Commemorating September 11th

We All Remember

We all remember that terrible day in September when the unbelievable happened before our eyes. The incredible and seemingly immortal coastline that has so often symbolized the U.S.A was changed forever in an unparalleled act of vile terrorism. This is a time for all of us to silently bow our heads and contemplate the significance of such acts. For some of us this raises questions regarding the feelings of foolish human pride that sometimes fill our hearts. We realize that in this world nothing should be taken for granted and everything we have we should be grateful for. The tallest buildings in the United States, truly a symbol of human pride that might rival the legendary tower of Babel were proved to be far more temporary than anyone imagined. For others there are feelings of bravery and heroism that are awakened when we recall those heroic passengers who fought and gave their lives to prevent an even greater tragedy. We all share one common feeling. For all of us, the feeling that terrorism should be eradicated from our world completely is one of the conclusions of our contemplation.

The Evil Heart of Bin Laden

Actually the previous paragraph refers only to a certain enlightened portion of the humanity. Contrary to our basic instincts and beliefs there are actually people who feel entirely different thoughts. These people remember the date of September 11Th as a day when a mighty blow was landed upon the infidels. These people call themselves believers and followers of Mohamed. In truth, they are merely terrorists and follow the evil in their hearts and in the heart of their leader Bin Laden.

More About the Immigrant Cash Flow

Some People Object

Last time, I described the phenomenon of immigrants who travel abroad to make money and send it home to their impoverished families. I described the obvious basic premise of those people and why it is viewed as a positive thing. Now I am going to play the "Devil's advocate" and represent the people who are opposed to this trend. Finally, I will voice my own opinion on the subject.

Reasonable Objections

The first objection stems from the concept that money that leaves a country has impact on the overall economy. Money that leaves is viewed as money lost. The second objection is that a major portion of the money is produced by illegal immigrants and that this trend only serves to further increase the problems inherent in illegal immigration. Finally, there is a claim that this immigration trend serves to harm impoverished countries by causing them to loose a vital resource of humans who would otherwise serve to improve their home countries from within.

My Opinion

For what it is worth, my opinion is somewhat complex. I shall try to summarise it as concisely as possible. First of all, it seems clear to me that many of the objections stem from the fact that all this cash being moved about is not an international business. Comparing the total sums to an international business gives away the real problem that is bothering certain people. International businesses pay taxes and can be audited whereas cash sent abroad is not affected by such issues. My opinion is that although capitalism is not the ideal system, capitalism is certainly how the world works. The general globalisation of all things is showing it's marks in the world economy and this issue is only a minor one when it comes to global capitalism. The obvious eventual result is that either the trend will achieve a peak or the cash flow will sufficiently alter the various economies thus creating better paying jobs that do not require immigration as a solution to monetary problems.

Immigrant Cash Flow

The Effect of Immigration

Many third world countries have a powerful asset that they export; human beings. In many impoverished countries many of the locals immigrate to wealthier countries where they work hard and send some of their earnings back home. Since wealthier countries provide higher paying salaries the sums sent by the immigrants back to their home countries are considered very significant. Thanks to this growing trend of immigrant workers, the accumulation of these sums being sent abroad is truly staggering. Thanks to various attempts at tracking cash flow abroad for the purpose of fighting terror these sums have been tracked. Recent analysis has placed the total sums being transferred a year to be somewhere in the area of several hundred billion dollars. If such a sum were to be translated into an international business it would place the immigrants as the company with the third biggest international revenue.

Is it a Good Thing?

Is this a good thing? Depends who you ask! Obviously the immigrants who travel to foreign countries and work hard for their families feel they are doing the right thing. The families that they support in their impoverished homelands don't see anything wrong with the money they are receiving. Even so, there are those who think that this is a problem. I will discuss the opinions of those who object in my next blog. If this issue is of interest please read the next blog and see why some people object and what I have to say on the matter.

Blaming Al Qaeda

Everything May Be True

Blaming Al Qaeda for terrorist attacks perpetrated in Iraq may well be absolutely correct. Al Qaeda is trying to boost it's influence in Iraq and such an increase in influence is exactly what the U.S fears might happen in Iraq. In successfully carrying out terrorist strikes against people viewed as "infidels" Al Qaeda stands to gain more local Sunni support. It is quite possible that this terrorist strike was organised and carried out by terrorist representing Al Qaeda. On the other hand, another alternative also presents itself. Perhaps blaming Al Qaeda is really not such a good idea.

Legitimising Al Qaeda

If Al Qaeda tries to operate in Iraq, it must do so with local Iraqis. In order for this to be feasible the local Iraqis need to believe that Al Qaeda is a successful organisation that knows what it is doing and is feared by the West. Terrorist organisations live off being publicised. Publicising the suspicion that the strikes were perpetrated by Al Qaeda gives the organisation of Al Qaeda exactly what they want. Al Qaeda wants to be seen as a powerful world wide terrorist organisation. Only if it is viewed as such will it be able to recruit insurgents world wide. Therefore, the result of recognising terrorist acts as perpetrated by Al Qaeda is an immediate expansion of the ranks of Al Qaeda in Iraq - something that is probably very undesirable now or ever! When you look at things in this light, it would seem that the U.S is creating an Al Qaeda problem in Iraq.

Al Qaeda in Iraq

A Well Coordinated Bombing

Mosul is a city in Iraq. The western part of Mosul is populated by the Yazidi sect. The people of this sect are considered infidels by the Sunnis. The morning after a well coordinated bombing in western Mosul it is obvious that the perpetrators are Sunni fundamentalists. These vile terrorists are taking advantage of the chaos reigning in Iraq to strike at whoever they don't like. Although car bombs are used as a terrorist tool all over the world, in Iraq, it would seem that it is all too easy to deploy several trucks full of gasoline in a massive terrorist strike. The results of this horror are over two hundred dead.

Blaming Al Qaeda

Since it is the job of the United States military forces to keep the peace in Iraq, it is also their privilege to place the blame for such terrorist attacks. The official U.S. claim is that the terrorists responsible belong to the Sunni group known as Al Qaeda. The truth is, that there are daily terrorist strikes but only the really big ones are reported. Even now, in the news, the only strikes being discussed are those where over 150 people were killed. The smaller ones do not even spark any interest in the media. Al Qaeda is blamed because they are viewed as the extremist fundamentalist Sunni terrorist organisation. Not only that, Al Qaeda is also known as being skilled at organising big terrorist strikes which kill many.

Iraqi Troubles are Far From Over

Invasion Problems

When the US invaded Iraq, it was deemed an absolute necessity. However, as opposed to the previous invasion, where the results were quickly achieved and with minimum casualties, this invasion has encountered many problems. The first problem encountered was the fact that the invasion was too successful. With the collapse of the Iraqi regime, peaceful ruling in Iraq became impossible. The reign of oppression and terror imposed by Saddam Hussein was replaced with a reign of anarchy and terror that cannot be overcome with simple force. The significance of this is that the US military forces in Iraq are constantly under fire and taking casualties. The US military is designed for military operations and wars it is not trained or designed for dealing with terrorist attacks and guerrilla warfare.

Pulling Out Problems

It would seem that faced with these problems the wise thing would be to pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, there are many problems with this solution. The first, is that the result of such a withdrawal would be immediate collapse of whatever order has already been imposed. The second problem is that a withdrawal could be viewed as a failure of the US. This failure would be in the eyes of the Muslim population as well as in the eyes of the American public. Pulling out would also mean jeopardising US interests in the area. Specifically the oil interests (which got the US into the mess in the first place).

The Only Hope

It would seem like the only hope left for the US is that they will somehow be able to create a situation where the locals manage to take charge of the situation and then slowly pull out. This doesn't seem very likely to occur any time soon. We can only hope that a peaceful resolution is indeed somewhere in the making.

In Defence of the US

Keeping a Cool Head

In the face of escalation of the terrorist alert in Britain the US have not changed their alert status. Although I have written previously why it would seem like complacency on the part of the US, I have also written that there are two sides to the same coin. Now I would like to play the Devil's advocate and demonstrate why such a policy is the best answer to terrorism. I'd like to argue that keeping a cool head in the face of world wide terror panic might possibly be the best thing to do. Perhaps this is the consideration that the leaders of the US had in mind when they decided not to increase security measures.

The Essence of Terror

The whole point of terrorist attacks is to instill fear in the population. If people live in fear, not knowing when or where the next attack will come, then the terrorists are achieving their goal. Terrorism is a way for a weak minority to bully a much larger population. Much like coping with the class bully, it is often best to ignore him. Another goal of terrorism is to exhaust a great deal of the terrorised people's resources while using very little resources. If hundreds of thousands of people are delayed by various security protocols than the terrorists have again achieved their goal. Standing brave in the face of terrorism and leading lives that are as close to normal as possible. If the US are increasing their vigilance without formally announcing an alert, than they are showing the terrorist that their acts of violence are insignificant and frighten no one. At the same time they are really watching for the first move that would indicate the need for an immediate preemptive move. This method also aims to exhaust as few resources as possible while still containing the potential damage of terror. If that is the reasoning, all I can say is: Good luck USA!

Good Morning USA

United States Doesn't Raise Alert

Although the weekend car bombs in Britain have sent the British into full 'critical' alert, it seems that the the US are more complacent. Terrorist alerts have not risen in the US and everything seems to be as normal. I think there are two ways of looking at this a positive one and a negative one. I'll start with the negative one first. Hence the title 'Good Morning USA'. It is clear that there are Al-Qaida insurgents in the US just as there are in Britain. The fact that the terrorist are doing there dirty work in Britain does mean that they have forgotten the US. Not only that, the fact that the US are suffering plenty of terrorist attacks in Iraq does not mean that they can't suffer attacks that are far closer to home. If Al-Qaida is increasing it's actions it would make sense to budge the alert status in the US preemptively to prevent insurgents from preparing another attack. Terrorist actions are best handled by prevention. If a terrorist cell exists, it is only a matter of time before they decide to strike.

Wake Up!

It would seem that ignoring the world escalation of terrorism and keeping alerts at their current level is unhealthy complacency. Believing irrationally that for some unknown reason Al-Qaida will decide to exclude the US from it's terrorist agenda is probably not a good idea. Last time when I wrote about Britain's coping with terror, I expressed the hope that the modern world might wake up and realise that terror is something that can and must be fought. The US seem to be turning a deaf ear to this plea. That is why I have titled this paragraph 'Wake Up'. Only by a unified action of the modern world can we put a final stop to terror.

Terrorism Escalates in Britain

Britain Meets Terrorism

Although I have written about the Muslim terrorist organisation known as Al-Qaida before, it seems there is always more to write. Britain has recently raised it's terrorist alert level to 'critical'. This is due to two attempted car bomb attacks that were miraculously prevented in central London. In addition there was the recent incident of the jeep which was driven directly into a Glasgow airport terminal and then set on fire. The alerts are out and the police and army will be patrolling every major train station and bus terminal. Once again terrorists have managed to bring home the message that they are a very real threat and that this threat is very close to home.

Time to Wake Up

It would seem that the incidents described over the weekend, were diabolically devised terrorist acts of pointless slaying. A miracle occurred and no innocent civilians were killed (although some were harmed). It is chilling to think of what could have been the result of a car bomb exploding adjacent to a packed London nightclub. With hundreds dead and wounded, the horror scenes would have been just the sort that would delight Al-Qaida. At least Britain has taken the issue to heart and raised their alert level appropriately. Unfortunately it would seem that this is not enough. Experience has taught us that 'raising alert levels' and 'increasing security' result in less successful terrorist attempts. These measures do not serve to prevent the attempts altogether. Only uprooting the weed from it's source can solve the problem of terrorism once and for all. We can only hope that this will somehow occur before living in fear of the next strike becomes a day to day experience.

The Clinton Faith

Clinton is interviewed

Hillary Clinton was interviewed this Monday along with the other presidential candidates. The Clinton name is well known to the public and the infidelity that her husband is infamous. Thus, when the candidates discussed their relations with The Creator it was only natural for this issue to be raised. Clinton said that what she used to overcome the trials related to her husband's infidelity was faith. She stressed that the many trials she has gone through were all coped with thanks to faith and prayer.

A little cynicism

Faith is a mighty force, there is no doubt. Being a man of faith is perhaps one of the most important qualities of a president. Of course, these interviews and their like are all carefully prepared for an thus everything said should be taken with a grain of salt. Even so, it seems obvious that Hillary is not to blame for her husband's behaviour and her support of him is only to be expected of a faithful wife. There really seems no point in raising this domestic issue in interviews of candidacy to presidency. It is natural to feel pity for the lady who has undergone such trials but the elections really should be based on something more substantial then powers of coping in a domestic crisis. Of course, the people of the United States would like to know something about their new leader's beliefs but it would seem that very little can really be derived from such interviews that are so well prepared for.

An Answer to Putin

Putin speaks

Perhaps as a preparation for the coming G - 8 conference or perhaps just because of his personality, Putin has addressed the world today. In his address he claimed that he is the only true democrat and unfortunately he has no one to talk too. This is contrary to the world's opinion that Russia's leader has repealed many of the democratic changes undergone by his country. In addition, Putin said that he feels that it is not right for him to resign. He feels that he is yet young and has a lot to do for his country. Finally, Putin attacked the West and claimed that they are doing things that are undemocratic and even downright stupid.

An analysis of bigotry

The claims of Putin reek of their abuse of the human intellect. Although it is questionable whether a population can democratically choose to be ruled undemocratically, it is clear that a democracy must be based on the ideas, views and opinions of many people. If Putin is the only true democrat then ergo he is either the only person in the world or he is not a democrat. The West may be doing things that are undemocratic and stupid but that doesn't necessarily make the West undemocratic or stupid. All it means is that there are things that perhaps should be done differently. Finally, Putin's insistence on remaining in politics demonstrates that the leader aims for the totalitarian realm that his country has suffered from for so long.

The Battle for Nature

The WWF enables ivory trade

The real WWF (the wildlife preservation society - World Wild Fund) has been fighting vigilantly against the unlawful poaching and hunting of endangered animals. Perhaps in a seemingly surprising and contradictory act this same WWF has allowed the sale of some sixty tons of ivory to Japan this Saturday. The claim is that this ivory was collected from animals that have died naturally, of old age or diseases. Although this claim is being researched as to it's validity the sale is taking place. It seems to be a simple and straight forward thing but this is not the case.

A problem

The issue here is a complex one. The problem is that the whole point of prohibiting the sale of ivory is to prevent the slaying of endangered animals. Once the ivory has reached the market it is already too late. The animals are already dead. However, hunters will only hunt for ivory if there is a market. As soon as people do not buy ivory there is no incentive to acquiring it. From here you can conclude that even ivory collected in an environmentally healthy way preserves the market of illegal ivory and thus encourages hunting. There are all kinds of things that can be done to circumvent this problem. For example, the ivory could be sold only under a special licence that marks the ivory as 'kosher'. Another option is selling the ivory for such a low price that it will not be worthwhile for poachers to risk life and limb.

Another Chinook in Afganistan

The Taliban

The Islamic fundamentalist who call themselves the Taliban are still causing problems. Despite incredibly prolonged military efforts of NATO and the United States, the Taliban are still a force that can inflict damage. Despite the endless resources being invested in their extermination they still manage to make it to the news with yet another item of ruthless bloodshed. Although the combined forces of today's modern super powers have been labouring in Afghanistan for a very long time we don't seem to be seeing much in the way of improvement.

Another Chinook is downed

This Wednesday, the 30th of May the Taliban have claimed another hit on American forces in Afghanistan when they shot down a Chinook helicopter carrying 5 American soldiers and 2 other military passengers. According to the report there were no survivors. This is not the first Chinook helicopter to be shot down by the Taliban and they seem to be doing it with ease and impudence. When will this stain of terror finally be exterminated permanently? One would think that in today's modern world of the 21st century we would be exempt from the involvement in such pointless conflict and bloodshed. For us the battle against terrorism is the fight to bring enlightenment to the world. This is no less a religious cause than the Islamic Taliban cause of exterminating the unbelievers (which is us!). One can only hope that all peoples will become more enlightened in the near future.

Questioning the Official Castro Story

The official story is that Fidel Castro is recovering nicely after several intestinal surgeries. Now, after several months of intravenous feeding, he is eating and maintaining his generous 80 kg of weight. This is nice to hear and perhaps we should rejoice that one of the oldest leaders of the modern world is still with us. Unfortunately, the news of the past years has shown us that such reports are often much exaggerated. It is easy to remember that Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader also "joked with his doctors" while he was probably already dead or at least brain dead. Yasser Arafat has not been the only aged leader who has joked with his doctors while actually being comatose and completely unable to communicate. Fidel Castro is certainly no youngster and has played a prominent role in the world politics. Even so, it would be nice to believe that Castro, who has always played his hand as being sincere with his people, is maintaining his reputation and the truth is that he is healing nicely. This seems to be well supported by the optimistic and candid nature of his letters to his people. He does not say that everything is fine. He says that he can now eat food. This gives the feeling that although the famous leader is currently down, he will be back soon enough. As convincing as it seems it is not beyond politicians to manipulate people's thoughts in just such a way.

Cuban Leader is Gettting Better

Fidel Castro, the fearless leader of the Cuba announced on July 31st that he was giving over the government of Cube to his 75 year old brother because he was going to undergo abdominal surgery due to intestinal bleeding. Since then, we have heard occasional announcements regarding his health. While very little surrounding the operation is clear it is apparent that Castro has undergone more than one operation and for a prolonged period of time was receiving his nutrition via an intravenous line. For a long time there seemed to be a conflict between the official reports that stated that the Cuban leader was getting steadily better with his health was improving and various news papers that seemed to indicate that his situation was grave and getting worse. Today, though, Castro has written to the public his official announcement that he is indeed improving. He can now eat regularly and no longer requires intravenous support. Although it is unclear when he will make his first live appearance, it seems that we will be seeing more of good Castro. Castro has managed to play an important part in politics for years. Now, he is 80 years old and still very much in power. The Cuban state runs smoothly and efficiently with very little complaints. It would be nice to see such stability continue with the leader that we have come to know and love. The question is, how true are these reports? This I will discuss the next time...

Iran is Scary

Iran is developing nuclear weapons and we are doing nothing about it

After having described the current Iranian situation, it is time to paint the picture as it seems to be. Iran has done nothing to reduce it's nuclear development programs. It has only expanded it's enrichment programs. The Iranians even state that they have no intention of reducing their programs. Not only that, all this is true of the programs that are known to the U.N. and the security council. Even the International nuclear energy agency admit that they don't know what is really going on. The Iranians are currently under a strict religious Muslim reign that leaves very little room for the existence of unbelievers. Since under the title of unbelievers it is possible to include practically everyone else everywhere, this sounds very scary. The Iranians are rapidly developing a massive nuclear arsenal that could easily blast the entire world back into the stone age and all the U.N. are doing is placing sanctions and assembling talks. Even as these words are being written the threat continues to develop. It seems like the U.S. training in Kuwait have a job to do and it seems like a pity to keep them waiting. Perhaps it is time to enter Iran and save the world before it is too late? It would seem like it is high time to act quickly and do what needs to be done. The price of war is high but the consequences of delay would seem to be much higher.

Iran and the UN

As you probably know, the Iranians have been working on uranium enrichment programs for a long time. The U.N. is desperately trying to contain the programs so that the Iranians will not be able to develop a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons. The Iranians claim that the programs are necessary for power stations and supplying nice environmentally friendly electrical energy. The other claim that they often raise, is that in today's world it is necessary to possess nuclear weapons as a deterrent against potential foes. It is no secret that Iran is currently under the rule of a regime which is highly religious. The situation is rapidly getting worse as the official reports are that Iran is rapidly expanding it's programs and not only that, the atomic energy agency admits that they know less and less what is actually going on in Iran. As you remember, the security council placed sanctions on Tehran last December and it has been suggested that Iran's escalation of it's nuclear activities should perhaps be received with renewed sanctions. Although this might make sense, the current U.N. approach is to hope that talking things out with the Iranians might be more productive. Unfortunately, experience has taught us that the Iranians of Tehran are not known to be accommodating when it comes to just talks. Perhaps the U.S. massive military training program going on in Kuwait might serve as a clear message to the Iranians that talking is a good idea.

French Elections

Now that the United Nations is out of the way, I can move onto some current events. I will probably come back to the informative posts later, to review the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, International Council of the Red Cross or other organizations that are relevant to understanding politics today. In the meantime, on to the juicy stuff!

Today I'm going to talk a bit about the French elections. The French electoral system requires that if a candidate fails to win an absolute majority in the first round of elections, it means that there will be a runoff between the top two candidates. Since France's multiparty system rarely produces an absolute winner, the runoff is usually the deciding factor. Sometimes the parties in the runoff may come as a surprise, such as in the last election where a shocked France found itself voting for Jacques Chirac over the far right extremist Jean LePen, who had somehow made it through the first round of voting without compromising on or apologizing for his positions, which most French find racist, overtly nationalist and controversial. The French were so shocked that there were actually protests and riots over an election they themselves had voted in! Only in France, right?

The sitting president is Jacques Chirac, who has been at the head of the French politic for 12 years. The long terms of French presidents make their reigns into dynasties, and Chirac's will face an uncertain legacy. Though praised for somewhat dismantling the crippling bureaucracy of French socialism, he failed to secure a "Yes" vote for his pet project, the European Constitution, and failed to integrate thousands of African immigrants into French society, ending in riots that plagued French suburbia in 2005. Chirac announced his retirement this year and will pass the reigns of France to his successor after this week's elections.

The Secretariat

The Secretary General has a largely symbolic role in the United Nations. While he does indeed have some power to control the agenda of the Security Council and General Assembly, the role of the Secretary is mainly to serve as a figurehead and administrator. In addition, the clout that comes with his role means that he can provide leadership and guidance for the UN as a whole. Finally, the Secretary General can also call upon special commissions to look into various matters and issue reports.

The Secretariat has been in the news recently when a change of power took place, as Kofi Annan left office to make way for Ban-Ki Moon. Annan's term as Secretary General had been marked by controversy - he himself had been implicated for corruption in the failed oil-for-food program meant to help the people of Iraq survive under sanctions, and had been held personally accountable for much of the UN's inaction during the Rwandan Genocide. Later, he issued a controversial report declaring that the atrocities in Darfur were not, in fact, genocide, but simply "crimes against humanity". While crimes against humanity are serious, they do not require the immediate intervention of other nations to stop the killing, as would be the case in a Genocide.

Ban-Ki Moon is a Korean and a career diplomat. His tenure has only just started, so he has not yet met with the same criticism as his predecessor. His task will be difficult however, as the United Nations struggles for relevance in the 21st century.

Security Council Part Two

This entry is a continuation of the previous one. Since the Security Council is one of the most important of the United Nations organs, I thought it would be well worth writing a second entry to further educate my readers.
The Security Council sits in New York, but if it wishes can also convene elsewhere. The work of the council means that it needs to address pressing issues of today, so it is often in the news. One of the main criticisms of the council, alongside the criticism of its membership, is that the council has often been shy of ordering the use of military might. Now, this may seem sensible in an organization such as the UN which is devoted to world peace, but many critics believe that the Security Council has failed the victims of atrocities the world over by failing to act. For example, the United Nations remained basically paralyzed and useless during the Rwandan Genocide, when between 800 thousand and 1 million people were mass murdered. Today, the Security Council is unable to take action in Darfur, where the UN estimates 450 thousand people have been killed through an ongoing conflict. This is because China, a permanent member with the veto power, has extensive trade relations with Sudan, and needs Sudan's oil to fuel its huge energy needs.
Another test of the Security Council came before the US led war in Iraq. The threat of a French veto meant that the US had to simply circumvent the council and launch a war outside of the UN framework. What it did prove, however, was that even the mighty US sought the Council's nod before going to war.

Security Council, part one

Welcome to part two of your continued tour of the United Nations. Since reading my blog is cheaper than taking the guided tour of the UN building in New York, you should all realize you're getting a great deal out of this one.
The Security Council - part one
The Security Council was established in an attempt to make the United Nations more reflective of the actual power balance in the world at the time. Unfortunately, that time was only just after the Second World War, so the situation then doesn't necessarily reflect the one now. The Security Council is charged with keeping the peace by the UN Charter, and as such can authorize the use of force to maintain international stability. In an effort to limit this power, five members of the council were given the veto power, which allows them the ability to defeat any motion by the rest of the council. This right was given to the nuclear powers of the time: the United States, the USSR (now Russia), China (now the Peoples Republic of China), France and Britain. This veto right made these actors much more powerful than the other temporary council members, which cannot defeat motions with a single vote.
There is much debate about whether permanent membership should be abolished or reformed. Smaller states sometimes feel that the predominance of these large nations is harmful to their national interests. Some commentators believe that the list of permanent members is incomplete. Where, for example, is India, a nation of a billion people, a huge economy and nuclear weaponry? Where is Japan, one of the central actors in international politics and economy? Why are there no African, South American or Central Asian nations with permanent membership?

General Assembly

Since I will probably be mentioning the United Nations often in my entries, I thought it would be useful to give readers a background in case they don't know much about the organization. What follows is a very brief introduction to one of the UN's main organs, the General Assembly. I'll be continuing this theme until my readers have a good idea of what goes on in that big, funny shaped building in New York.
The General Assembly
The United Nations is not known for swift effective action, nor is it known for its ability to produce results. What it does do however, is work as a thermometer for world opinion on decisive issues. To see this, one needs only look at the General Assembly, which remains the only organization of truly universal membership on earth. It is only able to issue non binding resolutions, but it can give you a pretty good indicator of what the world is thinking.
The General Assembly was built on the principal of sovereign equality, which means that any state, no matter how large or how small, gets an equal vote in deliberations. This may sound nice, but it does mean that the GA doesn't necessarily reflect the real politics of the world at large. In the GA, massive India, China and the United States all have the same vote as Lichtenstein and Micronesia. For this reason, the GA is a place where small nations try to exert their influence over the big guys. This setup means that most of the resolutions that actually pass the GA are broad, popular statements. Bear this in mind when reading over the resolutions that go through this body. Also remember that they cannot issue binding resolutions, only the Security Council (which you will learn all about next entry!) can do that.

Welcome to My Political View

Welcome to my politics blog! This is the place where you will here me rant, rave and logically analyze (if your lucky) the news you hear every day. I'll be going through the headlines each week and picking one or two items to talk about here. These I will pick apart, comment on, and probably demand action on.

One thing you will notice is that I may not fall into a "party" or "wing" that you are used to. This is because, like many people, I do not feel the need to conform the rest of my beliefs to match the preferences of a party I vote for. So if you're baffled, just remember: brains don't fit into boxes, and if they do then they aren't being used very well. Though two barely-different parties may be the American and British way of doing politics, those labels shouldn't limit the dialogue and debate that surrounds each contentious issue. Individuals may identify with one leader or another, but that doesn't mean that they should be looking only as far as their speeches and platforms.

I'm not going to be limiting my scope to a single country, or to a single region. Instead, I'll be looking all over to see things that strike me as important or interesting. You, the reader, may not even find it easy to guess where I'm blogging from. I won't be shying away from a said nation's domestic issues, though I'll typically dwell on more international affairs, since that is my training and expertise.

In any case, I hope you find some entertainment and insight in reading my blog entries. Hopefully, the entries will open your mind to new thoughts and ideas as well, and start a new dialogue that can change the world!