Author: Sarah Riordan

As the Unites States continues to step up the war for democracy in Afghanistan, Senator Barbara Boxer is making sure the women are included in the U.S.’s plans.

The questionable treatment of women throughout the Middle East has been well documented by women who managed to escape the oppressive atmosphere.  One example is found in Betty Mahmoody’s book “Not Without My Daughter.”  In her tragic story she is virtually held captive by her husband in Iran and beaten within an inch of her life. Though her story is disturbing, even more disturbing is that when Mahmoody turned to her Iranian friends for help, they told her that her husband’s behavior was not unique and was, according to law and custom, virtually acceptable. 

Likewise, in Dr. Qanta Ahmed’s book “In the Land of Invisible Women,” she writes about the everyday burden of being a female in Saudi Arabia. She even states that for a while, there was a law pending that made it illegal for Saudi women to wear seatbelts because it defined their chest too much.  In other words, a Saudi man would rather a woman be thrown through the windshield of a car, than have her chest stand out more than usual. 

And so the problem continues throughout most of the nations of the Middle East.  Not every man throughout the Middle East abuses his wife, nor is every woman unhappy.  However, according to Boxer’s S.229, there does seem to be some well-documented problems that should be addressed as long as the U.S. continues to have a presence in Afghanistan.

According to the bill, research has shown that Afghanistan has one of the highest mortality rates in the nation for women in labor.  There is an estimated one woman who dies in every 54 births.  In a world of modern medicine, the amount is unusually high.  In contrast, according to an MSNBC report in the United States 12 women die in childbirth for every 100,000 babies born. 

Aside from issues of healthcare, education for women is virtually nonexistent.  S.229 says that 79 percent of women in Afghanistan are illiterate. The bill also says that schools who teach girls are often subject to brutal attacks by extremists hoping to limit their rights. 

According to Boxer, educating women and providing them with proper healthcare and education is essential in building a democracy.  Clearly the U.S. has a vested interest in establishing a democracy in Afghanistan.  Such an interest in fact, that American soldiers are losing their lives every day for the cause.

To help the women of Afghanistan Boxer proposes forty-five million dollars go toward a number of potential projects.  These projects include providing shelters for abused women, health care, education for both young and old, and therapy for those suffering from anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorders caused by years of oppression under the Taliban rule. 

Though the opposition will most likely zero in on the costs proposed in the bill, Boxer does have a point: regardless of how much money the government chooses to spend, women in Afghanistan need proper resources in order to propel their country toward democracy. 

Author: Kellie Bartoli

As Americans, we enjoy our freedom to do anything we may choose. Anything, that is except travel to Cuba.

Since 1963, the United States has followed a strict travel ban with Cuba – the only country that Americans are forbidden from visiting. Earlier this month, however, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) and eight co-sponsors introduced to Congress H.R.874, the Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act.

By lifting the 46-year sanction, the bill aims to restore the travel rights of Cuban refugees living in the U.S. and enable unrestricted American travel to Cuba, except during times of war and “imminent danger to the public health or physical safety.”

Despite growing popularity, the bill faces a tough crowd. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Miami), a longtime advocate of the Cuban sanctions, says similar acts are often proposed, and “every year embargo supporters kill [them] before they get any traction. …While we recognize that these are fights take place, we have great confidence that we’ll defeat them.”

The strongest argument against the measure is the belief that American tourism will breathe money into the Castro regime.

According to Humberto Fontova, a Cuban exile who has since penned two books about the island, at least 2 million tourists have visited Cuba each year since 1994, creating a $2 billion cash flow, which “is only going to increase now with Americans going to Cuba.”  

If the measure passes the House, President Obama will almost certainly sign it into law; throughout his presidential campaign, Obama pledged to change the travel ban. At a Cuban Independence Day event in Miami, he said, “My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: ‘libertad.’ …We’ve been engaged in a failed policy with Cuba for the last 50 years. And we need to change it.” Obama later went on to vow unrestricted travel and financial rights for Cuban-Americans.

The Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act will be a good test of Obama’s pledge. In addition to lifting travel sanctions, the new bill loosens the tight strings pulled by President George W. Bush, who placed even more stringent restrictions on American-Cuban relations.

Under the Clinton administration, for example, Cuban-Americans were allowed to visit the island once a year and send quarterly payments of up to $3,000 to their families. In 2004, Bush enacted stronger limitations: Cuban-Americans could only visit family once every three weeks for 14-day intervals, “family” was defined as parents, spouses, children and siblings – not friends or other family members, travel spending was capped at $50 per day, and cash remittances were maximized at $300 every three months and could only be sent to immediate family.

The new bill, however, calls for a $170-per day travel allowance, the ability for Cuban-Americans to visit relatives once a year and stay as long as they want, and eliminates a cap on remittance.

While the travel ban has been enforced for nearly 50 years, the proposal is moving much more rapidly. It was initially introduced to Congress on Feb. 4, and the House plans to vote as early as Wednesday. It is to be reviewed by the Senate at the beginning of next week. 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

The nation of Ethiopia is nestled between the countries of Sudan and Somalia. There are approximately 85 million people who live in the nation. Relations between the US and the 2^nd most densely populated African state have been relatively positive since the early 1900s.  Unfortunately, due to a number of reported human’s rights violations, strain between the two nations has emerged. Recently, Ethiopia’s Charities and Societies Proclamation Law, or CSO, went into effect, causing uproar from the human rights activist and international aid communities.

Amnesty International called the CSO a tyrannical law that is intended to dominate and scrutinize civil society in an atmosphere of increasing intolerance towards the efforts of human rights advocates and civil society organizations. Amnesty International considers the law’s provisions as violations of international and regional human rights treaties. The Ethiopian government asserts that the law is to address what seem to be inadequacies within the current legal regime, promoting financial transparency and accountability. The law will provide more “proper” administration and regulation to civil society, according to Ethiopian officials.

The CSO law will criminalize human rights actions carried out by Ethiopian organizations that obtain more than 10 percent of their funding from foreign entities. The law imposes a disproportionate amount of criminal penalties for even small administrative violations of the regulation. It also establishes a Charities and Societies Agency that will have widespread unrestricted authority over civil society associations, allowing for government observation and obstruction in day-to-day operation and management. If the law is violated, one could face up to fifteen years in prison.

The law passed after the arrests of two outspoken opponents of the government. One of the opponents, Birtukan Midekssa, had originally been convicted in her role of sponsoring protests after the much disputed 2005 elections and then pardoned; only to have the pardoned revoked on inadequate evidence. The other opponent was arrested in November on the charge of plotting acts of terrorism; however, there appears to be little evidence supporting the charge.

Ethiopia’s new CSO law is only the beginning. A flurry of proposed legislation from the US is expected to be released in a hot and heavy fashion. As other key global players in human rights circles (such as the UN and EU) begin to emerge, the situation between the US and Ethiopia will only become more intense.

One of the most probable US legislators to step to the plate is Representative Donald Payne (D-NJ). Payne introduced the Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007 (H.R. 2003) even before the situation escalated. At the time, H.R. 200 aimed to force the unconditional release of all political prisoners, support humanitarian assistance, and strengthen U.S-Ethiopia relations. The Secretary of State would have the authority to provide financial support to local and national human rights groups, establish a program to strengthen independent media and establish a program to provide for a judicial monitoring process.

For information on Representative Payne, follow this link.

For more information on researching and tracking pending US/Ethiopian legislation, make sure to check back with State Surge – How do you keep up?

Author: Sarah Riordan

Features include: 

• Panoramic view of the bay from courtyard
• High protective fences surrounding property
• Hurricane proof structure
• Courtyard equipped with basketball hoop perfect for families with boys
• Very near protective military base
• Large kitchen facility
• Security camera system already installed
• State of the art laundry facility large enough for you and your guests
• Each bedroom comes with own bathroom
• Beach within walking distance
• Plenty of outdoor living space
• Fashionable orange jumpsuits included in the rental package

If you hadn’t already guessed, the above property is none other than the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison.  Though the military base/prison has been in the news frequently since the war on terror began, its popularity has increased drastically since Barak Obama has been president.   By officially closing down the prison, Obama has once more placed Guantanamo in intense limelight.  So, to impress all of your friends during your next deep political discussion,

Here are some little tidbits about the prison that has become a household name:

• Guantanamo Bay is located on the south eastern tip of Cuba
• It takes two hours to fly from Florida to the base
• Guantanamo Bay was established in 1903
• In 1903 Cuba agreed that closing the base would have to be a mutual decision between the countries
• The U.S. pays Cuba for the property but Castro has never cashed a check
• Despite the agreement, Castro says the U.S. being there is illegal.
• The base was used primarily for military reasons until the last four decades
• Throughout the 1990’s the base held refugees from Cuba and Haiti
• In 2002 prisons were needed to hold terrorists and Guantanamo Bay became the best choice
• Though prisoners came in, three-fourths of the base’s population was still soldiers and their families
• The base made headlines in 2004 when photos of questionable behavior toward the prisoners were found
• In 2005 three high-ranking officers were relieved of duty for a sex scandal/love triangle
• In the years since 2004 rumors of torturing prisoners have circulated
• As a result, in 2009, the U.S. opted to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay
• The U.S. has yet to find a new location for the prisoners being held there
• The U.S. naval base continues to occupy the land and probably will as long as the Castros occupy Cuba

Author: Sarah Riordan

True or false: The U.S. has a vested interest in protecting historical properties throughout the world. If you guessed true, you win a meeting with Congressman Mike Ferguson where you can discuss his new bill over a warm cup of coffee.

During your meeting with Ferguson, perhaps you could ask him to clear up the many questions that arise after reading bill, H.COM.RES.255. In the bill, Ferguson asks Congress to put pressure on the Lithuanian government. The reason for said pressure is a burial ground “believed” to contain the remains of over 50,000 people of Jewish decent. Though Ferguson does not specify where this information originated, the reader can infer from the context that someone somewhere has dated this cemetery back to the 15th century. The bill was proposed because the Lithuanian government is allowing new construction to be built on what Ferguson and a couple of experts believe to be part of an ancient Jewish burial ground.

The main problem with this bill is the incredibly vague language. The proposal simply hits on possible truths. The language consists of words like “perceive,” and “believe.” In the bill’s context, these words basically mean that no one really knows if this is in fact an ancient Jewish burial site, or if it’s just a piece of extremely old dirt. If Congress is going to put pressure on another country to do anything at all, I would certainly hope that their reasons would be based on fact, and not simply perceptions.

If at this point you’re asking yourself, “Why the heck does Congress care about a cemetery in Lithuania anyway,” then you win a cup of coffee with me. Together we can discuss our original skepticism toward the bill, and then our eventual mixed feelings about the U.S. having a say in historical properties throughout other nations. The mixture of emotion is not a result of this bill, but a result of what it means to be an American vs. what it means to protect our heritage.

As far as the bill is concerned, it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The United States expects other nations to honor our sovereignty, so the least we can do is show the same respect to the world at large. If another country were to try and tell us what to do with our land, we would send them away while attempting to hold in our laughter. Truthfully, we have no right to tell any country what they can or can’t do their property.

On the other hand, the statement by the U.S. Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad , says that the United States’ government recognizes that the ancestors of their people are mostly of European descent. In a way, as someone who has ancestors buried in Germany and Ireland, I find this touching. Emotions and government don’t often go together however, and if the U.S. wants to have a say in what Lithuania does with their property, than we better be open to hearing what Lithuania has to say about what we do with ours.The only time the U.S. should be forceful about historical sites in foreign lands is when it involves places where our citizens have lost their lives such as Normandy and Iwo Jima. In almost all circumstances however, we should respect the sovereignty of other countries.

Also See:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Lithuania: Fast Facts and Hot Legislation

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/congressman-ferguson-bones-bones/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/slideshow-lithuania-pictures http://www.statesurge.com/news/slideshow-lithuania-pictures#comments Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:17:05 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=362 Too many Americans only know the amazing Northern Baltic nation of Lithuania as being somewhere in Europe. Sit back and relax as you are taken to some of the most interesting parts of this intriguing country. ]]>

Author: Jared Fallon

Also see:

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Lithuania: Fast-Facts and Hot Legislation

(Make sure to turn up your volume)

Author: Jared Fallon

The fascinating country of Lithuania is not very well known by Americans despite the fact that it has endured many hardships in the pursuit of democracy. This resilient nation that once was the largest country on the European continent eventually became the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence. As a deeply historical, excitingly cultural, and surprisingly interesting Northern Baltic state, it is certainly worth finding more about.

Also see:

Slideshow: Lithuania in Pictures

Congressman Ferguson Makes Bones about Bones

Country Profile: The Republic of Lithuania

• Population: 3,600,000 (less than half of New York City’s)
• Size: Roughly that of West Virginia (America’s 9^th smallest state)
• Major Religions: Roman Catholic by far, #2 Orthodox
• Languages: Lithuanian, Russian, and Polish
• Per capita GDP: $16,800
• One of the fastest growing countries in the world, with a GDP growth rate of 8.8% in 2007
• Joined both NATO and the EU in 2004
• Prior to EU membership, Russia was the key economic and political driver of this northern Baltic state

Top Lithuanian Legislation

H.CON.RES.371: Strongly supporting an immediate and just restitution of, or compensation for, property illegally confiscated during the last century by Nazi and Communist regimes.

- Sponsored by Robert Wexler

- 32 Cosponsors

H.CON.RES.255: Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the United States commitment to preservation of religious and cultural sites and condemning instances where sites are desecrated.

- Sponsored by Mike Ferguson

- 59 cosponsors

S.CON.RES.87: A concurrent resolution congratulating the Republic of Latvia on the 90th anniversary of its declaration of independence.

- Sponsored by Gordon H. Smith

- 6 cosponsors (including Obama – maybe he does know something about foreign policy?)

Fast Facts:

• In the 14th century, Lithuania was the largest country in Europe
• Lithuania was the first member of the Soviet Republic to declare renewed independence
• Home to the only museum of devils in Europe
• Largest collection of Amber (the Gold of the Baltics) in the world
• Nearly every midsized-large city within the country holds an annual jazz festival
• The largest jazz fast is the countries’ second largest city and culture capitol: Kaunas
• Lithuania has more UNESCO World Heritage points than Latvia, Luxembourg, Moldova, Slovenia, Albania, Bosnia, Cyprus, and Georgia

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/lithuania-fast-facts-hot-legislation/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/refreshing-accountability-proposal http://www.statesurge.com/news/refreshing-accountability-proposal#comments Mon, 01 Dec 2008 10:13:55 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=312 Senator Clintons S.3139 is a comprehensive plan currently being debated that aims reform the private contracting affairs of the Federal government. Despite the fact that many find Clinton one of the least likely candidates to pursue...]]>

Author: Jared Fallon

Hilary Clinton, the heavily rumored Secretary of State-to-be, is often criticized for pursuing government contracts based on apparent self interests often shared with former President Clinton. The criticism often aimed at the Clinton family can commonly be mirrored in the Republican Party with major oil and defense contracts in Iraq for companies such as Cheney’s Halliburton. Despite the fact that in my opinion Hilary Clinton is one of the most self-serving and troubling legislators around, she seems to be making strides to reduce the overall amount of the lack of accountability the Federal contracting process typically brings around.

Senator Clinton’s S.3139 is a comprehensive plan currently being debated that aims reform the private contracting affairs of the Federal government. Despite the fact that many find Clinton one of the least likely candidates to pursue more government transparency in such a process, the former First Lady truly is a smart women and hit on many key points that lack accountability within the system. S.3139 is broken into three distinct sections: Accountability for Contractors, Competition and Transparency, and Building a Better Federal Government Workforce.

Accountability for Contractors

Clinton aims to lay provisions to prohibit allocating government contracts to any corporations “purposefully organized in an offshore secrecy jurisdiction” in order to avoid Federal taxes obligations. Despite the fact that the protocol outlined under this Sec. 101 proposal relies a little too heavy on IRS “decision”-making capabilities, it does make efforts towards preventing US companies from their current status of practically being awarded for relocating into cheaper, less-taxed developing countries in order to gain proximity to markets with more potential for government contracts.

Other provisions under this division include tightening financial reporting certifications and strengthening statues in order to reduce personal interests of those directly affected by the creation of defense contracts. These provisions certainly would make the likelihood of acts similar to Cheney’s involvement with Halliburton much more difficult than was experienced recently by the contract-happy vice president. The main difficulty Clinton will face under these provisions lies within the definitions of terms like “offshore secrecy jurisdiction” and “controlled group of entities”. In order to view these plans, please click here to access the PDF file containing Hilary’s plan.

Competition and Transparency

After careful review of Hilary’s plan for accountability, I believe the ideas outlined in this section of the bill prove to be the most useful to the American public. The main plan proposed here is to create a database containing all Federal records for federal contracts and grants. The database would emphasize information gathered on Federal personnel either aiming to advance proposed contracts and to offer insight into such official’s backgrounds, thereby allowing the Accountability Office to more easily investigate the personal influence or motivation that federal personnel may have in establishing contracts, no matter what type of contract is being reviewed.

Unfortunately, Clinton does not outline protocol to make such a database easily accessible by the public, but it does help offer more of an option in the accountability and tracking of often-cumbersome Federal contracts. Additionally, a database as significant as this would help judicial research initiatives to become much more efficient when reviewing the legality of Federal contracts along with court cases previous Supreme Court decisions.

Building a Better Federal Government Workforce

The last provision of the bill has a title that is slightly misleading. This part of Hilary’s plan seeks to have the Inspector General of the DOD to list the inherent government functions and objectives the government has in maintaining private contracts. The bill then seeks to provide “incremental staffing requirements” in the attempt to prevent future private contracts from being established without fulfilling improved requirements and lining up “conflicts of interest” by government personnel.  

After reviewing Clinton’s proposal, readers find themselves wondering why certain provisions don’t already exist in the status quo. Government contracts are an extremely attractive commodity and certainly lead some to believe that the age of the “Military-Industrial Complex” as forewarned in Eisenhower’s farewell address to the nation is upon us. After the current Bush administration’s foreign policy decisions and self-fulfilling contract goals, a bill aiming to reduce the questionable activity of private contracts is greatly appreciated. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Representative Cliff Stearns, like so many Americans, has had enough. September 11 of this year, he was quick to express strong dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq, when he sponsored House Resolution 1431. “Expressing the sense of the House of Representative that the Department of Defense and the Department of State should withhold funds for any new reconstruction projects in Iraq until the Iraqi Government reimburses the United States for previous reconstruction projects, and for other purposes.”

As soon as I type, “withhold funds from Iraq” I feel military families tense up at the idea of leaving their men and women without gear. Then I hear the conservatives rant about American pride and support for our troops. Therefore, lets look at the facts:

Since 2003, the United States has approved huge budgets in Iraq. An estimated $21,000,000,000 spent in the first few years in Iraq, provided by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF). In May of 2005, another fund created by the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), estimated spending $18,000,000,000. Again the importance of these cost: they were not for our military, but for Iraqi security forces and its’ citizens.

This is the same country that generated $96,000,000,000 in revenues from 2005 to 2007 – 94% of that amount coming from crude oil exports. The Government Accountability Office reports Iraq had a budget surplus of $29,000,000,000 from 2005 to 2007. Most recently, Congress has approved over $4,000,000,000 for Iraq reconstruction in the fiscal year 2008-2009.

What are the reasons we continue to write out checks at this magnitude when Iraq can clearly fund this project without assistance? I know it might be easy to forget this little economic obstacle in front of us, but that alone should make Iraq reconstruction spending a lesser priority for our checkbook.

Cliff Stearns calls for immediate action to be made regarding the situation. The Department of Defense should withhold funds for any new “reconstruction project” in Iraq, unless Iraq reimburses the US for previous projects or Iraq matches future assistance on a dollar-by-dollar basis. The accountability office also said “evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared y the Iraqi Finance Ministry- reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.”

If these were not reasons enough to stop funding, compare Iraq’s budget to its personal spending on reconstruction efforts. From 2005-2007, Iraq devoted only 1% of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions with James Glanz and Campbell Robertson, over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.

Enough is enough. Without evidence, solid facts, and convincing reports that make a reliable claim to continue funds to Iraq, enough is enough. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, and all other governmental agencies involved should withhold funds for any new mysterious “reconstruction project” to Iraq. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Recent announcement of Darfur rebels killing at least 3 Chinese oil workers on October 29 is increasing interest as to what will be China’s next move in regards to the tragic Darfur Conflict. The recent rebel activity is putting China in somewhat of a difficult position, balancing its personal increasing energy needs with criticism of suspected Sudanese government funding/sponsorship from nations around the world. China thus far has seen the act as a form of terrorism, again subtly undermining US accusations as to why the Chinese government got involved with the crisis in the first place.

There is a group of pending pieces of US legislation that may begin to start seeing increased activity, currently being stalled by Election Day results and overall lack of public interest in the tragedies that continue to occur within the region. One such bill is H.RES.422 (formerly S.RES203), calling on the Chinese government to use its “unique influence and economic leverage to stop genocide and violence in Darfur, Sudan.” Although in the past the resolutions calling nations to value US/UN human rights violations vs. energy and economic interests have rarely if ever worked, the resolution would be seen in positive light from a US policy perspective. The last wave of legislation with ambitions to improve the Darfur situation failed miserably, as President Bush attended the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

After the close of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing many legislators were disappointed in Bush’s wide attendance of the games, virtually ignoring resolutions calling for presidential abstinence from either the opening ceremony or boycotting the games altogether in order to coax the China to cease various actions with the Sudanese government. Obviously none of the resolutions worked and legislatures became increasingly acknowledging of the fact that the US simply is too hesitant to take any strong actions against Chinese intervention abroad – even to the point of violating precedents concerning supporting fellow democracies from communist adversaries (such as the case with Taiwan).  

Author: Jared Fallon

Belarus’ official title is the “Republic of Belarus”, however the CIA Worldfactbook displays a note unique only to this small Eastern European country: “republic in name, although in fact a dictatorship.” Belarus received its independence from the Soviet Union on August 25, 1991, but since then has retained…cozy, relations with Russia. This little country of nearly 10 million is currently being squeezed into a situation that will cause it to turn towards other powers in the attempt of keeping surprisingly high growth rates. How will the US react to an increasingly frustrated country that’s slowly drifting away from Moscow?

Background

Belarus’s first 4 years of independence can be characterized by swift, broad reforms looking to shape a new country based on a defeated population. Like so many in Eastern Europe, the average person was looking to have more “Western concerns”, rather than worrying over communism, state-oriented supply targets, and bread line-type difficulties. Yet in 1994 President (dictator) Alexander Lukashenko reverted back to the old days of Belarus with the time-tested promise of economic recovery. Since then, widespread government price setting, management and regulation has taken place, and in more recent years, private company acquirement has been seen across the board. The interesting factor is that despite economic reversions back to time’s past, Belarusians have seen GDP growth rates as high as 7%, although high inflation has never-the-less been prominent. How is this possible? One answer: Putin’s Russia.

Belarus has been fortunate enough to be on the receiving end of Russian generosity, marked with heavily discounted natural resources and the re-exportation of Russian petro at significantly higher market prices. For a small country still moving towards increased government control, Belarus has had it made. However, in recent times Russia has been seen attempting an…unique approach. While still maintaining the need for NATO-countering missile defense build-up partnerships with Belarus, Russia has decided to require that 85% of Belarusian profits on re-exported oil must be shared with the Kremlin. To make matters worse, by 2011 the Belarusians will need to get used to paying natural gas prices at the world market cost, an increase of over 50%. With the two largest drivers of the ill foreign investment-receiving Belarus economy, where does Belarus have left to turn?

Recent European developments

As overall Russian momentum has decreased within the country, the European Union has been moving in. A decision in August of 2008 declared the EU-imposed travel ban on Belarusian public officials (including the president himself) has officially been lifted – a significant development for which President Lukashenko expectedly expressed strong support of. “All impediments to dialogue have been lifted. The main thing is we can now talk without an iron curtain.” Many analysts predict the recent move with be more than conductive to the opening of the Republic of Belarus out of economic desperation, matched with the newfound government official encouragement. How will the US react?

Pending proposals: the United State’s approach

The US will take any position that will allow itself to gain more former Soviet Union members on its side- even at a time when financial markets have taken a downturn. Former Russian President and current Prime Minister (czar) Vladimir Putin was given the title of the “prime minister of the Russian-Belarus alliance” as of May 2008, matched with clear developments that Putin has no intention of decreasing influence within the region. In terms of foreign policy approach, paired with decreasing European sway (NATO vs. EU), any actions taken on the part of Putin are largely viewed as an East-West conflict, reflecting attitudes as old Cold War era. To view the 6 pending Federal legislation, follow this link.

Highlights of the proposals are largely shaped by the US’ stance on the treatment of ethnic minorities of Belarus. Mark Kirk’s H.R.5152 aims to authorize assistance for such groups in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus in the attempt to promote democracy and approach aspirations all too frequently ignored by the former Stalin state, quickly turning a cold shoulder or merely claiming ignorance for the atrocities that displaced millions of people. Overall, the bill is shallow and ill-conceived, allowing only 3 pages of explanation to throw $125 million dollars to a problem with very little restrictions or specific approach. The saving grace for H.R.5152 is found on page 2, allowing $25 million specifically for national broadcasting of the proposed foreign aid benefits to the countries’ citizens. Belarusians’ state-dictated broadcasting program remains one of the largest divisions for US-Belarus relations.

Lukashenko’s state-ran Belarusian broadcasting HQ, pictured left

The last proposal truly worth viewing is H.R.571 – a broad, sweeping plan to increase tariffs on products of any US-recognized non-market economy – ranging from Laos to North Korea to Belarus – a proposal that will most likely see more individual measures taken with the recent democrat’s sweep. As with Iran, Obama largely believes that the only two options that should be taken when dealing with seemingly difficult regimes is to greatly increase dialogue and to impose sanctions or tariffs on countries, in an old-fashioned attempt to squeeze desired action among the general public.

The situation with Belarus is quickly developing and should prove to have more desperate measures taken on behalf of the Belarusian government in the attempt of retaining any measure of economic growth. Europe will most likely see the widespread opening of markets with the “Republic”, and sooner or later Belarus will have to find a much more effective way to attractive foreign (not Russian) investment within the country. For Europe’s last dictatorship, decisions will have to be made between Prime Minister Putin’s sway and Western ideologies. As Russia continues to flex its muscles around the world, Belarus will prove to be a very significant example to the world as to the expected strength of Moscow vs. the US. The messages that will be sent to the world will most likely prove to be as impactful as the United State’s efforts in turning former Axis allies (Germany and Japan) into democracy experiments – strengthening America’s sway around the world. Belarus is quickly approaching a marked time of needed reform, it will prove to be most interesting to track what will happen to Europe’s last dictatorship.

Belarus’ geographic centralization allows the country of 10 million to retain particular strategic advantages – many times to Russia’s benefit

Author: Crystal Fontaine

I remember that day, the fateful day of September 11, 2001. It has become a day that no single American will ever forget. I was sitting, ironically, in a history class at the time, watching as history was being made right in front of my eyes on that television. There were feelings of outrage, disbelief, and even fear all across the nation. Suddenly, the security once felt had vanished within just a few hours.

History books will soon enough see the affects of such drastic acts.

Seven years have sped by since the attacks on the World Trade Center. Lives have changed. Times have changed. The United States is currently fighting two wars that seem to have no clear end in the near future. Security has tightened at the airports. Sometimes, it is almost worth driving now days to avoid the hassle of going through security. Although gas prices are lower than what the average American has become accustomed to, they still remain higher than what they were just a few years ago. Furthermore, the United States is currently navigating its way through a mortgage crisis paired with the financial crisis – both of which have made significant effects around the globe. Many people are altering the way they live (including myself) just to survive the high prices and live comfortably at the same time. The world certainly has become a different place.

Recently, General David Petraeus was promoted to the new Chief of the United State’s military’s Central Command, with the responsibility of overseeing the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. With this new title, General Petraeus made the important step of visiting Pakistan on Monday, November 3 – a nation extremely vital to coordinated efforts against terrorism. Shortly after his arrival, jihad militants carried out a rocket attack(s) on the airport in the city of Peshawar, which demonstrates a deterioration of security that needs to be addressed. General Petraeus met with several important officials during his visit, including Defense Minister Ahmad Mukhlar and army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. Pakistani officials warned him on Monday that the numerous missile strikes the American military have made on militant targets in Pakistan is creating anti-American sentiment. As of August 2008, Washington is suspected in at least seventeen missile strikes to counter insurgents.

The situation in the Middle East is an ugly one. Will there ever be peace? The United States has become entangled in a web that it cannot seem to release itself from. Where do we go from now? This web is now being handed down to a new Presidential administration. One that many believe will bring about the change we are seeking and desperately need. The United States has made it a mission to spread freedom and democracy throughout the world. However, we have also had our own faults.  Nevertheless, with this historical moment in time and as many across the world celebrate its significance, perhaps we can now truly exemplify the freedoms we have been trying to spread. Jimmy Carter said it best: “The best way to enhance freedom in other lands is to demonstrate here that our democratic system is worthy of emulation”.

Author: Jared Fallon

Perhaps the most troubling series of advancements that have taken place between Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba are found within this last overview of policy developments. The area of military agreements and coordinated defense and suspected terrorist activity are off the charts when compared to the sheer lack of awareness that is found among the American public. Most of the quotes found throughout this last part of coverage are presented in a way to largely allow readers to draw their own conclusions and in the lieu of government transparency, and to being to understand the magnitude of developments that will begin to start shaping significant parts of US foreign policy over the next decade or so. If you have not been able to read the first parts of this series, the first on nuclear proliferation while the second on trade, please follow the previous links to help get a more complete picture.

The most drastic developments within the veiled trio began to take place in 2007, after years of policy-forming precedents had been sent by a more bilateral-oriented approach. In October of 2007, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff was quoted responding to questions about Iranian-Venezuelan relations that “I think [there is] an emerging threat and challenge to the West, which is the export of ideology that we see among Islamist extremists in the Middle East from Iran, and the marriage of that with others who, perhaps for their own reasons, have strong anti-American views or who simply exploit anti-Americanism as a way of promoting their own ideological or power agendas…”  Chertoff’s comments were made around the time he began expressing sharp criticism directed at Iran for increasing western hemisphere activity. The gravity of the exportation of Iranian terrorists to Venezuela is impactful when realizing that Iran and Venezuela truly are military partners with firm establishments in place.

To date, “Venezuela has concluded nearly 200 bilateral agreements with Iran on military cooperation, the sharing of intelligence, expanding financial cooperation, and initiating cultural exchanges, among others.” Furthermore, “ In February 2008, a United States Federal law-enforcement official shared, We’ve known for some time that Islamic extremists groups were gaining momentum and exploiting the region … Iran is no exception now with Cuba and Venezuela, the door is open.” Both Iran and Venezuela work incredibly hard to ensure that the door that Cuba provides, only 100 miles from Key West, making it the most dangerously close enemy the United States has. Cuba understands the leverage it holds, and the geographic importance it plays within the veiled trio.

The quotes found in this post largely can be found cited from research presented in Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”. The bill outlines the urgency that the average US citizen has not realized yet, and calls for increased deterrents and communication to have the US become more involved within the trio’s affairs. One of the most troubling quotes sited as justification for her bill date back “In April 2008, (when) for the fourth year in a row, the Department of State’s Annual Country Report on Terrorism stated that the Government of Cuba provided safe haven to members of (several Latin American terrorist groups) and maintained close relationships with other state sponsors of terrorism such as Iran.”

This 3 part series of brief coverage on Iranian/Venezuelan/Cuban coordination is the only beginning of the breadth and depth of developments that have taken place in recent years that should be of utmost importance to US foreign policy. To begin to jump into this troubling part of US concern, follow these links to review H.R.7068, Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s plan that while not necessarily outlining the optimal solution, does point to some of the concerning developments that should be garnering much more attention in the United States in terms of foreign policy focus priorities.

Author: Jared Fallon

Despite the fact that the term “trade” sounds extremely vague when compared to “nuclear proliferation” the impacts of trade to the extent that Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been conducting show significant developments on the part of the veiled trio. The amount of trade agreements and overall activity between the three nations has stepped up considerably over the past few years, with strange coincidences (?) of coordinated activity with Russia (such as Russia deploying ships to Hugo’s coast with nuclear technologies possibly for change right before the US signed a NPT-violating treaty with India).

The newest trade alliances and bilateral trade agreements include the increasing relations and activity with the Iran-Cuba joint Economic, Scientific, and Technical Cooperation Commission. The last major economic agreement was signed between the 2 countries in 2006 and helped pave the way for the surge in recent trade activity. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency in 2007 Iran and Cuba set up a joint shipping company known as the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL). IRISL had the original goal of allowing Venezuela to access Iranian commodities such as construction and agriculture machinery and Cuba to purchase Iranian transport wagons. The IRISL was matched with a reportedly $200 million loan from Iran to Cuba. Again, we see unity between the trio.  In August of 2007 Iranian Deputy Commerce Minister Mehdi Ghazanfari reportedly signed two protocols of trade with Cuba and Venezuela, decreasing overall tariffs aiming, among other things, to increase the already $60 million in Iranian exports to Venezuela. The statistics on Cuba are a little bit harder to locate.

2007 would continue to be a busy year for major developments that should have made US headlines much easier than they did. Months later Chavez established standard civilian airline flights with Venezuela and “designated sponsors”, which include Syria and not surprisingly, Iran. In Illena Ros-Lehtinen’s bill to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity”, Iran is referenced a surprisingly 24 times within the 45 page bill that only references 2 middle eastern countries (the only other country was Syria, mentioned only once). The move was largely seen by US Defense officials as a more convenient, much more blatant way for Iran to utilize the potential use its close relationship with Venezuela to “…facilitate the smuggling of people, drugs, and weapons into the Western Hemisphere through terrorist proxy groups.”

The more you look into the affairs the easier it is to find American-based justification for bills such as Ros-Lehtinen’s when considering how much control the US has positioned itself to have in many parts of the world after World War II. These include many agreements shielded largely under military agreements such as NATO and the economic agreements the US found itself in eastern Asia with countries that eventually became some of the countries’ largest trade partners, including South Korea and Japan. In a more current foreign policy spotlight, as President Bush continues to preach democracy and capitalism as vehicles for freedom and unrestricted markets around the world (even to the point of imposing force), the US has not been successful in decreasing the narcotics and illicit drug trade that is often paired with terrorist lingo on the news.

“A 2007 Drug Enforcement Administration report linked nearly half of foreign terrorist organizations around the world today to narcotics trade, underscoring the fact that the fight against terrorism must also include a corresponding fight against illicit drugs.” Similar reports point towards coordination in the arms trade between the 3 nations, sighting that in May 2008, the Department of State, for the third year in a row, that Venezuela has violated the Arms Export Control Act and thereby criticized for not cooperating with the United State’s antiterrorism efforts.

When reviewing the other most significant developments that have taken place as of 2008 it is clear that the true concern with the agreements between the three nations lie in the topic of coordinated terrorism advancements. Most have had seemingly unusual coincidences(?) with trade, such as the 07 establishment of civilian airline flights, but will be covered in detail in part 3 of the Veiled Trio series. Regardless of your own opinions, there is one thing cannot be ignored: the sheer amount of developments and agreements that have been taking place between the three nations over the past three years. 

Author: Jared Fallon

Three of the most troubling not-so allies the United States continually does not significantly manage to increase positive relations with are banning together – and are gaining momentum (coincidentally?) as Russia is reemerging as a major player within the various regions. Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba have been stepping up negotiations both bilaterally and multilaterally a great deal over the past few years, and according to US government officials they are not anticipated to slow down any time soon. There are 3 primary issues of concern between the trio that are of utmost concern: nuclear proliferation, trade, and military agreements/terrorist group activity.

This 3 part series will review the situation at hand following closely a pending piece of US legislation proposed by Illena Ros-Lehtinen. Her bill, H.R.7068 seeks to “enhance the security of the Western Hemisphere”, offering a comprehensive plan to “bolster regional capacity” in regards to a host of troubling developments that the American public is all too naive about. The facts found below were outlined in Ros-Lehtinen’s bill, which can be found in pdf format here.

Nuclear proliferation

The United States recently has aggravated the world with the passage of H.R.7081, the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy.” Or, in a more realistic light, “The US agreement that allowing US companies to get $80 billion + in contracts from India’s new nuclear plant construction plans”. This has dulled the US’ arsenal of criticism directed at Russia for its new generous gifts and joint military exercises with Venezuela accompanied with nuclear-bearing Russian ships relocating to Chavez’s coasts. American citizens are so tired of hearing the word “nuclear” that’s all too often paired with terms such as “chemical and biological weapons” that we often miss the gravity of the situation at hand. Here are the facts:

The Chavez brothers and their minions have publicly supported Iran’s uranium enrichment program, often while smiling directly at United States’ diplomats and leaving the room when US diplomats begin to speak for years.  

In May 2005, Chavez expressed interest in establishing a nuclear program and made public his request to the Iranian government for assistance. Three years is a long time, and unfortunately the American public has not been privy to a lot of the developments that have occurred since. What we do know is that on February 4, 2006, Venezuela joined only 2 countries in voting against the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) resolution to report Iran for Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty violations. Eleven days later Gholam Ali Haddad-Adel, the Speaker of the Iranian parliament, stated his and the Iranian government’s readiness to provide technical assistance to a Venezuelan nuclear program.

More recently, on a visit to Iran in February 2008, a member of Venezuela’s parliament said that Iran would be willing to “practically give away” its civilian nuclear technology and that “if relations with Iran lead to sharing nuclear technology with us, we would then give it away to our brothers (Cuba) in Latin America once we are successful.” This is extremely concerning considering that the US government has suspected Hugo to have large deposits of uranium ore in the Guiana Shield Region of Venezuela. Perhaps even more startling was Chavez’s announcement on September 29, 2008 stating he would like Russia to help his country develop a nuclear program, quoting Putin as saying Russia “is ready to help Venezuela develop nuclear energy.” Of course according to both governments all nuclear developments would only be used for “peaceful purposes” as the countries’ mutual “profound friendship” would ensure for Americans.

These developments are only the beginning as nuclear advancements between the countries have escaladed quicker than many analysts feared. I would go as far as to argue that Russia has not only emerged with a strong presence within the region and the covert trio, but has found itself at a near supremacy-level when comparing the US’ developments with Iran, Venezuela, and Cuba over the past few years. The situations that are developing will only become more of a priority over the next coming years, regardless if McCain or Obama is directing our policies. The US will need to take a hard examination as to whether or not we have any sway remaining after violating the major international formal agreement for nuclear-proliferation, while criticizing countries for taking actions that mirror the United States.

Author: Jared Fallon

“Regardless of whose property the natural resources and in particular the mineral resources might be, the state has the right to regulate the process of their development and use.” -Vladimir Putin

Current Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin realized Russia’s vast political influence potential in regards to energy long before the topic became widely discussed among the general public. Hailing from Leningrad State University Law with a strong emphasis in international affairs, Putin quickly discovered the role increasing energy demand matched with decreasing supplies will have on the future of the world’s major affairs and global markets. Some of the precedents for action Putin set forth in regards to Russia’s political affairs and Gazprom that are already beginning to show fruition. Russia now seeks to create an OPEC-like natural gas organization, an effort that would secure the world’s #1 natural gas supplier as the #1 natural gas  player immediately and deep into the foreseeable future.

Official announcements came shortly after current President (and former Chairman of Gazprom’s board of directors) Dmitry Medvedev hosted OPEC’s Secretary-General last week, securing plans for the Kremlin to coordinate oil efforts with the oil monopoly. The group would most likely include the owners of roughly 55% percent of the world’s known natural gas reserves – Russia, Iran, and Qatar – and may include coordination with countries such as Algeria, Indonesia, Libya, and Venezuela. Plans are expected to be finalized as early as November 18. These efforts are not new. According to Russian news sources the idea had been introduced long ago by no other than Mr. Putin himself.

Putin, pictured sporting his Judo gi in Japan, has been getting ready to kick ass outside the ring. This time his focus is in the area of natural gas and international monopolies. 

Back in 2007 Vladimir was quoted saying “A gas OPEC is an interesting idea. We will think about it” – shortly after denying western accusations of Russia’s use of energy as a lever to attain international political sway. The idea of the world’s second greatest oil reserve owner coordinating with OPEC is frightening enough, but to have a new international coalition outlet for the Kremlin’s natural gas might is even more chilling. This is especially true when considering Putin’s international law-justifying stance on such issues: “Russia’s modern foreign policy is based on the principles of pragmatism, predictability and the supremacy of international law.”

The situation becomes more significant when realizing Putin’s deeper, less rosy stance on such topics. “…the basic strategic tasks for the natural resource bloc involve achieving the transition to a rational combination of administrative and economic methods of government regulation in the sphere of resource exploitation”. The US will undoubtedly be frustrated in its world affairs if Russia begins to step up its natural gas exploitation beyond simply making threats of cutting off pipelines to Eastern Europe. If (and when?) a “gas OPEC” is created confrontation (diplomatic or otherwise) will eventually have to take place.

Presently, the US already has several pending proposals to hold various OPEC counties to laws such as the Sherman Act (S.2976), criticizing lack of competition as a basis. Other proposals go one step further (H.R.6074), seeking to amend the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to “make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal,”. This stance will simply not be enough if America does in fact choose to extend the same line of thinking to Russian natural gas partnership activity, a Kremlin-admitted cornerstone to the rebuilding of the former Soviet’s crumbled economy. When money calls and natural gas is the realistic translation of both that and heavy international influence, the US will need more than a federal law to change Putin’s (and Medvedev’s ) mind. 

Current President Dmitry Medvedev (pictured left) with former President Vladimir Putin back in 2000. Putin served two terms, endorsed Gazprom Exec Medvedev, and then re-emerged on the political scene as Russia’s Prime Minister.

“In terms of a general conclusion it follows that existing socio-economic conditions, and also the strategy for Russia’s exit from the deep crisis and restoration of her former power on a qualitatively new basis demonstrate that conditions in the natural resource complex remain the most important factor in the state’s near-term development.”– Vladimir Putin 

Author: Crystal Fontaine

With the prices of gasoline at the pumps, one would almost assume that many people would be excited. One would think that the way people drive would revert back to the familiar ways of yesteryear. Finally, I can afford to fill up my tank again! Well, we are all probably relieved by the prices at the pump; however, people are still playing cautious. Many of us have changed the way we drive and the way we live our lives in order to save a few bucks here and there. I know I have and I probably won’t be changing my cautious ways anytime soon. With the very close upcoming presidential election, the weight of the current financial crisis is currently on every voters mind.

Throughout the campaigning, especially within the recent months, it has become a major concern and focal point. Both John McCain and Barack Obama backed President Bush’s $700 billion rescue package for the financial industry. Both believe in more tax relief for the middle and working classes; however, McCain and Obama differ in the taxation of high income earners. Obama would like to revoke the tax cuts that Bush made for those higher incomes, while McCain believes that is not necessary. Either way, the financial problems are definitely not going away any time soon.

America is not alone. The financial crisis has clearly become a global concern, with its impacts leaving no corner of the world untouched. Over the previous weekend of October 25, there was the annual Asia-Europe meeting, or ASEM. The ASEM is an informal process of dialogue and cooperation that brings together the member nations of the European Union and the EU Commission as well as sixteen Asian nations and the ASEAN Secretariat. The ASEM allows for these nations to debate informally over a variety of issues. At the ASEM, Premier Wen Jiabo of China called for new rules to guide the international financial system, following a call by Asian and European leaders for the International Monetary Fund to intervene and deal with the ongoing global financial situation.

According to Premier Wen Jiabo, “[w]e need to draw lessons from the crisis…We need financial innovation to serve the economy better. However, we need even more financial regulation to ensure financial safety”. No one denies that something should be done to help fix the world’s struggling economy. Current French President Sarkozy said that the ASEM summit was “helpful” for the promotion of efforts to tackle the problem. China appears ready on all counts to step up to the plate and take a lead role in fixing the credit crisis. If China does indeed decide to intervene it will be interesting to see if they honor their word or not, granted if other nations allow the proposal at hand. China has been a huge exporter of cheap consumer goods to the United States and other nations, beating nearly all other manufacturers around the world. With the economies of these nations on the fritz, China needs to begin turning its spending ambitions internally. An editorial in the New York Times claims that, “ To get China’s consumers to spend, the government will need to spend more at home, investing in public work projects and providing more social benefits—including health insurance and pensions…This is clearly Beijing’s interest, though China’s leaders are still clinging to the old export strategy”.

Author: Jared Fallon

The reasons for the US entry into war in Iraq are often debated, generally leaving people with the conclusion that we shouldn’t have entered in the first place. Whether or not critics believe the US entered the war mostly for oil interests there is one current US policy to help reinforce the notion: the 1980 Carter Doctrine. One pending proposal in the House seeks to prevent future Iraqi oil developments without amending this doctrine in the pursuit to “prohibit certain activities relating to the petroleum resources of Iraq…”. While this bill may be too little too late it will be interesting to track its outcome and the possible precedence for US foreign policy it implicates.

Carter Doctrine Background

The Carter Doctrine was born off of the heels of the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan amidst concerns over possible lack of access to Middle East oil. At the time, most of the US’ current and near future expected source oil flowed through the Persian Gulf’s Strait of Hormuz, located right in between Iran and the Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Furthermore, the strait is the only sea source for oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates to be transported through. According to the US government, the percentage of oil reserves held in the Persian Gulf had risen from 54 to 65 percent since 1961. The Soviet’s efforts brought them nervously close enough to this oil rich passage that Jimmy Carter believed the Soviets aimed to pose a “grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.”

At this juncture, as the Cold War tensions continued to escalade, Jimmy Carter decided to find a means of justification for military intervention in order to ensure that the US could continue to rely on a stable flow of oil from various sources around the world and thus, the Carter Doctrine was born. Among the Doctrine’s most alarming inclusions was that “any attempt by outside (Soviet) force to gain control of the Persian Gulf will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America and…will be repelled by any means necessary including the use of force.” From this quote on a long series of recurring “coincidences” for future US wars were set in stone. The US now began to have a legal justification for military intervention across the globe, as long as the actions taken on the part of an “outside force” were determined to be justifying US national security.

Some critics believe that the Carter Doctrine is obsolete due to increasing Chinese energy demands and the Asian monolith’s emerging influence in the Gulf. To the contrary, after reviewing US military deployments and investments over the past 28 years it is clear that the Doctrine is still needed. The US’ strong military and economic presence in the Gulf is helping occupy a country that the US Government’s Energy Information Administration places very high on the priority list in a 2007 report. “Iraq has the world’s third largest proven petroleum reserves and some of the lowest extraction costs, although just a fraction of its known fields are in development.” The Carter Doctrine, if explored for its potential, is clearly still in play in terms of US Military efforts.

A Senator’s proposal for a new precedence

To no surprise, Senator Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) is proposing H.R.6710, a bill “To prohibit certain activities relating to the petroleum resources of Iraq,” Dennis’ bill came not long after his proposal to impeach President Bush of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, a move that allowed him to deem himself the bravest Senator in America. The 8 page proposal outlines the plan to create the “Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008” allowing penalties to be set for a US citizen or entity to manage any level of responsibility for petroleum development in Iraq, including contracts or various business transactions.

In the bill’s text Senator Kucinich outlines several justifications for the proposal. They include the claim that the “Bush Administration has aggressively pressured the Iraqi government to privatize its oil resources” and that various United States oil companies have secured oil contracts with the Kurdistan Regional Government, claiming that the said companies have pursued influencing former administration officials to use their sway for such contracts. Kucinich then proceeds with his criticism of the Bush Administration by stating Bush’s benchmark inclusion of a national sharing revenue plan under the disguise of a “hydrocarbon act”. And it gets worse.

One of the US oil companies cited for creating newly established oil contracts include Dallas’ Hunt Oil Company, of which Kucinich alleges the CEO of being a $35 million contributor to President Bush’s previous campaigns. Furthermore, the then CEO of Halliburton Richard Cheney extended an invitation to the same generous Hunt Oil CEO to be on the Halliburton Board of Directors. The bill’s text continues to offer a wealth of information, including the former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle’s resignation from his various chairmanship activities when more and more sources began to question his US oil company ties to the war of which he is cited as “being an early advocate of invading Iraq and as an Iraq War Architect.”

Due to the above reasons and the abundance of conclusions from “coincidences” of Iraqi contract-receiving US oil companies, it is no wonder that Kucinich is proposing such a plan, although it is a sure bet that Big Oil will try to shoot down the bill as fast as possible. Still, one is left to wonder why the Ohio Senator is not pursuing the foundational policy justification used to engage in such wars aka the Carter Doctrine. Regardless of whether or not Dennis’ proposal is simply reinforcement for the dialogue towards impeaching President Bush, at least one senator is brave enough to, at the very least, publicly announce the wide breadth of “coincidences” that have occurred between US oil company contracts with the Iraq Government. This bill is definitely worth tracking, and worth reading through to understand the gravity of the situation Kucinich is directing his efforts towards.

Author: Jared Fallon

It seems that increasing oil revenues is the only reliable component of the US corporate world we can depend on. 2008 has brought some of the most challenging oil prices America has ever endured and yet oil companies continually make increasingly greater profits. This will probably come as no surprise, but needs to be stated: the second quarter of this year has again proved itself to be the most profitable in history for Big Oil. The leader of the Western six pack – Exxon Mobil – raked in an excess of $1.7 billion, surpassing its own records to yet again have the title as the highest-ever quarterly profits earner for an American firm. Bravo Exxon Mobile – none of us saw it coming.

For the most part, there are not many pending bills on the legislation front that attempt to provide additional regulation for oil companies and/or oil price increases. The central bill of interest does not seem too likely to pass although it would be fun to watch. The bill’s only advocate so far is the sponsor – Janice D. Schakowsy (D-IL) – a risky position for a lone politician to take against such an influence-packed group of monoliths. Her bill – H.R.6653 – aims “To provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices,” H.R.6653 proposes a 4 part strategy that denies oil companies tax deductions, conforms tax treatment for foreign tax credits, imposes a windfall profits tax on major oil companies, and establishes an Energy Independence and Security Trust Fund. In addition Schakowsy wants to amend the Sherman Act to prevent foreign states to act with each other to limit the production of oil, set energy prices, or take any actions in restraining free trade of energy sources. This bill will be interesting to watch (and Schakowsky’s future endorsements for that matter) – follow this link to find the most up-to-date information on this and other pieces of pending legislation available on the web.

Author: Jared Fallon

Once again the Bush Administration’s bull-headed, hegemonic principles are driving our country further and further to a foundational precedence for hard knocks. H.R.7081, proposed by sponsor Howard L. Berman, (D-CA), will prove to be one of the United State’s largest historical blunders when it comes to its nuclear policies and agreements. The bills’ title states the notion to “approve the United States-India Agreement for Cooperation on Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy” – an extremely rosily painted picture for a bill that slaps both signers and non-sponsors of the Non-Proliferation Treaty directly in the face. To date only four nations have not signed the treaty, including India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea. The implications of the approval of the bill should make one nervous.

In terms of internal implications, the timing of the bill is extremely unique for a period where Americans are most concerned by the looming financial crisis, failing stocks, and largest bailout packages ever issued by the US Government. The bill was initially proposed on September 25, 2008 and signed by President Bush less than 2 weeks later, on October 8, 2008 – amidst worsening conditions that rival only the Great Depression. Second, the bill received only 8 cosponsors – a relatively low number of supporters for such a major trade policy. Even more shocking is the total number of recorded minutes of debate, totaling a whopping 40 minutes. Lastly, the timing of the bill seems nothing but rushed. With the United State’s Election Day less than one month away and India’s coming in a few short months it appears that the current administrations were determined to get such a bill passed – (coincidentally, of course) at a time where Americans would pay little attention to the bill even if it were not undergoing a financial meltdown.

The international implications for such a bill are a bit more troubling. The United States has held a thirty year ban on all nuclear trade with India – an internationally justifiable run considering that it makes it very clear that the US will not reward non-participants of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. But yet as India has recently announced plans to build a minimum of 30 nuclear-powered energy plants President Bush makes no hesitation in allowing the world’s largest democracy to move onward – a move enough bold to allow US companies to take advantage of emerging contracts similar to accusations of Head Oil Company and Halliburton’s oil contract sprees with the Iraqi Government. The bill explicitly outlines allowances for India to purchase US nuclear technology – a benefit that the Confederation of Indian Industry estimates could produce roughly $27 billion in US investment for only 18-20 new plants; while independent estimations hover right around $80 billion. Why would we expect other Non-Proliferation signers (such as Russia) to not act in the same direction with other nations with nuclear energy interests (Pakistan)?

For just as much interest that United States citizens are not taking one can find an equal proportion of criticism on the international stage. The new trade policy has set fire to a series of controversy within India, most notably in regards to national sovereignty. There is no doubt that China has silently observed the recent actions of the US to take part in nuclear investments so close to its border, while Putin is plotting the possible courses of action this new nuclear trade agreement could mean for his own efforts. This opportunity will most certainly give Russia an easy conversation topic at the next UN Security Council meeting, most likely leaving the US with more wise words from President Bush trying to avoid the parallels that can be drawn from this bill to Texas oil company contract engagements with the Iraqi Government (see the “Oil for Iraq Liberation Act of 2008”). Another page has been written in the international book of nuclear developments. Ensure that you can stay on top of the newest US legislation proposals and help keep government transparency about the latest US nuclear agreement actions.

Author: Jared Fallon

Concerns originally unique only during the Cold War are being renewed among rising Russian activity with its prime South American ally. Russia has again stepped up its presence as a significant player in the region by announcing a new $1 billion military loan package, improved oil trade agreements, and a November commitment for joint military exercises, paired with an expected 1,000 troops and 4 warships with Venezuela. These statements were released only days after Moscow declared its plans to upgrade its nuclear tactics, military efficiency, new concepts for artillery and a new space defense system by 2020. Russia continues to make its presence as a major player known and clearly is telling the world it is ready to once again balance the United State’s global presence.

The degree of reaction from the US is still being determined. With current financial crisis distractions looming this is not the only affair the US has showed a slow response time with. There thus far has not been very much activity on Chavez’s developing relationships with Cuba, Iran and China – the latter reporting a plan to assist Venezuela put a communications satellite in action by the end of the year. Thus far the only major concern publicized outside of Condoleezza Rice’s predictable press releases is Thaddeus G. McCotter’s (R-MI) H.R.1510 “Considering the Russian military deployments in the Western Hemisphere as reckless, provocative, and in violation of the Monroe Doctrine.” McCotter’s hegemonic proposal should be of no surprise when considering his faithful support for US intentions in the War in Iraq.

The interesting point of his plan is whether or not such an antiqued foreign security policy will provide strong enough grounds for the US to take action. The 1823 Monroe Doctrine was initially proposed in order to prevent European countries from taking newly established independent countries as new colonies, thereby aiding in stability within the American region. More recently it has been applied to Russian affairs in Latin America during the Cold War (sound familiar?), the Iran-Contra affair, and various other challenges with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.

Will Russia’s recent announcements spark US interest of creating a new doctrine – one that seeks to address multilateral agreements within Latin and South American countries (its failing backyard region) and Europe? Will Russia continue to pursue military efforts on the border of America at any cost? If a new policy were to be proposed the US would have a very hard time defending its stance on its lack of appreciation for Russian/Venezuelan involvement. Yet, the US needs to adapt its Latin and South American strategies and get more of a grip on reality. Somehow it is extremely unlikely that a doctrine from 185 years ago is going to make any significant strides for America’s policy towards Russia and our southern neighbors. 

Author: Jared Fallon

For a presidential candidate running on the one-word campaign of “change”, Senator Obama has made some very disappointing choices, among which was choosing the 6^th longest running Senator in US history as his running mate. His disappointments most certainly extend to his clearly inexperienced and depth-lacking approach to foreign policy, as if the Democratic Party is immune to international conflict due to the past Republican President’s publicly unpopular war efforts. The serious of flip-flopping stances on Iran that Obama has taken certainly warrant a closer look into his stance on Iran and the questions that are raised in comparing his shifting opinions.

Seeing how Barack has only served in the Senate since 2004 the 5^th black US Senator has not had to truly take interest in US-Iran affairs until recently. His first stance paints a very different picture contrary to the “all diplomacy and no fight” approach he pairs with his charismatic smiles with on a daily basis. In an interview on October 1, 2004, as the highly anticipated 13^th District Illinois Senatorial race was coming to a close, the Chicago Tribune came across startling findings. The soon to be Senator was quoted declaring he would support the use of “surgical” missile strikes against Iran if it didn’t follow Washington’s demands for the abandonment of its nuclear program. “The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?”

The interview’s overall discoveries point to a less aggressive tone that Obama sticks so closely today, beginning with his personal investment pressure bill he introduced in May 17, 2007. S.1430, the bill he references in most interviews and debates covering Iran, aims to direct the Secretary of the Treasury to publish a roster of people that have made an investment totaling over $20 million in the energy sector within the country. The bill is 1of 71 that Obama has sponsored throughout the duration of his Senatorial career. The second most popular stance for Obama to take on Iran is that of economic sanctions – an option that hoards of UN failures and soured Cuban/Russian/US relations can be traced back to. But the real flip-flop that Senator Obama made was over a series of comments at a speech in Pendleton, Oregon on March 19, 2008.

“They (Iran) don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. (Naive are those people who believed that nuclear weapons have the potential to level the playing field in conflicts) If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn’t stand a chance.” After comparing this to Obama’s previous support of missile use towards Iran, one should question whether or not the missile tactic approach was just for fun or if for some reason Iran poses a far less serious threat than it did four years later, despite the President’s determination to have Israel “wiped off the map” and its proud leveraging influence it has used on the international stage with its nuclear capabilities.

Lastly, if one were to follow Obama’s most recent rhetoric on Bush/Cheney’s lack of “principled democracy” and diplomatic negotiations, why would economic sanctions truly help? This sort of hard-line policy does a great job in providing a president’s people with renewed fire against an external force, leaving the population only with more reasons for wanting less talk (that Obama is overwhelmingly in favor of) and more action on the part for change that translates into economic policies that the people decide, not the external force that exerted the rough economic times in the first place. Whether or not one believes Iran’s nuclear program is far less threatening than the former Soviet’s, one cannot support the notion of enraging the people of a nation with a nuclear arsenal, expecting engagement to purely provide a solution. Iran has teeth, and whether or not Obama believes it would be good to fight back with tongue or not, he needs to choose a more definitive policy on Iran, especially considering its increasing nuclear might.

Russia. No other country in recent past has had so many confirmed near-nuclear experiences, discolored alliances, and bitterly cold disputes with the United States. Many signs are clear that Russia wants its reemerging global presence to be known to all – while the United States is increasingly receiving pressure to slow down its rapid military spending habits and hegemonic pursuits. Many critics believe that since 2007 Russia announced its newest military doctrine the page has finally turned for the two rivals. Russia’s stance on NATO’s eastward expansion and the US’ presence in the region has never changed, viewing the moves as “reckless”, “dangerous”, and “not unnoticed.” Russia’s 07 doctrine outlines what its commanders should be preparing for if the nation were to get into war. This of course, coupled with Russia’s recent and worrisome Venezuelan agreements should have Americans questioning McCain’s and Obama’s plans for US-Russian relations.

In a consistent manner with most of the world Obama, in general, is seen with much higher favorability than his Republican opponent. The general perception that we hear is based on McCain’s warnings of “dangers posed by a revanchist Russia” and a sense of urgency to increase political pressures on the quickly strengthening Moscow. It is clear enough that the Arizona Senator’s plans for Russia will not be viewed favorably by both Putin and Medvedev. In addition, more recent comments from Palin in reference to Russia make it clear that no matter how foreign policy will be decided Russia will not appreciate the Republican Party. But what about Barack Obama? Despite the general American perception that Obama would be much more…tender, on Russia the reality is that no matter who wins November’s election affairs between the US and Russia can, and will become much, much more intense. How much more intense should be at the forefront of the respective countries’ citizens, and the rest of the world for that matter.

Senator Obama so far has played his overall stance on Russia down, allowing criticism to be directed at the Republican Party. But yet the facts point to a much more hard-line policy that leaves Moscow unsettled. Instead of Obama criticizing Bush’s lack of hard-line actions towards Russia Obama stated that the President “…proceeded to neglect our relationship with Russia at a time when Putin was strangling any opposition in the country when he was consolidating power.” As the conflict between Georgia and Russian heightened Obama cited Russia has having no possible justification for the attacks, explaining further that Russia should not move towards a “regression to conflicts of the past”, ignoring the recent developments that NATO has taken closer and closer to Russia’s borders. Each of these developments received sharp criticism by most Russians in political circles. Shortly afterwards, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, compared Putin to Hitler – a risky move against a Prime Minister that continues to hold great sway over the country and its affairs. Furthermore, Stanford University Professor and Obama’s senior advisor on Russia, Michael McFaul, is viewed by Russian political officials as being “consistently harsh on political developments in Russia.”

McFaul is not only considered “Obama’s top Russia strategist” by Russian political officials, but is known for his sharp criticism of the Kremlin – especially in the area of foreign affairs. McFaul is deeply respected in the US for his council on Russian affairs and democratic policies around the globe but ironically shares many of the same views as McCain. Whether or not you believe Obama would take drastic measures on Russia, his political party affiliation must be taken into account as well. Despite the fact that Republicans are proving themselves to be extremely talented at long, drawn out wars, Democrats are not all as hug-friendly as Clinton was. The three biggest conflicts that shaped the 20^th century as we know it were all initially overseen by democrats. Woodrow Wilson and World War I, Franklin Roosevelt and World War II, and Harry Truman and the Cold War. Another interesting dimension is to remember Obama’s 6^th longest serving Senator in US history, Joe Biden. Biden’s subtle but strong criticism of Russia’s recent conflict with Georgia should not go unnoticed simply because he isn’t as obnoxious about the Alaskan Governor with no US-Russian relations experience.

If Obama does indeed take the presidency escalating urgency for improved affairs with Russia will not be as rosy as most Americans like to believe. Setting aside whether or not Obama follows in the footsteps of Democrats past, as Russia continues to show its reemerging presence time will only tell the degree to which the US will need to respond. The interesting factor is that it Russia will most likely not be able to tell the difference between McCain and Obama, which partially explains Russia’s latest bold military moves so close to Election Day. The lack of US foreign policy flexibility will prove to be a drastic problem for America as Russia gets back on its feet and starts running. Russia is simply becoming too great of a power with too many strings attached around the globe for the US to continue along its same lines of action. Sooner or later, as the US non-so-allies continue to strengthen relations with Russia, there will be a tipping point for change. We simply cannot remain on the same tedious tight rope we are balancing on right now. Either way, when examining Obama and McCain’s stances on Russia it becomes abundantly clear that Americans simply do not have much of a choice for this election unless something changes significantly within the next month. For further examination of these views, look up Obama’s most recent actions towards Russia or Google his support of NATO expansion and development.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Recently, the issue over Iran’s goal of pursuing uranium enrichment technology within the nation’s borders has stirred a commotion. The Head of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission stated that Iran has no foundation to engage in such uranium enrichment programs because there is a surplus abroad that is available to them. However, Iran insists on nuclear self-sufficiency. They do not want to be reliant on foreign supplies due to United States trade restrictions. In his last speech to the UN, President Bush accused Syria and Iran of supporting terrorism. He also advised the UN General Assembly to implement sanctions on Iran and North Korea over their Nuclear Programs. There is a fear within the governments of the United States and Europe that Iran may put their nuclear capabilities to sinister use, such as creating weapons. Iran insists that the only reason it wants to refine uranium is for electricity.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency they cannot determine if Iran is holding back on some of their nuclear activities. Iran has been delaying the investigative probe from the IAEA in the name of protecting itself. According to the Iranian government, the query could expose non-nuke military secrets (excuses, excuses). Some believe that the United States is using the UN agency for its own purpose of a confrontation with Tehran. The agency has been hijacked by Washington to carry out an anti-Iran campaign, according to Ali Ashgar Soltanieh. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately for some) the uranium enrichment process has gained momentum in Iran. According to David Albright, former UN Nuclear inspector and physicist, it takes a minimum of 1500 pounds of enriched uranium to produce the 45-60 pounds it takes for a simple nuclear bomb.  Iran has produced nearly 1,000 of those pounds of low-enriched uranium.

The U.S has slapped sanctions on Iran time and time again. Bills S. 3227, S. 3445, and H.R.3390 all impose sanctions on the country. S. 3227 amends Iran Sanctions of 1996 and subjects Iran to various economic sanctions. H.R. 3390 imposes sanctions on Iran and other nations for assisting Iran in the development of a nuclear program. In addition, the U.S inflicted sanctions on IRISL and 18 affiliates for supposedly bestowing support for Iran’s Weapons and Nuclear Program as well as fabricating documents. These sanctions prohibit U.S citizens from carrying out any transactions with them. However, Iranian’s president claims that there is wide-spread support in the international community for Iran’s nuclear position except the United States and some of its European pals. He also warns that if anyone is to target his nuclear facilities, then do not expect for him to sit idly by.  He blames the U.S for global financial problems, stating that its military interference in other nation’s affairs is the cause.

What is Iran’s real intention? Perhaps they really are just building up their nuke program for electricity, getting on the “green” band wagon. Politics is never simple. McCarthy cried “communist” during the tensions of the Cold War. Many believed him even though his accusations were unfounded. Maybe we too are crying “wolf” where we want to see one although he is not there.

]]> http://www.statesurge.com/news/quest-nuclear-independence-iran/feed 0 http://www.statesurge.com/news/a-web-of-difference http://www.statesurge.com/news/a-web-of-difference#comments Wed, 01 Oct 2008 20:51:07 +0000 jared http://www.statesurge.com/news/?p=103 In less than a century, people advanced from horses and carriages to automobiles and airplanes. The turn of the century brought about a technological explosion with advancements emerging in every direction as demand for more efficient and swifter ways of doing things increased exponentially. Computers arrived with the internet not far behind, providing more fruitful ways to communicate across the boarder and file documents.]]>

Author: Crystal Fontaine

In less than a century, people advanced from horses and carriages to automobiles and airplanes. The turn of the century brought about a technological explosion with advancements emerging in every direction as demand for more efficient and swifter ways of doing things increased exponentially. Computers arrived with the internet not far behind, providing more fruitful ways to communicate across the boarder and file documents.

Unfortunately, Governor Palin does not show much of an opinion concerning the issue of technology and the internet. Perhaps it is not exactly high up on her priority list. As Governor, Sarah Palin record comes up short of incorporating any kind of technological policies. Nevertheless, Governor Palin has taken advantage of the internet some by creating an online training program for the workforce. The program, Alaska Career Ready, gives users the capacity to take a set of surveys to discover what abilities they have or may need for an assortment of preferred jobs. In addition, these users may select online courses for developing weak or under-skilled areas. This program allows for a faster and more efficient way for workers to evaluate their own skills and it provides a way to help them improve weaker areas. Despite these details, however, Governor Palin has not really taken any initiative on broadband policy. Unfortunately, Alaskans connect at a slow rate. She has also helped Alaskan residents’ access affordable healthcare through the Alaska Health Care Transparency Act. The act provides tele-medicine and tele-health initiatives that provide care to Alaska’s most remote residents. According to Palin, it is vital to the economy to improve and expand more efficient transportation.

Senator Joe Biden looks to have taken a bit more interest on the subject. Biden is a supporter of clean technology, co-sponsoring the Senate Bill 1177. The legislation would amend the Clean Air Act to establish a nationwide uniform air pollutant rigid program for the electric generating zone. In a 2006 hearing, Biden proved to be a skeptic of net neutrality as he questioned the need for preventative measures when no evidence presented itself. He believes that if everyone who felt those rights were being violated and were given a hearing, it would be impossible to handle every case. Senator Biden is also a strong supporter of copyright. In 2002, he asked the Justice Department to take a harsher position on copyright violation. A noteworthy effort on Biden’s part is the PROTECT Act of 2003, which made it a felony to forge keys to use for counterfeit software or to operate unauthorized computer programs. He also co-founded and co-chaired the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus. Other noteworthy legislation on Biden’s repertoire includes S.1738 and S.223. Biden sponsored Senate Bill S.1738 to increase resources for regional computer forensic labs, among other things. S. 223, which he co-sponsored, requires senate candidates to file designations, reports, and statements in electronic form. Senator Biden was also a challenger of the FISA reform bill, strongly opposing warentless wiretapping.

On one hand, we have the fresh face of Sarah Palin, who seems more concerned about oil than technological and internet issues. On the other hand, there is the well-known face of Senator Biden, who seems to have realized the importance of these issues. Who will have your vote?

Can the US keep up with China’s recent progress? No doubt America’s interest and funding in space programs are not as strong as the days of the Apollo Project, but where does America currently stand? For the most part, it appears that the overall US strategy is in trying to expand its support of science and math programs through education while improving general interest among the public for aerospace R&D. This direction appears to stems from the culturally different approaches the youth of the US and China are growing through. Around the time of America’s first space-walk NASA was in their prime in both funding initiatives and public support for the race to the moon – a unifying momentum that has no rival in present times. In terms of youth and education, the US is severely falling behind that of its rivals while China seems to be improving by leaps and bounds, driven by a popular urge on behalf of Chinese students to become the next Bill Gates. In contrast, the average US youth now seems more consumed with becoming the next pop icon than trying to pursue a career in nuclear engineering or physics.

Legislators around the nation are trying to remedy this situation from a ground-up approach by pursuing greater education opportunities in math and the sciences. Proposals include the massive 134 page H.R. 2272, a bill “To invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.” This bill, much like several other pending proposals, outlines a comprehensive plan that includes coordinated efforts by NASA, The National Institute of Standards and Technology, The Department of Energy, and other agencies in order to build momentum and public support for greater space initiatives. In addition, H.R.6063 – the authorization of “the programs of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration” – lists a very detailed approach for NASA’s future. Both bills are currently being debated and will greatly impact the future of American aeronautics if either is passed. For other aerospace-related bills, click here.

Author: Crystal Fontaine

Regrettably America remains ignorant concerning international affairs. We are so focused on our American lives that sometimes we tend to forget about the increasingly globalized world. Unfortunately, the media doesn’t always give us the full picture or even a much needed background of an issue we may all be unfamiliar with. Due to this, I wonder how many Americans actually know the details of the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. Or, perhaps an even more compelling question, where in the world Georgia is even located? No, I am not speaking about that lovely state on the East Coast. Let’s broaden our horizons, shall we?

Georgia is a small nation in South Western Asia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia. One might say this small nation has been a thorn in Russia’s side. What has triggered the recent crisis? A series of clashes between Georgia and South Ossetia had prompted Georgian forces to react with force, launching attacks on August 7th. Georgia kept its grip on the capitol city of Tskhinvali for part of the next day. Russia reacted with bombing raids over the province and other targets throughout Georgia. It is unclear whether Russian forces entered before or after the attacks. On one hand, Georgia claims they attacked due to intelligence that a large procession of Russian amour was making its way to South Ossetia. Russia, on the other hand, maintains that they were only acting to defend Russian citizens in the area as well as Russian peacekeepers. Many civilians have escaped the South Ossetia area and traversed into the Russian Republic of North Ossetia. More than half or South Ossetia’s 70,000 citizens are said to have taken Moscow’s offer of Russian citizenship. Until recently, Russia said it appreciated Georgia’s territorial integrity. It was only looking out for Russian citizens. Putin announced it was unlikely for a South Ossetia-Georgia reunion.

The South Ossetia and Abkhazia areas both represent important territorial regions. In South Ossetia, there are crucial pipelines that carry oil and gas, while Abkhazia has some key tourist areas and important ports. South Ossetia fought for independence in 1991-92. It usually runs its own affairs. On August, 26, 2008, the Russian president announced it recognized S. Ossetia’s independence. The Ossetians are a distinct ethnic group, initially from the Russian plains south of the Don River. In the 13th century, they were forced southwards by Mongol incursions into the Caucus Mountains, settling along the Georgian border. The South Ossetians would love to reunite with their counterparts in North Ossetia. Georgia rejects the notion.

In recent years, Georgia has become a close ally to the United States. In recent years Georgian troops have worked closely with American troops in Iraq. The U.S, in turn, has helped train and arm the Georgian Army. Furthermore, the United States support Georgia’s goal of becoming a member of NATO. Recently, a resolution by the U.S Congress has been introduced concerning Georgian membership. H.CON.RES.409 supports awarding membership to Georgia and Ukraine in the December 2008 meeting. Congress believes that the expansion of NATO will bring more effectiveness. Also, Congress recently introduced the bill, H.R. 6851, which would provide assistance to Georgia with recovery. Both the United States and Europe have condemned the move for independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. According to NATO, the Russian declaration violated numerous U.N Security Council resolutions that Russia had initially supported.

The fight for independence and the widespread recognition of that independence is no stranger to America. As I am not an authority on the subject, I cannot say that the events in Georgia were right or wrong. Nevertheless, I will leave you with some food for thought. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “…it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. . . .” (Declaration of Independence, 1776).

The House Committee on Financial Services is currently reviewing H.R.6864, a proposal to “prohibit golden parachute payments for former executives and directors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” The bill is being sponsored by Steve King (R-IA) and already has 27 cosponsors – a significant number due to the fact that the bill was first introduced in the House on September 10. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and what tactics the politically-charged former directors and executives will utilize. The power packed political influence the members have is alarming, ranging from the former Secretary of the Senate to the former director of the FBI under President Clinton’s administration.

Author: Jared Fallon

On August 27 South Korea’s President Lee Myung Bak announced a bold plan to “significantly reduce the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels” and at the minimum, quadruple the use of renewable energy by the year 2030. In this paradigm shift, South Korea’s plans include increasing the use of renewable energy sources by an average of 38 times the current level, the construction of 10 new nuclear power plants, a massive increase in the nation’s oil self-sufficiency, a boost in the development and production of fuel-cell cars, and improved energy efficiency grading systems for both the public and private sectors. Specific highlights of the new program include increases in:

- The amount of solar energy use by 44 times above the current level, biofuels by 19, and geothermal power by 51

- The nation’s self-sufficiency in oil and gas from 4.2 to 40 percent

- The amount of nuclear power used from the current 15 percent to 28 percent of the total expected energy consumption by the year 2030

In addition to the obvious benefits achieved by achieving significantly greater energy independence, the South Korean government expects the renewable and alternative energy sector to see the creation of 950,00 new jobs by the target date.

How does the US measure up?

While the current energy policy plans outlined by Congress are not even close to being temerarious enough, several legislatures as of late have been quite active in proposing legislation. Even though the current proposals do not rival South Korea’s most current policy in intensity, if such bills are indeed passed they would help form large waves of change in America, helping to pave the road to a more grounded energy policy. One such bill, S.3044, aims to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices. The bill is being sponsored by one of the most highly rated legislators (Harry Reid; D-NV) and is currently cosponsored by 23 other state senators.

Other pending bills of interest include H.R.6545 – a bill that would require the Director of National Intelligence to conduct a national intelligence assessment on national security and energy security issues and Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) S.3126 – a bill that would encourage the development of alternative energy sources.

Whether or not such bills are passed, it is irrefutable that the US does need a renewed sense of passion – a desire to achieve groundbreaking milestones of entrepreneurship, innovation, and excitement in regards to energy policies. As of late, amidst all of the increasing complaints of rising oil prices, politicians have pulled the “green card”- utilizing alternative and renewable energy topics at the forefront of their platforms. Will these long winded speeches ever equate to policies with substantial reforms? They need to, and they need to quickly if we are to have any hope for keeping up with other countries’ developments in the energy sector.

Author: Jared Fallon

On August 28, 2008 Russia’s General of Staff stated that “Despite the apparent strength, the NATO naval group in the Black Sea is not battle-worthy,” adding that Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is capable of destroying NATO’s fleet “within 20 minutes”. Rising tensions between the US and Russia have diverted most of our attention to the Georgia/Russia conflict despite the fact that tensions are still incredibly high in the oil-rich Black Sea. For some time, US ally Turkey has been conducting extensive research with BP to explore the possibility of investing great sums of money within the region in its pursuit for greater energy independence. Security within the region is obviously a high priority.

To no surprise, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) has pushed S.3001on the Hill in order to “authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy…”. As oil sources are coming under increasingly greater demands it is no wonder that such bills are being proposed – and of no coincidence that Senator Levin would like to expand the Department of Energy’s jurisdiction. Levin’s experience in such military and energy policies are quite extensive and include his current positions as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee, and member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. For Levin’s extensive record in serving the people of Michigan, click here.

AUTHOR: Crystal Fontaine

Known as one of the worst humanitarian disasters in Africa, the Darfur Conflict has destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives. House Resolution 1351 portrays support and a call for the international community to come to the aid of the people of Darfur and the humanitarian efforts made by peacekeeping troops.

Since it gained its independence some forty three years ago, Sudan has spent more time in internal armed conflict than enjoying that independence. Just as one civil war ended with a peace accord in the Southern provinces, the Darfur Conflict emerged in 2003 as some issues still were not resolved within the nation. Many accuse the government of using aerial bombings and Janjaweed, an Arab Tribal militia, in response to the hostility and fighting. Khartoum officials deny the allegations. Hundreds of thousands of Darfur Refugees have fled with estimates of 180,000 people dead. Around two million have been displaced.

House Resolution 1351 states that seven UNAMID peacekeepers were killed with another 22 wounded on July 8, 2008. This attack is just one of several strings of attacks on aid workers. The UN Security Council had unanimously passed Resolution 1769, which had authorized the deployment of 26,000 peacekeeping troops to the area last summer. However, UNAMID has been thwarted by the Sudanese government and rebels since the decision. The UN announced on June 25, 2008, that UNAMID in Darfur lacked critical resources, including troops, police officers, and air transport. The resolution expresses Congresses condolences to the people of Rwanda, Ghana, and Uganda and to the family and friends of those killed and wounded. These attacks on UNAMID have been condemned. In addition, H. Res. 1351 calls upon the Sudanese government to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice. There is urgency within the resolution for the international community as well as members of the UN to contribute resources necessary to ensure UNAMID’s success.

Recently, Mr. Ocampo, the International Criminal Court Prosecutor, has asked for the arrest of Sudanese President al-Bashir. Mr. Ocampo would like to see the Sudanese President indicted on war crimes charges and wants rebels to help investigate two of their own commanders accused of attacking African Union peacekeepers. The allegations on President al-Bashir have sparked angry protests. Some UN officials fear that there will be reprisals against UN peacekeepers and aid workers in Darfur. The African Union also feels that the peace process would be jeopardized if the charges are not dropped by the UN Security Council.

Hope is like a light at the end of the tunnel. The people of Darfur need hope and they need our help.

Outside sources
Washingtonpost.com
BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk)