What Special Relationship?

Posted on 04. Mar, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Uncategorized, War on Terror

The sense of betrayal throughout Britain is palpable. With the dispute over oil drilling rights in the South Atlantic heating up, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton handed Argentina a major diplomatic victory this week by encouraging Britain to discuss the future of The Falkland Islands. Britain has long maintained that there should be no negotiations on The Falklands unless the islands’ three thousand inhabitants ask for them – which they haven’t. The islanders wish to remain British.

I for one could not be more outraged by Washington’s indulgence of Argentina’s sabre rattling. For me, the 1982 Falklands War feels like it happened only yesterday. I’m proud to have been part of the task force sent there. I still mourn mates resting at the bottom of the South Atlantic who lost their lives in The Falklands. Today, at the age of 55, I’m well up for putting on a military uniform and going back to fight for my country if that’s what it comes to. I’m sure there are thousands of Brits who feel the same way.

Of course, back in the 1980s, Britain’s armed forces were in a position to react to a crisis thousands of miles away. Today, it’s a different story. Having expended vast amounts of blood and treasure fighting America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we are poorly positioned to mount a task force to defend British interests. With plans to gut the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to pay for ongoing operations in Afghanistan, our ability to react to challenges to our sovereignty will be compromised further still.

Having stood ‘shoulder-to-shoulder’ with America the very least the US could have done for Britain is remain neutral on The Falklands. By moving off the sidelines and against British interests, the US has laid bare just how one-sided the ‘special relationship’ is between our two countries. For years, the British government has done whatever the Yanks have asked and we’ve paid a high price for our loyalty. Not only have our brave soldiers been killed and wounded and our financial resources depleted; our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has fueled a wave of homegrown terrorism that will likely plague Britain for decades to come.

I don’t blame the Obama administration for doing what it feels is necessary to protect US interests in South America. The United States is being pragmatic. Britain should heed the example. It’s time the British goverment reassessed the special relationship and stopped acting as if our armed forces exist solely to promote American foreign policy. Because as the latest row over The Falklands has shown, when it comes to defending our sovereign territory, Britain may have to do it alone.

Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.

So an Airplane Walks Into a Bar…

Posted on 01. Mar, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Environment, Uncategorized

Bio-jetfuel takes to the skies as airplanes explore alternative energy sources like camelina and jatropha. However, all this innovation comes with a steep price tag: food. Someone has to grow all those useful fuel crops, and it’s falling to third world farmers to shoulder the burden while production of edible foodstuffs declines accordingly. With most of the affected population unlikely to enjoy the benefits of green air travel, who will? The answer: Goldman Sachs.

Read the latest on bio-jetfuel in this episode of “A Minute of Your Time.”

Falkland Feud

Posted on 19. Feb, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Environment, Uncategorized

At this moment, the UK is sending a deep-sea oil drilling platform over to the Falkland Islands, and the Argentineans don’t like it one bit. The government has arrested a ship bringing in supplies, and it has even passed a law that all ships sailing to the Falklands through its waters need a special permit.

The Falkland sovereignty question goes back decades. Britain and Argentina fought a war over the islands in the early 1980’s. Argentina lost, and the issue, not surprisingly, still stings.

The last two Argentinean administrations have aggressively pursued new negotiations. In 2007, then-president Nestor Kirchner unilaterally scrapped an agreement with the UK to share fishing rights and the proceeds of oil discovered in Falkland waters.

The recent flare up of tensions isn’t really about the Falklands’ sovereignty; it’s about money. Geologists estimate that up to 60 billion barrels of oil could lie in the seabed around the islands. It’s no secret what a difference the extra revenue could make to Argentina’s rapidly deteriorating finances.

60 billion barrels and it's all ours!

Some argue that current president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is using the Falkland question to stir up nationalist sentiments to divert attention away from the country’s large international debt. Thirteen billion dollars of Argentina’s international debt matures this year and economists predict a budget shortfall of up to $7 billion.

But is Argentina acting in its own interest? No. The country stands to gain tremendously from a large oil boom. The Falklands – populated by a mere 3,000 people – don’t have anywhere near enough man-power, infrastructure or space to helm a large drilling and extraction operation (and neither do the islanders want to).

There’s a lot of room for Argentina and the UK to work together. Argentina would be the natural choice to land oil on the mainland. In this high priced energy environment, even a couple hundred thousand barrels a day of oil could plug a significant part of Argentina’s budget deficit. However, if the UK doesn’t see a good partner in Argentina, it could easily opt for Brazil as a viable alternative.

If it wants to capitalize on any oil windfall, Argentina needs to find another way to manage relations with England and its island neighbor.

- Ed Head

A New Day for Human Rights in Russia?

Posted on 15. Jan, 2010 by admin in Economy, Energy Security, Uncategorized

Few saw it coming. In the past 10 years, Russia had pretty much cemented its reputation as the human rights curmudgeon of Europe – unleashing military brutality on its neighbors and its own citizens, using the courts to settle political vendettas, letting cases involving murders of journalists go unsolved.

But low and behold, Russia has changed its tune. This week it officially ended opposition to reforming the European Court of Human Rights.

Morning by the Kremlin

The Strasburg-based international court was created in the 1950s to protect democracy and human rights in 47-member countries. In recent years, Russia had been the only member opposing a key reform – Protocol 14 – that would give the court more tooth to hold member countries accountable for crimes and speed up work by requiring fewer judges to oversee individual cases. But this week Russian lawmakers voted to ratify Protocol 14.

The reason for Russian opposition to Protocol 14 was no mystery. The court has ruled against Russia in over 100 cases dealing with Russian atrocities in Chechnya and elsewhere – rulings which Russia has largely ignored.

So is a new era dawning for human rights in Russia? Not likely.

From a political standpoint, the Kremlin can afford to loosen its belt. In the country, there’s no substantial government opposition to speak of, and in the former Soviet states, the idealistic “color” Revolutions of the mid-2000s have ended with a whimper. The one exception is Georgia, but in a European Union report on the 2008 war, for once Georgia – not Russia – was blamed for starting the bloody conflict. And on the global stage, President Obama’s “Reset” button on US-Russia relations has eased fears about US missile systems in Eastern Europe and NATO expansion.

Also, while the political elite may feel more secure to undergo international rebukes on human rights, an economically chastened Russia sees the benefits – or even the necessity – of greater international integration in the wake of the global economic crisis, particularly with its richest neighbor, the Europe Union.

So Russia has every reason to put forth a better face on human rights – and little to lose. But on the Moscow streets, has anything changed?

On New Year’s Eve, Moscow Police arrested a group of peaceful protesters holding an unauthorized “March of Dissent” against the Kremlin. One of those arrested was 82-year-old Lyudmila Alekseyev, who heads the Moscow Helsinki group and was the 2009 winner of the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought.

- Ivan Weiss

Gas From Rats?

Posted on 16. Dec, 2009 by admin in Energy Security, Environment

We found Sweden’s attempts to make use of its “urban rabbit problem” (that’s really what they call the masses of former pet rabbits now roaming Stockholm’s parks) by turning them into heating oil a fascinating proposition.

Now, we were curious as to what other “pests” could serve the same purpose. It wasn’t too long ago, for example, we made the case for eating more nutria, a move that Louisiana would greatly appreciate. So we took our idea of using rats to the experts–in New York City, of course. You can find out the result here in our latest “Minute of Your Time.”

A War in Pictures

Posted on 17. Nov, 2009 by admin in Energy Security, Uncategorized, War on Terror

Russia and Georgia just can’t get enough of not getting enough of one another. The latest weapon: celluloid. In March, Russia released a film about its 2008 war with Georgia. That film, called “Olympius Inferno,” was about an American reporter who came upon evidence that Georgia actually started the war. (The non-partisan EU report on the war supported this claim, though it blamed both countries for escalating the violence.)

Not surprisingly, “Olympius Inferno” wasn’t very popular in Georgia. And now a new film is being shot with Andy Garcia in the part of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and Val Kilmer as a war correspondent. The extent to which the film will be pro-Georgian remains to be seen, but it has the full cooperation of the Georgian government. Significantly, the film’s director Renny Harlin, best known for “Die Hard 2” and “Cliffhanger,” is originally from Finland, the one country that successfully repelled the Russian Bear in the run-up to WWII.

Is a picture worth a thousand bombs?

Although Russia dwarfs Georgia in population and military might, Georgia has continued antagonizing Russia like it was 2005 (the time when Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan were staging revolutions against perceived Russian hegemony). Taking stock of these three countries now, has the hope of those revolutions materialized?

Despite the anti-Russia fervor of the Orange Revolution, Ukraine has been politically chastened due to its failure to clean up corruption or fight back against Russia’s natural gas blockades. While the EU is no fan of Russia’s energy politics, calls for Ukraine to join NATO have grown quieter, and its EU membership prospects seem as distant as ever.

Preliminary polls in Ukraine show that the presidential election this January will kick out Viktor Yushchenko, who’s estimated poll number barely breaches 2 percent. Yushchenko spearheaded the Orange Revolution – and perhaps was poisoned from political rivals because of it, though the evidence remains inconclusive. Moscow-backed candidate Viktor Yanukovich – Yushchenko’s bitter rival in the last election – currently leads polls with an estimated 26 percent of the vote.

While the Tulip Revolution promised greater political independence in Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek has been careful to appease Moscow in recent years while wringing as much money as possible from the US for the use of its military base servicing soldiers in Afghanistan.

Georgia alone seems to be upholding the old revolutionary fire. Yet has it overplayed its hand? Will its feisty independent spirit – and close relations with the US – give it the upper hand against its giant neighbor and former Imperial master? Will its movie win an Oscar, or at least the international box office?

Only time will tell if Georgia gets its desired Hollywood ending.

- Ivan Weiss

Hey – What’s Your Deal, Guy?

Posted on 10. Nov, 2009 by admin in Economy, Energy Security, War on Terror

(An Ongoing Series About Your Finest Public Servants At Work)

Health care reform has launched Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) back into the spotlight. After four terms, we thought, perhaps Lieberman sprinkles legislative magic from Hartford to the Hart Building. Let’s take a look.

Lieberman is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security. One of the most important functions of that committee (and of Congress) is not just to spend money but to keep track of it. In fact, checks and balances are the whole point. But Lieberman held no hearings. None. Possible malfeasance by the Bush administration? Nope. Checking up on the progress of the Department of Homeland Security? Not hardly.

“We like to do legislation,” he told reporters. “We don’t like investigating … just to see who is at fault.”

Aetna, I'm glad I met ya!

This must extend to the role of Alberto Gonzalez, too. The former attorney general was supportive of the now-infamous torture memos. Lieberman said this: “As he leaves public service, the Attorney General deserves our appreciation for his work for our nation.”

Then again, Lieberman was also supportive of waterboarding, voting against a ban, saying, “It is not like putting burning coals on people’s bodies. The person is in no real danger. The impact is psychological”

He has been repeatedly and publicly foggy on the war on terror, calling Iraq “the central front of the war on terror against the enemies who attacked America on 9/11/01,” and in 2005 stating that “The last two weeks have been critically important and I believe may be seen as a turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.”

Nearly $1 trillion spent on the war later, let’s look at health care reform, which Lieberman worries will increase the national debt.

Lieberman’s nickname (as told by one of our favorite congressional sources) of “Senator Aetna” comes from the $110,000 in campaign donations this year alone that the insurance giant has given him.

The senator, who is up for re-election in 2010, has promised to filibuster health care reform, and hold an investigative Homeland Security hearing on the recent shooting at Fort Hood by a Muslim soldier.

Perhaps he’s scheduling this flurry of activity between his ubiquitous television appearances. Hey, Senator Lieberman—what’s your deal, guy?

Afghanistan: The Biggest Loser?

Posted on 06. Nov, 2009 by admin in Energy Security, War on Terror

We have our first guest blogger today in Bob Shepherd, who has frequently appeared on Film@11 shows like “Common Sense.” Shepherd is, hands down, one of the savviest people when it comes to Afghanistan. He has traveled throughout the country many times over the last five years, providing security for journalists and dignitaries. He is considered one of the best in the security business – something he describes in his excellent book The Circuit, which takes a critical look at the lucrative military contractor world. And he is also a marvelous photographer (you can see some of his work here), SAS veteran and proud Scotsman.

Shepherd recently launched his own blog, http://www.bobshepherdauthor.com, which we are very pleased to feature as our first “Blog We Like.” Anyone interested in Afghanistan should make it a required reading stop.

Bob Shepherd, on the scene

The Taliban must have been rubbing their hands when the White House and Downing Street congratulated Hamid Karzai on his default Presidential victory. ‘What is astonishing is two weeks ago they were arguing that the puppet President Hamid Karzai was involved in electoral fraud,’ said a Taliban statement, ‘… but now he is elected as President based on those same fraudulent votes, Washington and London immediately send their congratulations.’

The West’s hypocrisy is nothing exceptional in Afghanistan. As a matter of necessity, Afghans always back the winning side. Thirty-five years of civil war have taught them to value survival over political principals. I know one Afghan who jumped from the Soviet Army to the Mujahudeen in the 1980s. When the Taliban came to power, he joined them. When they were ousted, he went to work as an interpreter for the US military. Basically, whoever has the upper hand in Afghanistan has his support.

Through my work as a security advisor to the media in Afghanistan, I’ve met Karzai five times. He’s no different than the majority of his countrymen. Educated or illiterate, Afghans can run rings around the average westerner when it comes to surviving. Karzai has kept the West’s backing in part because he is a puppet, but mostly because he’s left them no alternative. For eight years he’s done what is necessary to rein in potential rivals. Appointing warlords and drugs traffickers to ministries is one example (better to have them in government than on a battlefield). Rigging elections is another.

As a retired member of the British military, I am sickened and outraged that British troops were maimed and killed securing polling stations for a sham election in an inherently corrupt political system. Now, the White House is deciding whether to commit 40,000 additional troops to a campaign that has and will in all likelihood continue to make a mockery of the ideals the US and NATO are fighting to promote. I understand why General Stanley McChrystal is asking for more boots on the ground. He wants to prevail. That said, in my view, more troops will not achieve this. Sending more soldiers to Afghanistan will only result in more coalition and civilian deaths.

As the former Soviet Union learned all too well, troop deployments are no silver bullet. At the height of its ten-year occupation, the Kremlin had approximately 120,000 troops in Afghanistan. By the end of this year, the US and NATO will have approximately 108,000. If Obama grants McCrystal’s request, the coalition will definitely surpass the Soviet campaign in boots on the ground.

The Soviets finally tired of sacrificing soldiers to the futile task of trying to convert Afghans to a system of government they didn’t want or respect. They are the biggest failures in Afghanistan in modern times. If the US insists on committing more troops to the conflict, the coalition could very well usurp that title.

- Bob Shepherd

Central Asia’s Broken Pipe Dreams

Posted on 19. Oct, 2009 by admin in Energy Security

In 2003, I took a trip to the Central Asian country of Kyrgyzstan to visit my friend Tom, then serving in the Peace Corp.

On my first day in Bishkek, Tom insisted showing me, of all things, a statue of Vladimir Lenin. Only months before, the statue had proudly stood in Bishkek’s Ala-Too central square. But that summer, 12 years after Kyrgyzstan’s former ruler the Soviet Union fell, the statue was removed, replaced by an angel-woman representing Freedom.

With glee, Tom pointed to Lenin’s new home – a block away from the old one. With his iconic visionary gaze, Lenin stood toweringly straight, gesturing his hand to… the American University of Central Asia.

This was my first introduction to the paradoxes of modern-day Central Asia. And as I would soon learn, it was just the tip of the iceberg.

These countries – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – have been caught in the crossfires of warring powers for centuries, but the ‘Stans fared particularly badly in Soviet Times. One of the struggles involved the giant irrigation system Moscow laid down in the 1960s. The idea was to divert water from Central Asia’s rivers and lakes and make the region a fertile producer of cotton and other goods.

Sadly, the system was poorly planned and inefficient, and after the Soviet Union collapsed, it fell into gross disrepair. Water sources continue to dry up to this day, and the lack of an adequate sewage system is polluting a lot of the remaining supply.

The most dramatic sign of the irrigation problems is the decimation of the Aral Sea. Located on the border of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and once the fourth-largest inland body of saltwater, by 2005 this global landmark had shrunk to 10% of its original size.

Through the efforts of Kazakhstan and the World Bank, the sea has recovered somewhat in the last few years, but there’s still a ways to go.

In the most recent episode of A Minute of Your Time, we examine Central Asia’s water issues. As you’ll see, the region’s water politics makes about as much sense as placing Lenin in front of the American University.

- Ivan Weiss

And Back to Those Orangutans…

Posted on 13. Aug, 2009 by michelemitchell in Energy Security

Our recent “Minute” dealt with the effects of palm oil production on humans, animals and land. Here’s a first-hand account from our own Sabrina Chan, who grew up in Malaysia.