The Joy of Trump
Monday, December 28, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Save the Oceans
To Save the Planet, Save the Seas
By DAN LAFFOLEY
Peterborough, England
FOR the many disappointments of the recent climate talks in Copenhagen, there was at least one clear positive outcome, and that was the progress made on a program called Reducing Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Under this program, key elements of which were agreed on at Copenhagen, developing countries would be compensated for preserving forests, peat soils, swamps and fields that are efficient absorbers of carbon dioxide, the primary heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.
This approach, which takes advantage of the power of nature itself, is an economical way to store large amounts of carbon. But the program is limited in that it includes only those carbon sinks found on land. We now need to look for similar opportunities to curb climate change in the oceans.
Few people may realize it, but in addition to producing most of the oxygen we breathe, the ocean absorbs some 25 percent of current annual carbon dioxide emissions. Half the world?s carbon stocks are held in plankton, mangroves, salt marshes and other marine life. So it is at least as important to preserve this ocean life as it is to preserve forests, to secure its role in helping us adapt to and mitigate climate change.
Sea-grass meadows, for example, which flourish in shallow coastal waters, account for 15 percent of the ocean?s total carbon storage, and underwater forests of kelp store huge amounts of carbon, just as forests do on land. The most efficient natural carbon sink of all is not on land, but in the ocean, in the form of Posidonia oceanica, a species of sea grass that forms vast underwater meadows that wave in the currents just as fields of grass on land sway in the wind.
Worldwide, coastal habitats like these are being lost because of human activity. Extensive areas have been altered by land reclamation and fish farming, while coastal pollution and overfishing have further damaged habitats and reduced the variety of species. It is now clear that such degradation has not only affected the livelihoods and well-being of more than two billion people dependent on coastal ecosystems for food, it has also reduced the capacity of these ecosystems to store carbon.
The case for better management of oceans and coasts is twofold. These healthy plant habitats help meet the needs of people adapting to climate change, and they also reduce greenhouse gases by storing carbon dioxide. Countries should be encouraged to establish marine protected areas ? that is, set aside parts of the coast and sea where nature is allowed to thrive without undue human interference ? and do what they can to restore habitats like salt marshes, kelp forests and sea-grass meadows.
Managing these habitats is far less expensive than trying to shore up coastlines after the damage has been done. Maintaining healthy stands of mangroves in Asia through careful management, for example, has proved to cost only one-seventh of what it would cost to erect manmade coastal defenses against storms, waves and tidal surges.
The discussions in Copenhagen have opened the way for all countries to improve the management of oceans and coasts to harness their immense potential to mitigate climate change ? especially over the next decade, while the world?s politicians, scientists and engineers develop longer-term strategies for stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases.
In their continuing negotiations on climate change, nations should now make it a priority to produce a single map of the world that documents all the different types of coastal carbon sinks, and identify the ones that are in most immediate need of preservation. New studies should be undertaken to better understand how best to manage these areas to increase carbon sequestration. Then, following the example of the forests program, it will be possible to establish formulas for compensating countries that preserve essential carbon sinks in the oceans.
We urgently need to bring the ocean into the agenda alongside forests so that, as soon as possible, we can help the oceans to help us.
Dan Laffoley is the marine vice chairman of the World Commission on Protected Areas at the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the principal specialist for marine at Natural England.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Overpopulation is the gravest problem.
The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
The Numbers:
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world's population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.
-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.
Humankind must recalibrate its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people.
The fix is simple. And yet this is not on the agenda in Copenhagen. No other solution will work unless population control is imposed.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
PESHAWAR, Pakistan
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's arrival in Pakistan was overshadowed Wednesday by a devastating car bomb attack aimed at civilians and marking a clear escalation in the Taliban campaign to undermine the government.
The bomb tore through a congested area of narrow alleys and crowded stalls in Peshawar, a city that has become a frontline of Taliban terrorist attacks in recent weeks. ...and this bombing was seen as another in a series of attacks by Pakistani militants to answer the military’s offensive against their stronghold in South Waziristan, along the Afghan border. The militants are carrying out the attacks to “unnerve” the government which explains why they are now targeting civilians.
Peshawar was unable to cope with such a large-scale attack because it did not have enough trained firefighters and could not move excavators into the narrow streets to rescue those buried alive. Government officials also acknowledged that Peshawar was not equipped to deal with a barrage of terrorist attacks.
Earlier this month, a blast in Peshawar killed at least 48 people in what was described at the time as the biggest attack of its kind in Pakistan in months. The explosion Wednesday was in the same general area. Filled with small stores selling fabric and general merchandise, the old market is always congested with shoppers and traders and presents an easy target for the militants.
Mrs. Clinton landed in Pakistan for a three-day visit, saying she was determined to broaden America’s relationship with Pakistan beyond the security and antiterrorism concerns that have dominated ties and sowed mutual suspicion.
Source:
NYT
By ISMAIL KHAN
The bomb tore through a congested area of narrow alleys and crowded stalls in Peshawar, a city that has become a frontline of Taliban terrorist attacks in recent weeks. ...and this bombing was seen as another in a series of attacks by Pakistani militants to answer the military’s offensive against their stronghold in South Waziristan, along the Afghan border. The militants are carrying out the attacks to “unnerve” the government which explains why they are now targeting civilians.
Peshawar was unable to cope with such a large-scale attack because it did not have enough trained firefighters and could not move excavators into the narrow streets to rescue those buried alive. Government officials also acknowledged that Peshawar was not equipped to deal with a barrage of terrorist attacks.
Earlier this month, a blast in Peshawar killed at least 48 people in what was described at the time as the biggest attack of its kind in Pakistan in months. The explosion Wednesday was in the same general area. Filled with small stores selling fabric and general merchandise, the old market is always congested with shoppers and traders and presents an easy target for the militants.
Mrs. Clinton landed in Pakistan for a three-day visit, saying she was determined to broaden America’s relationship with Pakistan beyond the security and antiterrorism concerns that have dominated ties and sowed mutual suspicion.
Source:
NYT
By ISMAIL KHAN
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Give up meat to save the planet -
Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet
Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.
Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.
Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”
The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.
Source: The Times Online
Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas
People will need to consider turning vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.
In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: “Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.”
Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.
Lord Stern, the author of the influential 2006 Stern Review on the cost of tackling global warming, said that a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases.
He predicted that people’s attitudes would evolve until meat eating became unacceptable. “I think it’s important that people think about what they are doing and that includes what they are eating,” he said. “I am 61 now and attitudes towards drinking and driving have changed radically since I was a student. People change their notion of what is responsible. They will increasingly ask about the carbon content of their food.”
Lord Stern, a former chief economist of the World Bank and now I. G. Patel Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics, warned that British taxpayers would need to contribute about £3 billion a year by 2015 to help poor countries to cope with the inevitable impact of climate change.
He also issued a clear message to President Obama that he must attend the meeting in Copenhagen in person in order for an effective deal to be reached. US leadership, he said, was “desperately needed” to secure a deal.
He said that he was deeply concerned that popular opinion had so far failed to grasp the scale of the changes needed to address climate change, or of the importance of the UN meeting in Copenhagen from December 7 to December 18. “I am not sure that people fully understand what we are talking about or the kind of changes that will be necessary,” he added.
Up to 20,000 delegates from 192 countries are due to attend the UN conference in the Danish capital. Its aim is to forge a deal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to prevent an increase in global temperatures of more than 2 degrees centigrade. Any increase above this level is expected to trigger runaway climate change, threatening the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
Lord Stern said that Copenhagen presented a unique opportunity for the world to break free from its catastrophic current trajectory. He said that the world needed to agree to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 to 25 gigatonnes a year from the current level of 50 gigatonnes.
UN figures suggest that meat production is responsible for about 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, including the destruction of forest land for cattle ranching and the production of animal feeds such as soy.
Lord Stern, who said that he was not a strict vegetarian himself, was speaking on the eve of an all-parliamentary debate on climate change. His remarks provoked anger from the meat industry.
Jonathan Scurlock, of the National Farmers Union, said: “Going vegetarian is not a worldwide solution. It’s not a view shared by the NFU. Farmers in this country are interested in evidence-based policymaking. We don’t have a methane-free cow or pig available to us.”
On average, a British person eats 50g of protein derived from meat each day — the equivalent of a chicken breast or a lamb chop. This is a relatively low level for a wealthy country but between 25 per cent and 50 per cent higher than the amount recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Su Taylor, a spokeswoman for the Vegetarian Society, welcomed Lord Stern’s remarks. “What we choose to eat is one of the biggest factors in our personal impact on the environment,” she said. “Meat uses up a lot of resources and a vegetarian diet consumes a lot less land and water. One of the best things you can do about climate change is reduce the amount of meat in your diet.”
The UN has warned that meat consumption is on course to double by the middle of the century.
Source: The Times Online
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Karzai 'stripped of outright win'
I believe George W. Bush dragged Canada into a war we did not want any part of executing. Being a Canadian, I have long been disgusted by the corruption in Afghan Politics under Karzai whose brother is a major Opium dealer. The West buys their opium in the form of heroin and we send our young men to defend their Freedom? Thank you, 'W'.
Poppy Farmers
I have no doubt Karzai's was a faked win in recent elections.
A panel probing fraud claims in the Afghan election has found Hamid Karzai did not gain enough valid votes for an outright win, the BBC understands.
Preliminary results from August's first round had placed Mr Karzai comfortably over the 50% plus one vote threshold needed to avoid a run-off.
But one poll monitoring group estimates that almost one million of Mr Karzai's votes have now been deemed invalid.
Poll rules say Mr Karzai must now face a run-off against his nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah.
In Washington, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she expected Mr Karzai to announce on Tuesday how he would "set the stage" to resolve the country's political crisis.
The IEC's role was to ratify and announce the results. The IEC is accused by many of being too close to a president who appointed all its commissioners. It now says it needs "a day or two" to examine the details of the ECC report.
President Karzai has repeatedly warned foreign countries not to interfere in the election process.
Sources say he firmly believes Western countries, in particular the United States and Britain, are conspiring to rob him of victory.
In its much-anticipated report on Monday, the UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) ordered that ballots from 210 polling stations be discounted because it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud" at the polling stations, which were across the country.
Initial results released last month had given him nearly 55% of votes, with former foreign minister Mr Abdullah on 28%. But EU observers have said as many as one in four votes cast were suspicious.
According to Democracy International, a US group involved in monitoring the Afghan election, Mr Karzai's share of the vote has now fallen to just over 48%. ... its own calculations - based on their understanding of the workings of the ECC - now give Mr Karzai 48.29% of the overall vote and Abdullah Abdullah 31.5%.
Although there has been no official reaction from Mr Karzai to the vote probe, he told the UN secretary general he would "fully respect the constitutional order", according to a UN spokeswoman quoted by AFP.
The BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul says the Afghan leader believes an election victory has been stolen from him and he is threatening to block attempts to hold any second round.
A spokesman for the UN in Afghanistan, Aleem Siddique, said on Monday they now expected the IEC to "swiftly" announce either final results or a runoff.
The ECC launched its investigation in the wake of the 20 August vote as allegations of mass fraud began to emerge. The panel reports to the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which will make the final announcement on the election outcome.
The IEC is widely regarded as pro-Karzai, but it is legally bound to accept the ECC's findings.
However, the Canadian head of the ECC, Grant Kippen, told the BBC on Monday his panel's investigation "met international standards and was open, thorough and transparent".
Winter is coming to Afghanistan and the process to hold another election would be delayed.
With violence at its worst levels across Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, there are warnings the ongoing political paralysis will only embolden the militants.
Story from BBC NEWS
I have no doubt Karzai's was a faked win in recent elections.
A panel probing fraud claims in the Afghan election has found Hamid Karzai did not gain enough valid votes for an outright win, the BBC understands.
Preliminary results from August's first round had placed Mr Karzai comfortably over the 50% plus one vote threshold needed to avoid a run-off.
But one poll monitoring group estimates that almost one million of Mr Karzai's votes have now been deemed invalid.
Poll rules say Mr Karzai must now face a run-off against his nearest rival, Abdullah Abdullah.
In Washington, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she expected Mr Karzai to announce on Tuesday how he would "set the stage" to resolve the country's political crisis.
The IEC's role was to ratify and announce the results. The IEC is accused by many of being too close to a president who appointed all its commissioners. It now says it needs "a day or two" to examine the details of the ECC report.
President Karzai has repeatedly warned foreign countries not to interfere in the election process.
Sources say he firmly believes Western countries, in particular the United States and Britain, are conspiring to rob him of victory.
In its much-anticipated report on Monday, the UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC) ordered that ballots from 210 polling stations be discounted because it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud" at the polling stations, which were across the country.
Initial results released last month had given him nearly 55% of votes, with former foreign minister Mr Abdullah on 28%. But EU observers have said as many as one in four votes cast were suspicious.
According to Democracy International, a US group involved in monitoring the Afghan election, Mr Karzai's share of the vote has now fallen to just over 48%. ... its own calculations - based on their understanding of the workings of the ECC - now give Mr Karzai 48.29% of the overall vote and Abdullah Abdullah 31.5%.
Although there has been no official reaction from Mr Karzai to the vote probe, he told the UN secretary general he would "fully respect the constitutional order", according to a UN spokeswoman quoted by AFP.
The BBC's Martin Patience in Kabul says the Afghan leader believes an election victory has been stolen from him and he is threatening to block attempts to hold any second round.
A spokesman for the UN in Afghanistan, Aleem Siddique, said on Monday they now expected the IEC to "swiftly" announce either final results or a runoff.
The ECC launched its investigation in the wake of the 20 August vote as allegations of mass fraud began to emerge. The panel reports to the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which will make the final announcement on the election outcome.
The IEC is widely regarded as pro-Karzai, but it is legally bound to accept the ECC's findings.
However, the Canadian head of the ECC, Grant Kippen, told the BBC on Monday his panel's investigation "met international standards and was open, thorough and transparent".
Winter is coming to Afghanistan and the process to hold another election would be delayed.
With violence at its worst levels across Afghanistan since the Taliban were ousted in 2001, there are warnings the ongoing political paralysis will only embolden the militants.
Story from BBC NEWS
Sunday, September 20, 2009
CTV.ca | 'Hush' over Afghan mission must end: Kenny
In a recent op-ed column in the Ottawa Citizen, Liberal Senator Colin Kenny called Afghanistan Canada's Vietnam.
Kenny, who is also Chairman of the Senate National Defence Security Committee, says his criticism may seem "offensive," but Canadians deserve to know what the government hopes to achieve in Afghanistan before the mission ends in 2011.
~Poppy Farmers
Violence in Afghanistan's volatile south has increased in recent weeks, particularly since a U.S. troop surge and a highly contentious presidential election... the increase in violence makes it clear that Canada's strategy to clear, hold and develop former Taliban strongholds is not working.
"Triple D: defence, diplomacy, development is not working. ...We don't have clear goals in Afghanistan. People are asking in my mail, 'Why doesn't the government tell us what they want to achieve there?'"
Retired Maj. Gen. Lewis Mackenzie responded to Kenny's remarks by saying the increase in violence is in fact a sign that Canadian troops are doing valuable work in Afghanistan.
...the influx of American soldiers has allowed the Canadians to concentrate on a smaller area in their fight against the Taliban. Canada's strategy has been hampered by the fact that NATO failed "to provide the resources necessary to take this thing to a proper conclusion early on."
But Mackenzie said with the American surge and President Barack Obama's renewed focus on combating the Taliban in Afghanistan, the new commander of the International Security Assistance Force, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, will adopt Canada's clear, hold and develop strategy.
I say, there has been No Progress changing the character or mentality of Afghans:
Making my point: Kenny pointed to widespread allegations of voter fraud in last month's presidential election, a thriving drug trade in Helmand and Kandahar provinces and the recent passage of a law that allows for marital rape as signs that the mission in Afghanistan needs to be reevaluated.
Western Politicians seem to believe that with a bit of force and some promises of development will alter hundreds of years of tradition, tribalism and violence.
Economic Imperative:
The Americans made similar promises when Al Qaeda drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. Promises were not kept. Afghans ask 'what is different this time?' Afghan leaders are guilty of selling out to the highest bidder. Poppy crops are just about the only reliable crop in this drought stricken region and they have a ready market to sell into.
The United Nations estimates that half of Ghor's farmers don't earn enough to cover basic needs. So exhortations to plant alternatives seem doomed when a grower can make about $5,200 from an acre of opium but $121 from an acre of wheat.
Throughout Afghanistan, thousands who never grew opium began harvesting their crops in May, taught by experienced poppy farmers who have been traveling to new areas to share their skills.
Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
Rensselaer Lee, an expert on the international drug trade, told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the control of drugs has taken a back seat to fighting terrorism, building consensus and strengthening alliances.
"To build these alliances, unfortunately, we've had to make some arrangements, compromises with people who, frankly, may have some history of involvement with the drug trade and may be even currently protecting the drug trade," said Lee, president of Global Advisory Services, a Virginia-based research group.
In early June, Karzai called for $20 billion in foreign aid, warning that without an economic boost, people would have to live on the opium trade.
Afghan Finance Minister Ghani Ahmadzai has also warned that without more international aid, Afghanistan could become reliant on the drug trade and crime - a problem that would be more expensive to fix than giving short-term aid.
Kenny, who is also Chairman of the Senate National Defence Security Committee, says his criticism may seem "offensive," but Canadians deserve to know what the government hopes to achieve in Afghanistan before the mission ends in 2011.
~Poppy Farmers
Violence in Afghanistan's volatile south has increased in recent weeks, particularly since a U.S. troop surge and a highly contentious presidential election... the increase in violence makes it clear that Canada's strategy to clear, hold and develop former Taliban strongholds is not working.
"Triple D: defence, diplomacy, development is not working. ...We don't have clear goals in Afghanistan. People are asking in my mail, 'Why doesn't the government tell us what they want to achieve there?'"
Retired Maj. Gen. Lewis Mackenzie responded to Kenny's remarks by saying the increase in violence is in fact a sign that Canadian troops are doing valuable work in Afghanistan.
...the influx of American soldiers has allowed the Canadians to concentrate on a smaller area in their fight against the Taliban. Canada's strategy has been hampered by the fact that NATO failed "to provide the resources necessary to take this thing to a proper conclusion early on."
But Mackenzie said with the American surge and President Barack Obama's renewed focus on combating the Taliban in Afghanistan, the new commander of the International Security Assistance Force, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, will adopt Canada's clear, hold and develop strategy.
I say, there has been No Progress changing the character or mentality of Afghans:
Making my point: Kenny pointed to widespread allegations of voter fraud in last month's presidential election, a thriving drug trade in Helmand and Kandahar provinces and the recent passage of a law that allows for marital rape as signs that the mission in Afghanistan needs to be reevaluated.
Western Politicians seem to believe that with a bit of force and some promises of development will alter hundreds of years of tradition, tribalism and violence.
Economic Imperative:
The Americans made similar promises when Al Qaeda drove the Russians out of Afghanistan. Promises were not kept. Afghans ask 'what is different this time?' Afghan leaders are guilty of selling out to the highest bidder. Poppy crops are just about the only reliable crop in this drought stricken region and they have a ready market to sell into.
The United Nations estimates that half of Ghor's farmers don't earn enough to cover basic needs. So exhortations to plant alternatives seem doomed when a grower can make about $5,200 from an acre of opium but $121 from an acre of wheat.
Throughout Afghanistan, thousands who never grew opium began harvesting their crops in May, taught by experienced poppy farmers who have been traveling to new areas to share their skills.
Afghanistan regained its position as the largest opium country last year, producing 3,750 tons, and this year, production is expected to be as high, according to the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime. Seventy-five percent of the world's heroin, obtained from opium poppies, comes from Afghanistan.
Rensselaer Lee, an expert on the international drug trade, told the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that the control of drugs has taken a back seat to fighting terrorism, building consensus and strengthening alliances.
"To build these alliances, unfortunately, we've had to make some arrangements, compromises with people who, frankly, may have some history of involvement with the drug trade and may be even currently protecting the drug trade," said Lee, president of Global Advisory Services, a Virginia-based research group.
In early June, Karzai called for $20 billion in foreign aid, warning that without an economic boost, people would have to live on the opium trade.
Afghan Finance Minister Ghani Ahmadzai has also warned that without more international aid, Afghanistan could become reliant on the drug trade and crime - a problem that would be more expensive to fix than giving short-term aid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)