Thursday, January 16, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 9:49 PM
A Look At Things To Come
The future as seen from the MIT
If you are interested at peeking what the future holds, take a look at this nice report from the MIT Technology Review. It's about ten emerging technologies that are going to change our world and shape our future. Looking inside my magic ball I can tell you that the future will be very small...nanosmall.
posted by Mooraq at 9:44 PM
Some Axis Are More Evil Than Others
The US pragmatic approach to North Korea might be wise but clashes with its rhetoric
Many trees have been killed in the last few days to accommodate all the articles written on the diverging US policies on North Korea and Iraq. President Bush’s stance on NK is certainly dictated by a robust dose of pragmatism.
Obviously the US cannot deal with Kim while Saddam is still at large. And, in a certain sense, NK’s threat demonstrates how important is to stop madmen from acquiring weapons of mass destruction with which to blackmail the world.
On the other hand, with all his talk about axis of evil, Bush has basically painted himself in a corner. How can you call a guy evil and then parley? Maybe there is a superleague of evilness that includes Saddam but not Kim? Or, if they are not that different, why negotiate with Kim but not with Saddam?
One of Bush strongest assets is his ability to communicate with the average American without the pompous formalities so often associated with Washington. But there is a thin line between simplifying and oversimplifying. The need to deal with NK highlights that overstepping that line may ultimately change Bush's asset into a liability.
posted by Carla Passino at 1:56 PM
Negotiation Is the Name of the Game
The Russians should learn from the White House's about-face on North Korea
Russia is understandably nervous at North Korea's nuclear threats. In a Moscow Times op-ed, deputy staff director of the State Duma's foreign affairs committee, Vladimir Frolov calls for 'a complete roll-back of the entire North Korean nuclear programme' under the watchful eye of 'an intrusive international verification regime that would provide for on-site inspections without the right of refusal.'
This would be the preferred course of action because, in Frolov's view, the DPRK may be playing a clever game aimed at building 'additional nuclear weapons' while trading 'a freeze on further production for security guarantees and regime-saving economic aid from the international community.' And in any case, America and the world should not accept - let alone reward - nuclear blackmail.
Which, of course, is a thoroughly logical request to make. Except that it is wishful thinking, as Cheney and other White House hardliners can tell Mr Frolov. As difficult to swallow as it may be, the best course of action in North Korea is to negotiate. And hope that their regime will implode as soon as possible.
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
posted by Mooraq at 10:09 PM
After Saddam
Not enough attention is paid to the aftermath of the forthcoming Iraqi war
The clock is ticking for Saddam, as President Bush has reiterated yesterday. But Saddam’s final hour will coincide with a power vacuum in a country that has the second largest reserve of oil in the world.
Although the obstacles to removing Saddam are still great, the obstacles to a lasting peace in Iraq are even greater. Iraq is a country created out of nothing by the dissolution of the British empire: a collection of faiths, cultures, ethnic groups and political affiliations kept together only by Saddam's iron fist. Left alone, it would dissolve in no time - the juiciest bits carved by ambitious neighbours and the rest scattered around in tribal enclaves.
The US and its allies are obviously horrified by a similar prospect, not only because of the rich oil which will end up paying the bill for the war, but also because of the chain reaction that this could trigger in the region. The Middle East needs a beacon of stability and, possibly, democracy to function as an alternative model to the despotism, illuminated or not, that is de rigueur in the area. Iraq is not Afghanistan, a remote and pastoral country ravaged by twenty years of war. It is rich in natural resources, with a relatively well-educated middle class (by Middle Eastern standard of course) and strategically positioned to be the crossroad between the Gulf region and Europe. It is also, maybe most importantly, a not particularly religious country and could provide a strong counterbalance to the religious zealots of other Arab countries,
The opportunity is too good to be squandered. The timid steps at rallying an "Iraqi opposition" in exile have been pathetic so far. DIscussions on the form of Government that could follow have mostly been afterthoughts.
As we have learned over and over, winning a war is easier than winning a peace, but the battle against terrorism and terror is as much a peace battle as a military one. Much more attention and debate should be devoted to figuring out how we see a post-Saddam Iraq. If not, we risk winning the war but losing the peace.
posted by Carla Passino at 9:48 AM
Jordanians 'Don't Buy US Arguments'
Oil is the main reason behind war on Iraq, according to a University of Jordan survey
According to the Jordan Times, a poll conducted by the University of Jordan's Centre for Strategic Studies (CSS) shows that 58% of Jordanians expect the Unites States to attack Iraq. Among these, the overwhelming majority (83%) thinks that the main reason behind American military action is to gain control of Iraqi oil. Only 9% thinks that war has anything to do with Iraq owning weapons of mass destruction.
"These figures indicate that people don't buy US arguments," CSS Director Mustafa Hamarneh told the Jordanian newspaper. "The impact of the US' post-September 11 media campaign has been very minor." According to the survey, 98% of Jordanians worry that a strike on Iraq will have a dramatic impact on their country and 87% of them oppose providing America with any support against Baghdad.
Now Jordan is a friendly nation. If this survey is anything to go by, much more needs to be done to shift Arab public opinion, especially in pro-American countries. Otherwise, America risks accomplishing what Osama bin Laden, the Arab League and fundamentalists imams the world over never did: unite the Arab world in a common cause against the West.
Tuesday, January 14, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 11:11 AM
There's Safety in Sarees
Filtering water through a folded piece of cloth can protect from cholera, claims a new study
Despite its grand space travel plans, India has to face more pressing, if down-to-earth problems with its drinking water supply, which - in some areas - is contaminated with the cholera vibrio. Luckily, help is now at hand from new research, according to The Times of India.
An American study, published by the National Academy of Sciences and carried out in Bangladesh, demonstrated that filtering water through a folded saree can reduce the incidence of the disease by 48% as the cholera-carrying bacteria remain trapped in the fabric. "The beauty of this method is that it is simple and it is cheap. The biggest advantage is it is readily available in each and every household," Anwar Huq of the University of Maryland told the Indian newspaper.
Now this is the type of scientific research where Indian money should go.
posted by Carla Passino at 9:22 AM
Italian Politicians Discover the Power of the Web(log)
Blogs have finally come to Italy and local politicians are putting them to good use
Weblogs have taken Italy by storm. Although the Bel Paese came late to blogging - especially when compared to the rest of Europe and to North America - Italians are trying hard to catch up by publishing blogs on anything from fishing to literature, from hairstyles to Catholicism (by a Sicilian priest, Don Rosario).
Among the most unlikely blog enthusiasts are politicians. According to Italian magazine, L'Espresso, "there is the Member of Parliament (MP) who publishes a blog to show his constituents how hard he works… "
And indeed Antonio Palmieri MP, who belongs to the ruling centre-right party Forza Italia, tries hard to demonstrate how busy he is, although the postings in his CalenDiario are often less than memorable: "Monday, January 13. I have started my week at 7.10am by opening my e-mail Inbox, where I found 23 messages, which I answered to within the hour." He then goes on to imply that 23 emails are a lot. I'd like to show him the 500+ messages in my Monday morning inbox…Still, it is a commendable effort to make us see what politicians actually do all day long (besides having big lunches, that is).
Monday, January 13, 2003
posted by Carla Passino at 2:09 PM
Will Blair Play it Down on Iraq?
Besieged with criticism at home, the British Prime Minister may be tempted to soften his views on war against Saddam
While UN inspectors ask for more time to ascertain whether Iraq holds weapons of mass destruction, British Prime Minister Tony Blair desperately tries to defuse home criticism to his stance on the war.
Blair is plagued by fierce opposition within his own party, where up to a hundred MPs (Members of Parliament) openly oppose the attack. Senior Labour MP and former chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, Clive Soley advised Blair that waging war on Iraq outside a UN framework could bring his government down, just like the 1956 Suez crisis cost the then Prime Minister Sir Anthony Eden his post. "There is a danger of getting into a conflict without the support of the country or parliament. You don't want to go down that route. That is what happened at Suez when the prime minister fell and the nation was divided," Soley told the Sunday Times (link requires registration).
Nor is the average Briton better disposed towards a unilateral Anglo-American strike, despite Blair's warning that Britain has robust intelligence against the Iraqi regime. In a YouGov poll published today (in PDf format), 53% of the respondents said that they would support a UN-sanctioned war on Iraq but only 13% would back military action if it were launched by the US and Britain alone.
Blair feels strongly that Britain has a moral obligation to make the world a better place to live and, on these grounds, he has backed action against Saddam Hussein all along. But he is also very sensitive to the vox populi. So far, his policy has been unaffected by the country's mood. Whether his determination will last in the face of mounting opposition remains to be seen.
 |
|