I like this title better than the original title, "It's the end of Britain as we know it". My title is not accurate, but neither is CSM's. However, we are both heading in the same direction.
The European Union is growing closer to becoming "a country" by my estimates. Europe has been evolving towards a "union" since 1950, when the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)was established. Later, in 1957, the Treaty of Rome would create the European Economic Community, otherwise known as the Common Market.
In 1973, an additional three countries would join the original six charter members of the ECSC. The ECSC would then become known as the European Union. Greece, Spain, and Portugal would soon follow.
I don't mean to provide a chronology here, and I am not going to. For these countries to cooperate serves all European countries. The issues that stand before them are numerous. The reality is that for each country to thrive, each must recognize interdependence on the others. How does a country then thrive in the face of differences? So many languages, different religions, different economic cultures and climates and stages or levels of development.
The European Union seeks to provide such a structure, to encourage growth, yet maintain fair and equitable practices across a diverse region.
In essence, it is almost as if a Federal Republic is evolving across Europe. Each province, e.g. Germany, has autonomy to conduct business, have local elections, etc., but must adhere to EU business rules in the process. Very analogous to our Federal system: our U.S. states are analogs to EU countries. Our states have given sovereignty over to our Federal government, in terms of defense, monetary policy, etc.
In many ways, Europe has been set forth as the 'grand old man' of the world. In regards to the EU, the United States has appeared to have been at the forefront.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Iraq and Iran: Together for the First Time
Folks, I see this as a big deal. I have read numerous international articles, within the Arab world and without, and I see this as a concern.
Iraq and Iran spent the better part of the 1980's fighting over the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the southern part of Iraq. Oil, of course, was the contention.
Saddam became the buddy of the United States, as a way for us to conduct a proxy war against Iran. After all, the fundamentalist Shi'ites in Iran had just overrun our embassy and taken hostages, keeping them for almost a year. Donald Rumsfeld even took it upon himself to engage Saddam directly during this time, helping deliver non-military assistance, agriculture products supposedly. Supposedly, these where then converted over to chemical weapons that Saddam used to kill 200,000 Kurds in the northern part of Iraq.
The U.S. has not been friendly with Iran ever since we supported the overthrow of the theocratic government in 1952, replacing the president with Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. The former government had nationalized the oil industry, taking away the investment that a U.S. oil company had made.
The Iranian President enjoyed two days in Iraq. He announced his visit weeks in advance. While security was high, he appeared to travel with impunity and without much regard for his personal safety. He also appeared to enjoy the personal attention of Jalal Talabani and al-Maliki. He visited several places around Baghdad and Iraq, and also received accommodations outside the Green Zone. President Ahmadinejad enjoys the support of the Shia minority in Iraq, the southern portion of Iraq. Iran supported the Kurds during Iran-Iraq War so the Kurds also appreciated Iran's attention. The only ones that seemed upset were the Iraqi Sunni Muslims, who are quietly backed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
In contrast, President Bush has stayed little more that 4-8 hours at a stretch in Iraq, has not been outside the Green Zone, and only announces his visit after the fact. Granted, he is a bigger "trophy" for opposition forces so requires more security, but it also says a lot about how the U.S. currently viewed, as well.
When all was said and done, Iraq and Iran signed agreements to improve and promote cooperation, cultural and strategic ties.
Iran is, and will continue to be, an important player in stabilizing Iraq, particularly for the Shia.
Iraq and Iran spent the better part of the 1980's fighting over the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the southern part of Iraq. Oil, of course, was the contention.
Saddam became the buddy of the United States, as a way for us to conduct a proxy war against Iran. After all, the fundamentalist Shi'ites in Iran had just overrun our embassy and taken hostages, keeping them for almost a year. Donald Rumsfeld even took it upon himself to engage Saddam directly during this time, helping deliver non-military assistance, agriculture products supposedly. Supposedly, these where then converted over to chemical weapons that Saddam used to kill 200,000 Kurds in the northern part of Iraq.
The U.S. has not been friendly with Iran ever since we supported the overthrow of the theocratic government in 1952, replacing the president with Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran. The former government had nationalized the oil industry, taking away the investment that a U.S. oil company had made.
The Iranian President enjoyed two days in Iraq. He announced his visit weeks in advance. While security was high, he appeared to travel with impunity and without much regard for his personal safety. He also appeared to enjoy the personal attention of Jalal Talabani and al-Maliki. He visited several places around Baghdad and Iraq, and also received accommodations outside the Green Zone. President Ahmadinejad enjoys the support of the Shia minority in Iraq, the southern portion of Iraq. Iran supported the Kurds during Iran-Iraq War so the Kurds also appreciated Iran's attention. The only ones that seemed upset were the Iraqi Sunni Muslims, who are quietly backed by Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
In contrast, President Bush has stayed little more that 4-8 hours at a stretch in Iraq, has not been outside the Green Zone, and only announces his visit after the fact. Granted, he is a bigger "trophy" for opposition forces so requires more security, but it also says a lot about how the U.S. currently viewed, as well.
When all was said and done, Iraq and Iran signed agreements to improve and promote cooperation, cultural and strategic ties.
Iran is, and will continue to be, an important player in stabilizing Iraq, particularly for the Shia.
Space Imperialism on the Horizon
An article in Christian Science Monitor pulls together details from multiple sources, outlining China's apparent interest in militarizing outer space.
On or about January 19th, China destroyed one of its own satellites. Military experts view this as the beginnings of militarizing space. Once a country has the ability to shoot down satellites, then the ability of collecting surveillance on that country is diminished. So, one can understand the DoD's concern.
At issue is air space and the concept of territoriality. A country's boundaries extend into the sky, "airspace," and into the ocean depths, "territorial waters." But what about space?
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans the use of space and celestial objects for military purposes. Thusly, none of the signatories can orbit missile platforms or conduct military operations in space, on the moon, Mars, Pluto, etc.
The treaty does not cover shooting down satellites from earth, however.
So much for Science Fiction battles ...
On or about January 19th, China destroyed one of its own satellites. Military experts view this as the beginnings of militarizing space. Once a country has the ability to shoot down satellites, then the ability of collecting surveillance on that country is diminished. So, one can understand the DoD's concern.
At issue is air space and the concept of territoriality. A country's boundaries extend into the sky, "airspace," and into the ocean depths, "territorial waters." But what about space?
The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 bans the use of space and celestial objects for military purposes. Thusly, none of the signatories can orbit missile platforms or conduct military operations in space, on the moon, Mars, Pluto, etc.
The treaty does not cover shooting down satellites from earth, however.
So much for Science Fiction battles ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)