Have you ever wondered how far Enviro-Libs would take their political or social agendas? With the news of the recent climate research unit hacking at the University of East Anglia, also commonly known as “Climate-Gate”, and with the constant flow of information showing us that global warming is a fraud or hoax based on cooked figures and data; it’s astonishing that the main stream media outlets have not reported the true findings to expose the hoax for what it is. Green advocates are supposed to be for a clean environment, so why do they peddle this garbage agenda onto everyone?
26-Jan-2010
03-Jun-2009
By Keith Sipmann
Without a doubt the two most popular international disputes that the United Nations is dealing with currently are Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. Both issues have been referred to and are being handled by the United Nations Security Council and General assembly. The two cases are very similar in that both nations have routinely violated United Nations Security Council resolutions or bans against the development of Nuclear weapons; however both situations will not have the same outcome.
Iran, which is governed by a radical Islamist regime in Tehran, and ultimately ruled by a clerical dictatorship, will most likely be harder to control through United Nation sanctions and Security Council resolutions because of its ultimate goal to annihilate Israel and because of its alliances with countries like North Korea, Syria, and especially Russia and China. Russia and China routinely cause problems when the United States or European Union purposes stiffer sanctions against Iran. They have historically provided diplomatic protection by opposing tougher sanction and rigid United Nations resolutions against Iran. This diplomatic protection is accomplished because both Iranian friendly nations weld United Nations Security Council veto power effectively canceling out any potential UN, US or EU strategy against Iran.
The North Korean dispute has more of a chance to get resolved at some point by the United States or United Nations than the Iran crisis, albeit that resolve will most likely be only temporary. North Korea isolated from the world and ruled by its version of a communist dynasty, has demonstrated a behavior of intimidation and provocation throughout the last 60 years with the intent to frighten the world and receive more humanitarian aid as a result. Iran’s threats seem to be more motivated by radical religious views and hatred; whereas North Korea’s nuclear ambitions are seen as a way for it to protect its sovereignty amid signs of preparations for naming leader Kim Jong Il’s successor. Unlike Iran, North Korea has not vowed to destroy a race of people or fulfill a religious prophecy; therefore their aims for nuclear power have been described to be more on the side of a political bargaining chip for aid and international recognition of power rather than true aims of destruction.
Another reason that many foreign policy experts feel that the North Korean crisis has a more hopeful United Nations resolution is that Russia and China have recently joined with Western powers and the rest of the world to voice strong opposition to North Korea’s uranium enrichment program, the rogue nations recent 20 kiloton underground nuclear explosion and their threat to launch a long-range missile toward Hawaii (Lederer, Associated Press).
In the broad view of international crisis, North Korea still has much more to lose than Iran does. Other than the backing off on its nuclear ambitions which are causing an international conflict and creating an unbalanced region, North Korea doesn’t have much to negotiate with to acquire needed resources. It is much more dependent on its surrounding nations and foreign aid. Iran on the other hand is not isolated from the world economy and has a strong strangle hold on several nations energy supplies.
The new tougher sanctions that are being imposed on North Korea by the United States may or may not work to help the crisis. Only time will tell. History has shown us that past sanctions have not worked on radical regimes, but many believe that this new direction will eventually lead to bilateral talks with North Korea.
© American Political Analysis
09-May-2009
Global Governance
Category : International Relations, US Government
NEW YORK, NY - The United Nations
Global governance may sound like a something out of a conspiracy theorists handbook, or some kind of new world order or global government solution geared up by global elitists to handle today’s growing international conflicts, but it’s not. Global governance deals with the interaction, action and inaction of international political actors and non-governmental institutions, like the United Nations. These institutions have goals that are aimed at regulating behaviors and actions within sovereign nation states and regions when those behaviors and actions have a direct impact on more than one state or region, especially when there is no power of enforcing compliance or regulation. Global governance or world governance is a response to the acceleration of globalization and the interdependencies that the world has. Global governance defines the elaboration and collaboration between nation states and regions of regulations within the same global scale.
Our current form of global governance, mainly organized by the institutions like the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, the World Trade Organization and other various international non-governmental actors, are used as affective tools in many regions with regard to the economy, peace, security and conflict resolution. However they are equally ineffective in other regions for the same reasons. This is mainly due to the instability and weak structure of our growing and changing global world. True global governance is only possible when all states within a region abide by the same international laws or regulations that the institution has set. Today we have several rogue nations with extremist regimes at the helm, like Iran and North Korea for example, that cannot be expected or trusted to follow the laws and regulations that have been set by the international community. In fact many of our world conflicts have started because those rouge states have not abided by many of those regulations due to the political ambitions or objectives of that nation’s regime.
World conflicts have changed drastically in form and intensity since the boom of globalization. The main parties within the United Nations who have the right of veto are more or less responsible for most of arms sales throughout the world. Proposals for governance of peace, security and conflict resolution should really begin by addressing ways to prevent the causes of these conflicts, whether they are economic, social, religious, political or territorial. Instead of a reactive approach to world conflicts, these global governing bodies should start to take a more proactive approach to world issues.
In the past our system of global governance has had its main challenges with the actions or in-actions of nation states in regards to territorial boundaries or land disputes, the world economy, globalization, human rights, war, etc. Today the institutions of global governance have new challenges to face such as terrorism and the increase of weapons of mass destruction within rouge nation states. These issues are much more complex to deal with because they often are not associated with sovereign nation states that can be sanctioned or regulated. Many of these threats are orchestrated by non-governmental organizations or groups of extremist non-political actors like theTaliban, al-Qa’ida, Hezbollah, Egyptian Islamic Jihad and so on (International Summit on Democracy).
Sovereign nations, like the United States may be able to make a great impact in the world today, but as the world continues to experience an increase in the evolution of the human society and globalization, only the strengths achieved through the international collaboration of several nation states and non-political institutions will be able to handle the new global crisis and developing threats.
