The Strategic Significance of Aid for the Korean Peninsula

The recent stir up of pro-democracy movements in the Middle East has again brought the world to reflecting on the dictatorships of the world, and wondering about their possibility of the same happening elsewhere, particularly in the case of North Korea. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak's hard line polices towards their neighbor to the north differs from the liberal 'Sunshine Policy' taken up by previous presidents. Instead South Korea is holding back aid from North Korea, in the hope of showing North Korea's leadership that there are penalties for violating international law, talking specifically of the sinking of a battleship and the shelling of Yeonpyeong island last year, as Sunny Lee from Asia Times reports. Conservatives in South Korea seem concerned with the continued norm of relations paved by the 'Sunshine Policy' of the past, calling it the lost decade, and instead wanting change. The hope might be to change the behavior of the north towards better relations, with the insistence that an apology appropriate for the attacks in the most recent past. However, with South Korea holding out aid from the north, questions of the strategic significance of food aid come about, and whilst some in South Korea like the hard line taken with North Korea, others are more concerned with the deterioration of relations, particularly with nuclear weapons thrown into the mix. It is clear that North Korea remains dependent on aid, but will this hard line really work and chance relations with the North, or simply force a stand off, as North Korea takes the lack of aid as a challenge?

Whatever the clash, South Korea has vowed to meet it head on, with the military in South Korea having been criticized for its slow response last year. But will tensions really rise, and is the lack of aid from South Korea really a hard line taken by some, but not by others. South Korea hasn't been the only one hastily holding back from giving aid to the north for political reasons, with the United States worried that any aid provided now will end up being distributed during the mass celebrations next year with the marking of the 100 year birth anniversary of the regime's founder Kim IL-Sung, Shaun Tandon at AFP reports. Such aid would be deployed to prop up the North Korean regime, as a number of conservative law makers in the United States worry. However, others call out the aid as humanitarian, and essential for those in North Korea. One such voice being Jimmy Carter, who after his visit to North Korea, called the withholding food for political reasons a 'human rights violation'. However, whatever gap of aid is left by the United States and South Korea, NGOs and the United Nations seem totally willing to fill, undermining whatever political intentions might be had towards North Korea. The United Nations sent food aid to some of North Korea's most vulnerable on humanitarian grounds, and a Christian organization from South Korea sent multiple truck loads of food threw to North Korea, Sunny Lee from Asia Times reports. This might just lead to a change in friends, rather then learned lessons from North Korea. In the end, stability and continued peace on the Korean Peninsula may still be dependent on not what aid North Korea received, but who it received aid from.

The United States isn't the only player South Korea is keen to see play along however, with the big elephant in the room being China, in the hope of enlisting its help to talk some sense into North Korea. Many however are inclined to try and paint relations between North Korea and China as rosy, with Chinese officials keen to make a point of nothing-to-see-here when Kim Jung IL visited China earlier this year. One such scholar keen to paint a rosy picture is Mu Chunshan, who wrote for The Diplomat that with co-ordination between North Korean and Chinese agents, there must be a strong relationship behind it. But I really wonder, if there is a strong relationship, then why all the secrecy with relation to Kim Jung IL's visit. It remains an open question. I remain unconvinced that China's reformist and old-style communist schools within the party are able to come together on what to do with North Korea, and both are playing a part. But in any case I think that the relationship between China and North Korea is not the one to tell of existing tensions, it is instead the relationship between South Korea and China that should be the focus, and act as the thermometer for the region. China has no interest in playing along with South Korea and starving North Korea of aid. In the end, China is trying to consolidate a want to prevent war on the Korean Peninsula and cause swarms of North Korean refugees to head for the Chinese border, and maintain North Korea. In that being the case, it really comes down to perceptions and intentions.

In the end, future stability towards maintained peace on the Korean Peninsula, in any form, is bound not to aid itself, but the intentions that come with the lack of it, particularly in the case of North Korea. If holding back aid from North Korea by South Korea and the United States are aimed with sparking revolution and toppling the leadership of North Korea, future tensions will mount. South Korea should look to the voice of China to determine where such perceptions from North Korea sit, and how desperate the North Korean situations is. South Korea should increasingly consider that if China's voice continues to be more loud, stern and supportive of the North, then perhaps 'Sunshine' might be necessary to avoid tensions sparking a hot war. China may not be the Communist nation it once was, driven by a cold war mentality of maintaining a fellow 'cat' at any cost. But it will respond with its interests in mind, in wanting to prevent a break down in North Korea. If China continues to aid North Korea, as others don't, its voice will be one seen key to North Korea. China will maintain a voice of assurance, but also reformist, as both schools of thought within China play against North Korea. With that as food for thought, perhaps it should be considered that any change from North Korea in terms of behavior will be dependent on the relationship between China and North Korea, more so then how much South Korea can starve North Korea of aid in the future, particularly if South Korea continues to see the strategic significance of aid for North Korea greater then any other force it can exert on its neighbor to the north.

The Reality Check for a Post-Bin Laden World

I have to admit, when I heard the news that Osama Bin Laden was dead, I was shocked. So much so that I didn't believe it, I thought the news anchor said that "Obama is dead". But I wasn't watching Fox News, and sure enough, as surprising as it was, Osama Bin Laden was dead. But with this comes a lot of questions, firstly how does someone so wanted get to hang around in Pakistan for so long, without anyone noticing? This is the man after all, we were all suspecting would be found if anywhere in the same kind of accommodation that Saddam Hussein was found in: a hole and not in a mansion. If there really was a blind eye cast when it came to Osama being in Pakistan by its government, there is no doubt that tensions will be on the rise in US-Pakistan relations. Already, law makers in Washington seem keen to 'check up' on Pakistan, ensure counter-terrorism really is on their mind, and that all the aid the country receives to fight terror isn't being received blind to the actions that would be required of someone remotely a US ally. But is this really how we should go forward in shaping relations with Pakistan? That wasn't the only thought that came to mind for a Post-Bin Laden World.  The other striking perception amongst american's [6 in 10] that the death of Bin Laden as a 'death of a leader' means time to reconsider the United State's role in Afghanistan, and troop withdraws, as Susan Page reported in the USA TODAY. Are these two related though in reality, or is this a stream line of Osama as a Hitler type figure, that if you kill, the war machine won't know what to do with itself. I am not blindly for the war in Afghanistan, but I just want everyone to take a deep breath, and think for a moment, is that really how this works, or do we need a reality check?

Lets start with the question of Osama and Afghanistan and Ill move on to talk about Pakistan in due course. Recently, Fareed Zakaria emphasized the point that the take down of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan demonstrates a success of the White House focus on counter-terrorism, over troop movements, and investing the efforts against terror with a lack of dynamic to how Al Qaeda will evolve further. It makes sense to not focus just on Afghanistan, I admit, specially when you consider that there remains large potential for recruitment of new terrorists, not just from nations in the Middle East: The biggest Muslim nation in the world after all is Indonesia in Asia. But beyond that geometry lesson, there is the possibility that Osama's death doesn't actually mean as big of a victory of the United States against terror, as they celebrating in the street outside the Oval Office post Osama's death would suggest. I found an interesting article in Foreign Affairs by Brynjar Lia called "Al Qaeda Without Bin Laden" that was quick to point this out, arguing that Bin Laden wasn't the primary reference point when it came to the ideological and religious thought that encourages Jihad and terror. Even the individuals responsible for spreading such ideological propaganda from Al Qaeda remain largely separate from Bin Laden, another point Lia makes. That is a reality of Al Qaeda, the fuel for terror isn't a single individual, but instead grievances such as western military intervention in the Islamic world, which haven't gone away. This leads me to wonder about this 'hit and run' counter terrorism approach of the White House. To continue to swoop in, and take out an Al Qaeda operative, to leave a gap that gets quickly filled. The reality is too, the more you do just that, the more dynamic Al Qaeda will become. Which leads me to my second point: What to do with Pakistan and their efforts against terrorism?

It seems that Pakistan has much to be frustrated about beyond the United States wanting to extend requirements on future aid to the country in the future. Another article from Foreign Affairs, The Pakistan Dilemma, by Shuja Nawaz suggests just that, with continued U.S. drone attacks in the country, one in march which killed 41, putting the government in an awkward position, with its people deeply angered over C.I.A drone attacks on the one hand, and having the U.S. knock on the door on the other to ask more of their efforts against terror. There remains evidence to suggest that Pakistan, wasn't aware of Bin Laden's location, but not taking the time to probe leaves open that question, and challenges US-Pakistan relations. I understand the idea of secrecy, and how important Bin Laden is, but is Pakistan a client state, or an ally of the United States: swooping in with Navy Seals doesn't exactly leave room to grow ones relationship beyond a simple "do as I say". It also creates further mistrust and cracks in Pakistan, as the military grows ever angrier, creating distance between the civilian government with its hands out for U. S. aid and military in Pakistan concerned about drone attacks, as Nawaz hints on. In my mind, this leaves little room for a co-ordinated effort between the United States and Pakistan against terror. Why not instead want to reach out to Pakistan's military, and allow them to conduct their own efforts against terror, it is after all in their own interests to have a nation with less terror, and sustain peace to enhance their economic development, rather than just remain dependent on U.S. aid. The United States should move to consider this, as a long term strategy, because the reality is, they are not going to win an ally with continued drone attacks, specially if the military is potentially thinking: "we'll we could have caught those operatives, without the risk of civilian deaths". Forgive the metaphor, but Pakistan isn't a prostitute that can be brought off, its a nation with its own dynamic interests, fewer of which are pro-terrorism than this leaving Pakistan to answer questions about Osama Bin Laden in their backyard potentially suggests. Pakistan can be co-operated with.

Fareed Zakaria, as do many other academics, law makers, and policy people, as the time to take actions when it comes to Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But the reality is, firstly, I don't see a necessary connection between  Al Qaeda and Afghanistan: keep your eyes on the ball, and be open to a dynamic strategic future, where troops being pulled out of Afghanistan is put on the table in considering whether they need to be there, not which Al Qaeda operative is dead. This kind of proposition heeds not only to the points made above, but the observation that nation-states remain distinct from organizations like Al Qaeda bent on terrorism, a consideration that should be made in the case of Pakistan. As for this counter-terrorism of 'swooping in' and 'getting the bad guy', I really think that we need to grow to consider the dynamic: we don't have a fixed terrorism structure here, we have a dynamic one. There is also the potential that in doing so, you make things worse, rather then better, in the case of Pakistan, but also Al Qaeda - particularly when you loose touch in how the organization will evolve. Fareed Zakaria is a very intelligent academic, but I really worry that all this talk of getting terrorists in this window of opportunity is too trigger happy. Take a deep breath, not to simple give the terrorists room to take one, but instead give room to observe Al Qaeda specially in watching how it moves to fill gaps. For it doing so, one can learn something valuable about Al Qaeda and who to move to make a priority target to undermine the organization further in the future. 

Don't Call My Generation After the End of the Alphabet

Generational issues seem to constantly come up to be left unexplored, but i refuse to leave this can of worms unopened. I am well aware that generations don't like to talk about each other, specially when prescriptions that come with talking about a generation are often generalizations, and sometimes aren't always nice. I experienced this first hand recently, having read an article from Tim Williams at Leader Messenger titled: "Generation-Y Slack Workers". As you can tell from the title, this article amounted to an arm chair take on those born mid-1970s to early 2000s [otherwise known as Millennium Babies] and how they were a lazy generation, who made for poor retailers, and don't know how to work. But in reading this article I reflected on all those days I spend with the grandparents, being told how "back in my day, we worked so hard and you young'n's just don't know". It seems in my mind, the member of the Baby-Boom Generation who wrote the article was getting ahead of himself, this Millennium Generation hasn't even found its spot in the world just yet. I know that the generation who fought in World War Two and lived threw the Great Depression did really take some strife, to say the least [known as the Greatest Generation]. I also know the generations which followed have had to deal with  the Cold War that loomed on [known as the Silent Generation] and finally the generation who had to rebuild the world and re-think the world following the Cold War, and consider themselves self made [the Baby-Boomer Generation]. Whether these proscriptions are fair is one thing, but does the most recent and following generations [Generation x, and Generation y] really deserve such bland and boring names, or am I hoping for too much with my expectation that my generation will amount to be worth more then just a letter towards the end of the alphabet? 

On my surfing of the internet I did find what amounted to some optimism of my generation, participially when it comes to this generation makes new use of the internet. I am just talking about the art of blogging - well kinda - but I am mostly talking about internet tools like Facebook and Amazon, Ebay and Craigslist, not only a new playing field when it comes to communicating but also when it comes to making money. One such article in The Sydney Morning Herald by Sarah Whyte ["Generation Y steps up and shows who's boss"] coining Generation Y as instead Generation E - the Entrepreneurial Generation. This article sees the newest generation increasingly wanting to branch out, selling new products over Ebay for instance, and bring a social aspect that Facebook provides to advertise a product [the article mentions two young men making good money selling leather jackets over Ebay]. Millennium Babies understand the value of the internet, but creating new business opportunities isn't the only way its being used. Almost a month ago now, New Zealand was struck by a large earthquake in Christchurch, and with the devastation being broadcast nationwide many wanted to help, what could they do? Facebook! Within a few days of the disaster 2000 people had signed up to a page on Facebook called "Accommodation for Earthquake Stricken Cantabrians" where fellow New Zealanders offered accommodation and "UC Volunteer Army" where university students could volunteer. How these new internet tools are being utilized is far from amounting to just being narcissistic and simply teeny-pop social, like some older people would have you think. Instead, the internet is increasingly evolving to take a new field to offer a helping hand and do business, a lesson that the Baby-Boomers should take seriously, if they want to hold out retirement just a little bit longer. That isn't the key reason I'm enthusiastic about my generation however. 

As much as this may be Generation E, I think this Generation will increasingly be Generation D - Dealing with Disaster Generation. I was brought to this conclusion, not only reflecting on how this generation was brought to action with Christchurch, but also with relation to the youth in Japan and how they have met the call to action with the recent Tsunami there. A Time Magazine article "Rising to the Challenge" written by Hannah Beech certainly hit home with this point, not only with a what seemed like a waking youth, with unemployed students keen to help in any way they can. This was not only a new generation waking to a natural disaster, but challenges to existed around them, particularly with unemployment so high in Japan with the established Baby-Boomers holding all the posts, the newest generation has been increasingly lost. With this new generation energized, their remains the prospect that the newest generation might strive to ignite Japan's economy, left in stalemate for the last two decades - at least that is the hope the article expresses. It is my suspicion however that the Millennium generation is going to get  use to having to pick up the pieces after a national disaster, specifically when it comes to weather events. With an increasingly dynamics climate turning once in every hundred years events into once in every few, this generation may really have no choice. However, D doesn't just stand for Disaster, but also for Dealing with State Debt. Its clear that a number of western nations continue to stack up large bills they intend on leaving for the generation's that follow - and that means us. That doesn't even mention the fact that with the Baby-Boomer generation retiring, there is going to be more  people living off superannuation then well be paying taxes, which is a recipe for disaster. 

While the newest Millennium Generation and the Baby-Boomers increasingly run along side each other, we have an evolving world increasingly in wake, but also in wait. Because so many of the disaster that rest on the horizon have been created and left to wait by generations past. Challenges economic in nature like Debt, and global like Climate Change, are going to be dealt with by this generation. Not because thats what we decide, but mostly because they will be in our face, and it will be increasingly clear what needs to be done, and that we need to have the audacity to do it. This is where my enthusiasm really does rest, and where I move to recent 'x' and 'y', and move from 'e' and 'd', and instead towards this generation being 'A' at the front of the alphabet. I think this generation is the Audacity Generation. Because having to deal with the challenges put to us, I think this generation would respond: not to the next! We will be an adaptive, innovative, and solution focused bunch. In doing so, I think their remains the prospect that this generation could have a huge achievement on its hands. It should be said tho, that ultimately, what the accomplishments of generation 'y' will be remain for the future to hold. And in that being the case, I think instead generations should name themselves, rather then let the leaving generation remain critical of them with their grandfather complex, and bestow them with their name - and potentially demonstrate their lack of creativity and vision. There remains the prospects for the Millennium Generation and no one should claim to have summed them up so early. Specially when it comes to naming them after the last few letters of the alphabet, don't limit us just yet to a 'y' or an 'x'.  

The Beijing Bubble: Continue the Rise or Ready to Pop?

For some time now, China has been an economy on the boom, maintaining GDP at levels around 10 percent, and soaking up demand for oil, coal, and food as more of China's population move into the middle class and buy cars, own better houses, and do business. This demand has done wonders for countries rich in natural resources - once such example is Australia where China has large holdings in coal, where huge amounts of investment have continued to keep the Australian economy buoyant, even with the recession following the 2008 financial crisis. China's growth is keeping the global economy on its feet. However, many are inclined to wonder if China's growth is really sustainable like has been the case in the past, as real-estate loans come into question. Recently, the government has been ordering stress tests on such loans by China's big banks. The picture is increasingly not looking good with trillions of dollars of loans being put as "questionable repayment capacity" and government officials issuing a statement this week say that "the sustainability of development of China's macro-economy faces uncertainty". As a result, investors have seen downgrades in expectations of investments in China. This has created wide speculation that China may be on the wake of something along the lines of the 2008 financial crisis. But is this really China's symptoms of it being on the edge of something big, or is this simply just a country showing growing pains, but not a financial meltdown around the corner?

Speculations have run rapid that something is brewing, not just with the status of many real-estate loans in China at question, but also with the continued chain of supply of what is being called 'easy' or 'cheap' money, keeping the housing market afloat. Much of this investment has accumulated from the state, where huge investments which were made with the recent 2008 financial crisis in the United States, threatening to dampen growth in China. Interestingly enough though, many are inclined to see this as the key ingredient to how China may be generating a financial housing 'bubble'. One such article was written by Vikram Mansharamani in The Korean Times, and talks about the growth of China's housing market having an intrinsic link to such 'cheap' money, with over-investment from the Chinese government leading to huge amounts of unnecessary consumption and waste. Examples of such have been sighted by others, with Time Magazine pointing that malls seem to exist in China, that with even all the investment it took to make them, remain largely empty of shops. To many this is alarm bells, not only because of the wasted investment, but also because this seems similar to the prime ingredient that many are inclined to point to as causing the 2008 financial crisis in the United States. With the Clinton Administration willing to set up huge funds in banks to help more people buy homes at lower deposit rates, they creating an oversupply of loans, which many see eventually leading to a culture of defaulting that lead to the crisis of 2008. But is Mansharamani really on the mark here, and the same thing is happening in China? Oversupply might be a fair issue at hand, but I think Mansharamani has it wrong here; it isn't the only one, nor is it the most important 'bubble' symptom here.

I remember reading an article in The Economist back before 2008 and the financial crisis happened, that reflected on the huge amount of growth that had happened globally, and considered that recent sparks in inflation might cause a minor blip in growth, as the United States and the worlds markets adjusted to the huge amount of growth. I cannot help think back to that article now with relation on China. Inflation has been astronomical in China as of recent, with consumer prices rising 5.4 percent, according to recent data, the highest ever experienced by the country. Rising prices of fuel and food, with swarming demand, have left prices on a constant rise, and many in China left trying to keep up. Recently, I noted a protest in China of truck drivers, saying they with such high prices of oil they could not afford to do their jobs, and make a profit. Inflation should be the key consideration, because it might make a number of people unable to afford paying their mortgages, whilst also squeezed with increasing food and fuel prices as well. If that happens, we could see a huge amount of defaulting of people who own homes in China, which could lead to fluctuations in house prices and loss for investors in the housing market. But I really wonder if we will see it like we did in the United States, it may be the case that a lot of demand still exists for homes and that any drop in prices would be halted with continued home buying of those who can afford to. There still remains a lot of pressure to own homes, particularly amongst young Chinese men trying to impress their potential wives - which with help of the 'one child policy' - are in the few compared with men, making the expectation that a potential male husband-to-be has a home high.

As far as I'm concerned a few empty malls or over-building of houses doesn't prove that China has a 'bubble' in its real-estate market. With growth that remains unimaginable to many in the United States, there is the possibility that all this building is only access and left empty for the time being, as China's real-estate industry struggles to try and keep ahead of demand from a growing middle class population. But if interest rates go up as the government tightens the supply of the yuan, they are going to have to do something about inflation. Yang Yao in a recent article for Today Online points this out, suggesting that the Chinese authorities need to look to loosen restrictions on imports - particularly in the case of food - and make customs procedures simplier, and try and lower inflation. However, this may not be as easy solution, with China's want to import deflation potentially leading to an export in inflation, as more of global food supply gets clogged with China's demand. All on all, I think whether China's real-estate market goes 'pop' depends on whether inflation is really slowing growth, if their is a 'tug of war' when it comes to the global food market, China could have a real problem on its hand if inflation doesn't slow to the pace of wages. My prediction would be, along the lines of 'The Economists' optimism back in 2008, China will go threw a brief adjacent with inflation. But be warned, like the weather man, I could be wrong. As for if China really does have a 'bubble' on its hands, I think we will really just have to wait and see. Even if this 'Beijing Balloon' is full of helium and continues to rise, eventually all balloons go 'pop'; assuming there is a bubble in China's market that is.  

The Obama Doctrine: "Long Term Policy Change Or Short Term Policy Pitch?"

The recent events in Libya and Ivory Coast have to many woven a new thread on how humanitarian efforts are meant to unfold, and whilst it might be unfair to put the Obama Doctrine on trial just yet, I think we need to take a look at a presidency that which preached such high hopes, specially when it came to foreign policy, and humanitarianism. The Obama Doctrine can be summed up as pretty much everything the Bush Jr. Doctrine wasn't, less about just fighting Islam as a force for evil in the world, and more about winning the hearts and minds of those in Middle Eastern nations. It also means being a fair minded and assertive ally of groups at the throats of each other, specially in the case of Israel and Palestine. And really, all this isn't bad, even with conservatives in the United States quick to suggest that this is a toothless proposal, and that America needs to put troops on the ground when it comes to fighting terror; but the war isn't that black and white, specially when it comes to making democracies out of Muslim nations, so new to the idea, and divided nations along ethnic or religious lines. Those who cry out for action from US forces on the ground, need to go back to Afghanistan and Iraq and count the civilian casualties: that isn't the way to win hearts and minds. It admit there should be a time and a place for troops on the ground tho, saying that he would support those freedom seeking people's of the world, who needed America's hand in his inauguration speech. Just this week tho we have seen how America doesn't necessarily want to follow along with Obama vision for foreign policy, with the burning of the Quran in the United States sparking an uproar in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Alot of Americans are again wondering, "didn't interfering in the Middle East like we are in Libya put us in the mess we had with Afghanistan and creating the monster of Islamic terrorism?" and "why aren't we more focused on issues at home rather then what is going on in Africa or Libya or Qatar?". This really makes we wonder, as much  hope there really is in a lot of what the Obama Doctrine includes, is American really willing to go along with this new type of foreign policy for America, and is the rest of the world really seen any differences in America's way, along the lines of "Hope" and "Change"? 

Take for example what has been going on in the Ivory Coast as an example, and let me explain what I mean. This nations has been threw hell and back in recent months, with a civil war cast of the election of a new leader Alassane Ouattara, and the previous president - Gbagbo - unwilling to step down. The fighting has ensued for some months, and the blood shed has been great, not to mention the atrocities of soldiers taking what the want and raping whomever women they please. Recently tho, attacks of forces loyal to Gbagbo went too far, and having attacked the hotel where United Nations forces were stations, and attacking UN peace keepers protecting civilians, the UN turned from enforcing a cease fire, to taking actions against Gbagbo in the interest in toppling his power, and brining his crimes against his own country to a stop. It didn't take long for French special forces to be called in, and whilst their role was paved as simply support, its clear that they were involved in capturing Gbagbo and letting the democratically elected leader Ouattara take charge in the Ivory Coast. He was quick to say that all those whom have committed crimes will be brought to justice, and it didn't take long for the fighting to stop, with images of Gbagbo seen wiping himself with a towel on national television putting the nail in the coffin for the movement in support of him. But that isn't the happy ending of this story folks. Because I am sure there were many watching the same pictures in Libya, and Qatar, caught with similar atrocities and the same ruthless type dictator were thinking "hey, what about us?". Hillary Clinton issued a statement saying that this specks to dictators all around the world, but really does it, specially considering it has taken so long, with the United States and United Nations doing nothing? I'm sure instead the rebels in Libya were thinking "so really we have to wait until Qaddafi starts blowing NATO aircraft out of the sky, until the United Nations will take action against Qaddafi". And the dictators of Libya, Syria, and Qatar took away the lesson that: "Ok, as long as we don't attack UN forces when and if they arrive, then we are fine". Many might also be looking at the strong connections that Alassane Ouattara has with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and that really, this humanitarian demonstration amounts to a re-invention of colonialism, just in a different form: particularly considering how French special forces were involved. Now I know, as I am sure it is apparent to you, that America isn't the one in the wrong here, but I am concerned that instead of doing something and leading the way, America is not leading, and now showing with example, cause all this leaves me thinking: What on earth happened to winning hearts and minds? 

I know I have a habit of painting these recent posts on the Middle East with interpretation, and trying to understand what others are thinking, but too often I see a lack of this, we want to see how what is happening in the world is relevant to me, in the United States or Britain, but really what about these other Middle Eastern countries? I am not trying to encourage terrorists, nor am I trying to say it how it is, I am trying to example, this is how people will take what is going on, cause this is what it looks like. No one can doubt there is a huge amount of audacity in what Obama has proposed, but really does it amount to what the world and America wants, it seems in reality these are two separate things, which is the contradiction of thoughts and minds on the one hand, and sitting on the side lines trying to tell it like you want it to seem on the other. I know that there might be those who reflected on America using Afghanistan as a spring board to fight the Russians and Communism way back when, which sparked the extremism the world is currently having to put up with. But in reality, those who point that out, should really go listen: because I suspect the most frustrating part was when American assistance to fight the Russians packed up, and left, and those in Afghanistan who fought, felt portrayed and used. Toppling Qaddafi's leadership might be in a way making Libya a spring board for democracy, and make America worried they cannot commit in the long term, but this Administration needs to have a think: You cannot win the hearts and minds of anyone from the sidelines! This kind of sidelining, really creates a bleak picture for a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize; makes him look more and more like the Clinton Presidency with a failure to act in Bosnia after the Black Hawk Down embarrassment of how to enforce humanitarianism. America can build on its fear of interfering in African countries, and Middle Eastern ones, and  a want for regional bodies like the African Union to call the shots, and let America keep its aid dollars at home, but really now is the time to lead. The hearts and minds are still out there, and still waiting, in Libya, Qatar; waiting, and wondering: "Short Term Policy Change or Long Term Policy Pitch?". Because a new administration can pitch all they like, but they should remember: its the action that really counts. 

Operation "Confused Intentions": The No-Fly Zone over Libya

The operations over Libya for many paint a re-newed picture of good old international solidarity against human atrocities, with Qaddafi's forces having attacked Libyan civilians with ground forces and air strikes, the United Nations Security Council switched into gear to put through a resolution allowing the enforcement of a no-fly zone over Libya, to stop continued attacked by forces attempting to crush rebellions in the country with brutal force. Within hours of leaders meeting in Paris, did air strikes from coalition forces take place, with the US and British Navy launching tomahawk after tomahawk [112 in total just in the first few hours of strikes], it didn't take too many days for the coalition to declare that Libya's air force was 'all gone'. However, is this really all about setting an example for other nations in the Middle East with their own rebellions to crush, who might seek out similar measures specially if their own domestic uprisings begin to take hold and make their leaders situation desperate. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and other nations like Syria, have all been occupied with their own uprisings, and yet have also supported the idea of opposing Qaddafi, preventing this operation from being an entirely western one, with Qatar even committing four fighter jets to the efforts over Libya. Whilst Arab support for the operation over Libya does make it clearly different from Iraq, or Afghanistan,  [not only because NATO rather then the United States is now in charge] there are however still questions about the true intentions of all this support for the no-fly zone over Libya. With so much frustration having been aimed at Arab leaders like those in Saudi Arabia from Qaddafi [having been accused of being western puppets] it does bring forth the question of how much of this is about human rights and setting an example, and how much is about just getting rid of an annoying Qaddafi who is certainly distasteful to other leaders in the Middle East?

There remains one big reason that the leadership elsewhere in the Middle East may begin to take a role in what is happening in Libya, and that comes down to the need for forces on the ground. If pro-Qaddafi forces occupy cities, it remains difficult for coalition forces to launch attacks, not only with the looming possibility of inflicting casualties on members of the public, but also identifying rebel forces from Qaddafi forces [not all of Qaddafi forces are in tanks, and visa versa]. Bahrain, a small pin prick nation on a map of the Middle East, right next to a much larger Saudi Arabia, experienced external forces from its neighbor recently. With Bahrain in turmoil as the pro-reform revolution took hold in the nation, the royal family in the country called an emergency, and ground forces from Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were quick to respond. Their arrival didn't mean a blood bath, but there were civilian casualties and it remains uncertain as to whether foreign troops were used, and involved. There has already been consideration that a coalition led no-fly zone over Libya may not be as effective as thought, which was one of the main reasons why the United States was reluctant to support the resolution in the first place. If foreign troops are eventually needed, its certain they aren't going to be from the United States, with the White House already being questioned from the current involvement of US forces, having been forced to spell out: 'No US troops on the ground'. With the French, and the deficit concerned British caught in a similar position, any ground forces on the ground in Libya may have to be from the Middle East, particularly if the coalition want to keep this from looking like another Iraq and Afghanistan and potential a western 'oil snatch' like some in the Middle East would believe. While Libya does have neighbors like Egypt, with a better track record for dealing appropriately with public uprisings, they too many be counted out instead needed to maintain stability in their own nations, rather then helping out with the situation in Libya.

If things really do get messy from here, where will the coalition look to go next with a no-fly zone in place and the violence continuing. And even worse, what happens if rebel forces in Libya make an advance, and don't take the humanitarian message to ear, and take comparable restraint to how pro-Qaddafi forces did when he took Libyan cities. What would the coalition do then? It might be that the rebels are a ground force, lacking aircraft [not that it matters, cause no-fly means no-fly for everyone, the jet sent up this week to test the no-fly zone by military forces supporting Qaddafi discovered that] and the military weapons to launch the same indiscriminate attacks that pro-Qaddafi forces did, but whilst taking back cities where sentiment towards Qaddafi is still favorable, attacks on members of the public could become frequent, depending on how divided the nation truly is over the transition. In the end, letting events play out on the ground would send the wrong message, as though the no-fly zone was there all along to give rebel forces the upper hand, a call they may do anything with, specifically if they see the no-fly zone in place against Qaddafi, as the involvement of anti-Qaddafi nations would indicate. Whether this unlikely turn of events plays out [there remains indication that rebel forces, do understand, that if they are do take back cities, they have to do it without bloodshed and civilian atrocities - these are their fellow citizens after all, and Libya may not be as divided as this play out of events suggests] there should be concern, for the current plan needs to incorporate the future, and you cannot just slap the UN slicker on forces from Qatar, Syria, Morocco, or Saudi Arabia, and suddenly make them angels, nor can you enforce a no-fly zone over Libya and expect to make angels out of rebel forces. Having troops called in may be something that doesn't happen, but if it does, the coalition needs to have a big think - considering what options they have ruled off the table already - cause from the looks of who they have involved themselves with, they could have some serious confused intentions on their hands, and not left with options if things turn bad from here.     

All Crude Things Must Come to an End: The Oil Choke

The recent stir up in the Middle East has left oil prices in a rise, and left many asking the question of why after all these years the world hasn't begun to truly move on from crude oil. The United States in particular has maintained a dependency on oil throughout shocks like those caused by the Gulf War and the profit hungry embargo of OPEC [which was basically when a whole bunch of oil producing nations got together and said 'stuff you world' and decided to rise prices together, giving the world no option but to pay more for oil] and even the call of a number of presidents [going back consecutively to Ford through Carter up to the present day] to end the United States dependency on foreign oil [in fact ever sense the United States ran their own oil reserves largely dry] not the mention the destruction of drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico showing the true danger to the environment not with a supposed hypothetical 'global warming' world but instead with such a disastrous oil spill which has scared the region. What is it going to take to have a post-oil world? However, the continued need to do something with the entrenched procrastination to do instead nothing raises the question of whether oil will be like coal, in use until its reserves are truly burnt out, as was the case for the first industrialized nations to utilize it [Britain and the United States] and those nations that still hold reserves [China]. Whilst Oil prices go up and down, demand fluctuates with it and drives the price back to a state of equilibrium to the advantage of the demander and the lazy fat cows of oil consumption. This means that investment has accumulated slowly to fund alternatives, but has forcibly accumulated with 80 billion dollars from the Recovery Act 2009 going into such projects in the United States. But yet it still seems the private sector still lags behind in doing anything about this problem, instead willing to bite the bullet. If we don't move on now, how much longer does the world have to procrastinate before the end of oil is forced upon us when we finally do scrape the bottom of the barrel of oil reserves?

One thing is for certain: the world doesn't have forever to procrastinate like an undergraduate writing his first research essay! Oil is whats left of plant materials that have remained crushed under layers of the earth for some time. Most of the worlds current oil reserves were created million of years ago, with a process of chemical reactions occurring as vegetation which died off in extinction periods is crushed and with the heat of the earth turns into oil over time. Beyond the complicated explanation of where oil comes from, the short of it is that oil on the planet is limited, with this long process that oil goes through to become oil meaning that there is no chance of us creating crude oil out of thin air if we run out. A gentlemen however whom goes by the name of Hubbert provides an avid source of the limits of oil, but also what has turned out to be some very accurate predictions. In 1956 Hubbert predicted accurately that oil production in the United States would peak in the 1970s, and that world production of oil would peak around 2006-2010 which many oiled-obsessed-working-for-BP-and-getting-paid-too-much-Geologists are convinced is the case. What does that mean? We'll, if you take what is called a bell curve, and look at its peak [right at the top] that means that it where a lot of people is convinced is the most oil the world will ever produce now is there, and that global production is going to go down from here. All this leads the end of oil to be 2050, which is kind of a way away, but lets speculate for a moment, what if that number is wrong. Many are inclined to argue that oil reserves will last a lot longer than 2050, but why not instead that margin of error make it sooner rather than later. I am not one for conspiracy theories, nor am I one to stir the pot, but what if we run out of oil sooner then we think?

No amount of speculation will prepare us, and if the price spikes the transition from oil may cost more then those willing to hold on to their investment dollars realize. Instead, the final oil shock may be a choker, with a rush to make a transition from oil a burden on a number of developing countries, but also on developed countries dependent on cheap oil to make plastic, create petrol and jet fuel, and you know keep your car going, but also dependent on whats left of oil to keep research on alternatives to oil going. Thats right, you read that, research to alternatives to oil need oil until we move into a post-oil world. It might sounds slightly crazy, but all these bio-fuels, and hydrogen fuel, as a source of energy and alternative to oil, is dependent on oil to go threw this process where they are created, which involves large machinery for material production, mining and transportation which until we have a viable alternative to oil up and running is still dependent on oil to produce this alternative fuel source, whatever the world will move on to being addicted to next. This means that the biggest cost to research, will be later rather then sooner, and will be huge if oil comes to an end sooner than everyone suspects. It may also be the case that alternatives to oil may not be able to replace oil as we know it in all and every regard, creating an extra dilemma for a post-oil world. Hubbert and many geologists however don't base their time limits on estimation, we have a rough idea of how much oil is left. But that doesn't mean that if they are right we are safe, oil is still running out from here; production is going to go down, and that means prices are going to go up, unless the world truly begins to move on. The process might be long, but the best time to start is sooner rather then later, which means that governments [particularly in the developing world, but also in the developed] and private investors need to continue to fund research into alternatives to oil, and reduce the pain of a transition that could come just as much sooner than later; we shouldn't need Gaddafi's madness to remind us of that. The world needs to begin to move on from oil, all crude things must eventually come to an end, and the world cannot continue to flirt with oil addiction forever. Otherwise, like the wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico from now to just under a year ago, they might find themselves in for a nasty oil choke.