For some weekend cynical fun, enjoy this creation from political commentator and cartoonist Mark Fiore (hat tip to Arthur for sending along this little gem!). If the woeful economy has got you down, feeling fatigued, hell, even embarrassed, don’t despair! Try ContagionEx!
And since it’s the weekend, why not treat yourself to a few other Fiore masterpieces, found here.
Jane Perlez of the IHT/NYT published a fantastic piece on posturing in the South China Sea, as China and its neighbors attempt to assert dominance over potentially lucrative waterways. Since 2009, I have been following the story of brinkmanship in the area, as well as developments more broadly regarding international waters and the implications of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (for some other of my thoughts about this, read here). As far as ship-to-ship interactions go, the story she recounts between Philippine and Chinese vessels is tense, but business as usual. I appreciate her cutting to the chase on the countries’ interest in energy potential rather than ‘some rare corals, clams and poached sharks.’
What is quite interesting, however, is developments occurring more than 8,000 miles away in Washington DC. The Obama administration has long placed a priority on once again asserting a presence in the Pacific, and has approached this goal from a variety of angles, including talks with Vietnam, the courtship of Indonesia, and the backing of Philippine maritime pursuits. But one thing the U.S. has not been able to lean on in the face of China’s encroaching territoriality is international maritime law – perhaps, until now.
The Reagan-era convention has 162 countries as signatories, including China. One signature that has been notably absent in UNCLOS’ 30 year lifespan is that of the United States. The Obama administration is seeking to change that. U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, along with Democratic Senators, are leading Obama’s push to get the U.S. to sign on a dotted line that it has long shied away from. Their appearances in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee could be a sign of a changing American perspective on international law.
The United States’ history of avoiding signing on to important international treaties and conventions has been consistent with its instrumentalist view of international law: to get other people to do what the U.S. wants while giving away as little as possible in return. This renewed push to sign on to UNCLOS signifies that even though they’re very late to the party, the U.S. sees value in joining the ranks rather than charging the way forward. The choice for going down a route that would allow the U.S. legal recourse against potential offenders of international maritime law, rather than military action, should not go unnoticed.
“If we are not a party to this treaty and can’t deal with it at the (negotiating) table, then we have to deal with it at sea with our naval power,” said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. “And once that happens, you clearly increase the risk of confrontation.” — Quoted here.
If the U.S. manages to ratify UNCLOS, this will be a small victory for international law on the shores of a chronically obstinate superpower. The choice to sign on will also signal a continued shift in U.S. foreign policy strategy, where enfranchising allies to take the lead has been encouraged, rather than piling more on to an already overburdened plate. We saw this with the Arab Spring as well. What will be interesting to watch, should the US sign, is exactly how they plan on using their new signatory status in their favour in jockeying for position in the South China Sea. The International Seabed Authority should be on the lookout for further lodged complaints and be ready to make some big decisions on what really demarcates 200 nautical miles from a nation’s shores and what is truly meant by the ‘for all mankind’ refrain.
In the meantime, certain lawmakers in the United States need to take a long hard look at some pretty antiquated ideas they hold about sovereignty in the 21st Century. This sort of talk should be worrisome:
“My problem is with sovereignty,” Republican Senator Jim Risch said, flipping through the pages of the treaty. “There’s 288 pages here, and as you read it, there’s some good stuff in here. But if we have to give up one scintilla of sovereignty that this country has fought, has bled for . . . I can’t vote for it.”
As some of you may or may not know, I have had a keen interest in Afghanistan’s mineral sector since the country’s reserves were revalued by the US Geological Survey in 2010 (I say revalued, because they — weren’t discovered, everyone knew they were there — they just got a bigger price tag). To this end, I’ve done some research on community-based dispute resolution in the country surrounding land issues, and some more in-depth work on the mineral sector’s transformation in light of international interest. Since completing my analysis on mineral sector reform in the country late last year, I still stand by my opinions: Pushing an aggressive FDI policy before building capable institutions is the wrong approach, long-term environmental and social considerations need to be built in as the base of any sector’s exploitation regime (capturing rents only matters if you have efficient and transparent channels for spending those funds for the public interest), security concerns need to be addressed seriously in a sustainable, realistic fashion, and perhaps most importantly, honest political economy analysis must shape government policy and interventions shaped by outside actors. I hope to use this space to comment periodically on developments in the sector, as I continue to follow it quite closely from afar. This mini series, ‘Getting to the c(ore),‘ hopes to highlight both the tremendous potential Afghanistan holds for future development, as well as the ongoing, significant obstacles technocrats and politicians face.
First up, I’d like to point to two headlines my weekly Afghan mineral sector news roundup delivered me (doesn’t everyone have one of those?): ‘Indian Companies to Conduct Due Diligence on Afghanistan Mines‘ and ‘Afghanistan’s Fabulous Ruby Mines Plundered by Thieves.’
This post is about governance. In short, the first story is talking about the Indian SAIL consortium’s plans to conduct due diligence on the mines that they’ve relatively recently acquired in an unsurprising win for the group — the first big contenders in the country’s nascent mining sector other than China. This story quotes one of the big investors as saying that his only real concerns are infrastructure and security with regards to their new acquisition. Oh, really? Is that all? Getting these two things right in such a setting will be anything but easy, despite the Afghan Ministry of Mines’ assurances. I won’t launch into a discussion about India’s motivations for being in Afghanistan (you can see a bit of what I have to say about that here), because for this discussion I am talking about something more basic. For this little post, the point I want to make comes down to geography. This crude map I’ve put together below shows three coordinates. Point 1 on the left is story 1 on India, Point 2 is Kabul, and Point 3, is story 2 (Jegdalek). As you can see, point 1 is much further from Afghanistan’s seat of ‘legitimate’ government in Kabul than point 3. Point 1 is where due diligence is being done to reassure jittery investors. Much closer by, point 3 is having problems of its own. According to this BBC piece on the illegal plundering of rubies in the area,
“[President Hamid Karzai] is aware that we can easily become [like certain] African countries, where mineral worth is a curse, not a blessing, and could be used to further destabilise the country,” a presidential official told the BBC.
There is supposed to be a ban on ruby mining because the government views the mines as national wealth. Despite government denials, local traders in Jegdalek bazaar openly display newly-mined gems.
This story does not bode well for Hajigak and SAIL. Hamid Karzai is concerned. There is supposed to be a ban in place. These are common refrains, and not all that surprising. Despite worryingly good Doing Business Indicator scores, investors should be wary, and so should donors. To get the mining sector right in Afghanistan, the goal should still come back to accountable governance bolstered by legitimacy beyond the confines of Kabul. You can not put the cart in front of the horse this time.
Loss of Strength Gradient Theory (LSG) is very simple, but also incredibly clear on this point. It is critical for this potential conflict scenario. The larger the distance between potential aggressors (in this case proximate to resources) and the capital, the less able a government can control what goes on ‘out there.’ This would be the case in a relatively stable country facing the potential of a large spike in rents. In Afghanistan, the implications are obvious.
Consider this one of many tangents to come. Afghanistan experts, please feel free to tear me apart. For now, I am still an armchair observer. Happy to accept an invite over to Kabul if someone wants to try and convince me I should be more optimistic.
*Pardon the typos and be my copy editor! Drop me a line if you see an error. — Kari Reports AT Gmail DOT com
When old becomes new again. This hilarious little letter has been making the rounds for quite a few years now. It’s back in the public eye again and just as funny as when it first appeared. Though the origins of the letter are up for debate (West Wing, anyone?), the message is not. Enjoy. Oh, and religious zealots, please take with as much salt as is necessary for you to get to the end, then have a good long think.
On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a
U.S. man, and posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well as
informative:Dear Dr. Laura:
… Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination … End of
debate.I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements
of God’s Laws and how to follow them.1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians.
Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is
how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take
offense.4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my
neighbours…..They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I
smite them?5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there
‘degrees’ of abomination?7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some
wiggle-room here?8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
blend).
He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary
that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to
stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a
private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their
in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I’m confident you can help.Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan,
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of VirginiaP.S. It would be a damn shame if we couldn’t own a Canadian.
Keep your eyes here for updates as this new concept develops.
For quite some time, I’ve thought my interests had to be compartmentalized into different, isolated spaces: one for photography, one for journalism, one for travel, one for nutrition/running/health/cooking, one for art/fashion/style, one for natural resource news and opinions on international development, and one for my academic pursuits. In an experiment meant to throw all of these things into a single space, this jumble is attempting to do what none of my ventures thus far have — I am attempting to share the multivariate interests, passions, and curiosities that preoccupy me, in all my dimensions.
