction.

Many people, especially young people, were mobilized in unprecedented ways by the Obama campaign.  Ultimately, it will take bottom-up pressure to ensure that Obama stays true to his promise.

5 Things I'd Like Obama to Say

Here's what I'd like to hear Obama say during the inauguration (or do soon after):

1.  If Robert Gates tries to talk me into continuing W.'s Iraq misadventure, I'll fire him on the spot.

2.  I won't be suckered into an Afghan adventure, no matter what the pundit chicken hawks say.

3.  I will work for true Israeli-Palestinian peace, one that both sides can live with.

4.  I will ensure that there is full accountability for the Bush administration's crimes and misdeeds.

5.  I'll provide true climate change leadership, and put up the investments needed to create the 5 million green jobs I promised during the campaign (many more dollars than I indicated then).

The imperial capital?

I'm watching the Washington Post live feed of the inauguration.  Amid the pomp and all, I can't help but feel that Washington, DC still comes across as an imperial capital.  I'm hoping (...) that the Obama policies will say a goodbye to all the imperial nonsense.

I love the moment the Obama daughters walk out, bringing a bit of relief to the parading around of presidents past.  But then Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney follow, and grim thoughts are back...

A few moments later, W., in black coat, comes up, and reminds me of Darth Vader.

Obama and Afghanistan

As the hours tick away toward Obama's inauguration, I feel contradictory tugs.  On one hand--of course!--a sense of enormous relief that the Bush era is finally over, that someone with a brain, articulate, intellectual, open to the world will reside in the White House instead of the moron-in-chief that we were saddled with for these long last eight years.

While I was tempted to be in DC for the inauguration, and while many of my friends and colleagues will be there, I think I'll put celebratory feelings on hold.  Many of Obama's key nominations--especially in foreign and security policy and in economic policy, have given me pause because they seem to reinforce a Washington centrism that is rather different than what the "audacity of hope" rhetoric suggested.

Many expect that Obama's economic policy will be key to whether he will eventually be regarded as a successful president or not.  Others look to his leadership on the climate challenge.  Actually, it may well require a combination of the two--as the notion of a green stimulus or, more audacious, a green new deal.   I am one of those who believe that charting a new course and decisively bringing together environment and economy will be a key task.

But there is a danger that Obama's security policy choices will upend whatever he may do, and accomplish in other areas.  If the new president follows his campaign rhetoric and expands the Afghan war, then he may reap not only continued high military expenditures and even greater difficulties in steadying the economy and financing his programs.  He will also face a growing quagmire and ill-will in the region and likely beyond.  For he will be seen as swapping one war (Iraq) for another (Afghanistan).  Even setting aside questions of legitimacy, neither war can be won militarily.  Efforts in this direction will simply cement in the world's eyes what the United States has become under George W. Bush: an imperial bully.  

Obama will be well-advised to carefully think through the consequences.  Advice from his Bush-holdover Pentagon chief may run in the opposite direction, and grassroots pressure will be all the more important.

The Scale of Gaza's Suffering

UN News had this to say today about Gaza after three weeks of the Israeli onslaught:

"According to Palestinian figures that the UN has called credible, the casualty toll from the thee week offensive, which Israel said it launched to stop Hamas rocket attacks against it from Gaza, now stands at 1,340 dead, 460 of the children and 106 women, and 5,320 wounded, 1,855 of them children and 795 women, with a large proportion of the injuries severe, including burns and amputations. Thirteen Israeli were reported killed, including four from rocket fire. [...] ... infrastructure repairs had allowed 100,000 more people to receive water, although 400,000 were still without it, but sewage was still flooding the streets of some towns in the north. Some 50 UN facilities were damaged."

This, in the briefest of summaries, conveys the scale of the state terrorism that has been inflicted on an essentially defenseless population. For what purpose? Is anyone feeling safer? Quite the contrary.

The number of dead, relative to the population of 1.5 million, is close to one in 1,000. Translated to the size of the U.S. population, that would come to about 270,000 -- about 90 "9/11"s.

In future years, if and when one of the Gazans decides to take his or her rage out on the citizens of the countries that enabled these attacks (by providing aid, furnishing weapons, giving diplomatic and political cover, etc.), will we once again hear the plaintive "why do they hate us?" This is not an endorsement of (more) violence, but rather a plea for understanding cycles of retribution and hatred.

Fear Factor: Clinton does a McCain

While I'm not sure that I'm too enamored of Obama's vague hope & change message (I'd love a Democratic candidate who hammers the Repulicans for all their horrible misdeeds since 2001 and is dedicated to an absolute U-turn), I feel worse about Hilary Clinton. Her use of fear (see my previous post) is repugnant.

And as the owner of the "War in Context" site explains (http://warincontext.org/2008/03/05/how-did-mcclinton-do-it/), it's also self-defeating. While Hilary may love to posture as a tough natural security figure, this plays right into McCain's ("Mr.-let's-stay-in-Iraq-for-100-years") hands and may well set up the Democrats for defeat in November.

To pin all blame on Clinton would be unfair, though. It has to be said that a substantial portion of the U.S. electorate is nothing but gullible and terribly uninformed when it comes to "security" measures. You'd think that after nearly 8 years of Bush's unique combination of abuse, arrogance, and incompetence, enough people would wake up to repudiate the Republican party and send them to a historic defeat from which it will take them a couple of decades to recover.

Well, I must be dreaming...

The Politics of Fear, Reloaded?

The politics of fear worked so well for George W. that apparently Hilary Clinton thinks it just might work for her, too. As the "inevitable nominee" faces knockout by upstart Barack Obama, this is all the Clinton campaign can think of? Is she really this desperate?





And, given Hilary's voting record on Iraq and Iran, I for one have real doubts whether she should be the one picking up that red phone in the middle of the night. (An even more nightmarish thought: having John McCain be the one...)





We need to get away from this kind of politics. IF Obama does begin to bring that kind of change, then there really is some hope.

Remember the Fall of the Berlin Wall?

Remember the fall of the Berlin wall? Well, here is a news item that should remind people of that seminal event:

The New York Times reports: "Thousands of Palestinians streamed over the Rafah border crossing from the Gaza Strip into Egypt on Wednesday, after a border fence was toppled, and went on a spree of buying fuel and other supplies that have been cut off from their territory by Israel. They used donkeys, carts and motorcycles to cross the border, and streamed back over the fallen fence laden with goods they had been unable to buy in Gaza. The scene at the border was one of a great bazaar. The streets were packed, and people were bringing into Gaza everything from soap and cigarettes to goats, chickens, medicine, mattresses and car paint."

Predictably, the Israeli government puts it all down to terrorism: Arye Mekel, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, commented: “The danger is that Hamas and other terror organizations will take advantage of the situation to smuggle in weapons and men and make a bad situation in Gaza worse.”

But let's face it. The population of Gaza is living in an open-air prison, vulnerable to the whims of the Israeli government which controls everything that goes in and out of Gaza. Those whims include bombardments, incursions and, recently, a cutoff of all supplies, damn the consequences. Such actions, patently illegal under international law, will never end Palestinian hostility toward Israel. Palestinians will try to get access to indispensable supplies. And some will be even more motivated to use violence. Ultimately, you can't starve a population into submission.

When the Berlin Wall tumbled down, it irreversibly changed the course of recent history in Europe. This opening of the Gaza wall, sadly, is unlikely to weigh so heavily on the course of human events. But it is to be hoped that more people wake up to the ongoing human tragedy on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Congo and the "Responsibility to Protect"

You've heard about Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of civilians that perished there since the 2003 invasion (well, the mainstream media give far more space to entirely spurious claims of a "successful" surge than to serious reporting about the humanitarian disaster triggered by Bush's war). You have heard about Darfur (in fact, you may have marched and organized to protest the mass killings and expulsions there). But do you know what's going on in Congo--to be precise, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)?

This vast country (and principally its eastern swathes) has seen recurring violence for most of the past decade. Killings, hunger, and disease have imposed a heavy toll on this region. Sadly, such ravages are hardly unknown to this part of Africa (called Zaire under kleptocrat-king Mobutu) since the time when Belgium and its King Leopold came to colonize and brutally exploit it late in the 19th century.

Another in a series of assessments has now been published by the International Recue Committe and the Burnet Institute. Titled "Mortality in the DRC. An Ongoing Crisis," the study explains that:

"Although a formal peace accord was signed in December 2002, the war has since given way to several smaller conflicts in the five eastern provinces that have continued to exact an enormous toll on the lives and livelihoods of local populations. Since 2000, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) has documented the humanitarian impact of war and conflict in DR Congo through a series of five mortality surveys. The first four studies, conducted between 2000 and 2004, estimated that 3.9 million people had died since 1998, arguably making DR Congo the world’s deadliest crisis since World War II. Less than 10 percent of all deaths were due to violence, with most attributed to easily preventable and treatable conditions such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition."

Pause here for a moment. 3.9 million dead in the space of seven years! In contemporary U.S. terms, that's more than a thousand 9/11's--that event that supposedly unlike any other changed "everything."

The latest IRC/Burnet study updates the numbers, and they're even more horrible. The researchers conclude that "5.4 million excess deaths have occurred between August 1998 and April 2007." Thanks in part to peacekeeping efforts, there have been some recent improvements in the eastern provinces. But the mortality rate is still 85 percent higher than the sub-Saharan average (!) and these small improvements are now threatened by a new escalation in violence in North Kivu province.

For all the discussion about a "responsibility to protect" (civilians victimized in conflict zones), this is just so much hot air. In principle, it makes sense for human societies to come to each other's help in an hour of extreme need, but the reality is that major powers are only intervening when it suits their interests. And very often, such self-interested acts end up making things much, much worse.

Sadly, R2P seems destined to remain an idea that won't stop the kinds of atrocities and suffering we see in DRC, Darfur, Iraq, and other places. Meanwhile, perhaps it's cynical to suggest that R2P will nicely allow a bevy of consultants, diplomats, and others to keep publishing reports and organize conferences.

Speak Truth to Power: The Hilarious Way

Sometimes you need a somewhat over-the-top approach to speaking truth to power. This little video fares quite well in that regard...

About those incubators ...

Watch this clip to begin to understand what is happening now to the civilian population of Gaza. A blockade of supplies by Israel means real suffering--and de facto collective punishment, which is a war crime.

But sure, depriving people of electricity and medicines will stop the firing of rockets into Israel! And, hey, it's all the Gazans' fault, they're all terrorists! Just like anyone showing any sort of sympathy for them. (Yes, these are the typical arguments...very sad.)

Now, without doubt, the firing of rockets into Israel needs to stop as well. Like on the Palestinian side, those being victimized are civilians. These tactics will not resolve the conflict or secure the Palestinians a state.



What particularly caught my attention in the clip is the question which life-saving machines doctors at hospitals may have to switch off first, if fuel supplies aren't restored soon: kidney dialysis machines or incubators?

The mention of incubators in particular reminded me of the propaganda that was spread around in the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, when it was claimed that Iraqi soldiers occupying Kuwait were ripping babies out of incubators. That was later proven to be a lie--but it played extremely well in the Western media. Let's see whether Palestinian babies and incubators make it through the veil of Western media preoccupations!

More on the Nano story .. at OneWorld.net

The Nano story is getting lots of attention in a range of places, as it touches a raw nerve with regard to the politics of climate change and issues of global inequity. My analysis has now also been picked up, via hyperlink, at OneWorld.net.