This fascinating NY Times article on a new project to develop geothermal energy in the US brings to mind a lot of questions:
How safe is this really?
If this is the first time we are drilling so deep into the Earth, how can anyone say for sure that it's safe?
What are the environmental costs of this kind of operation? Presumably they are much lower than extracting hydrocarbons, but still?
What to do if such operations always induce earthquakes that result in constant minor property damage?
I'm all for cleaner ways of producing energy from back home and doing as much as we can to reduce dependence on foreign oil. Thanks to the geopolitical game and low prices for hydrocarbons, new infrastructure is not being built to meet Europe's and the US's energy needs.
I'm especially happy to hear about strong investments in clean energy that are not ethanol, as producing it also produces massive carbon emissions.
But what happens when you start breaking up the ground beneath your feet?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Women and resistance in Iran
Finally, this thoughtful post from Salon's Tracy Clark-Flory, is a thoughtful reaction to the shock of Westerners that women are out on the streets of Tehran protesting right alongside their brothers.
It also reflects a little on armchair activism. I myself have mixed feelings on the subject.
As per my eariler post, cliches about young women coming out from behind the veil drive me nuts. The Middle East and Islam do not the monopoly on misogyny, and women there, as in all societies, have resisted repression and found ways to work the system throughout history.
Though I do not find any of these women to be particularly good role models, how is it that patriarchal societies such as Turkey, Pakistan, India and others managed to have female heads of state, and the US has yet to have one?
Every society, and every movement, are inherently full of contradictions.
It also reflects a little on armchair activism. I myself have mixed feelings on the subject.
As per my eariler post, cliches about young women coming out from behind the veil drive me nuts. The Middle East and Islam do not the monopoly on misogyny, and women there, as in all societies, have resisted repression and found ways to work the system throughout history.
Though I do not find any of these women to be particularly good role models, how is it that patriarchal societies such as Turkey, Pakistan, India and others managed to have female heads of state, and the US has yet to have one?
Every society, and every movement, are inherently full of contradictions.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Do the right thing
Some are calling on President Obama to issue harsh statements condemning election fraud in Iran.
This would be a mistake.
Taking a hard line on Iran has produced no results thus far, and it gives the like of President Ahmedinejad plenty of propaganda. It also stokes popular anger at the West among Iranians, as they feel ignored, oppressed and persecuted by a hypocritical world power.
The issues of dignity and pride are much more important than most in the West realize. Being preached to be former colonial powers, powers that caused the world financial crisis, and who brazenly violated their own laws to fight terrorism at any cost is something which only drives people further from us, not towards.
Don't confuse protest and popular anger at a domestic leader with support for the West. Many who stand up and fight for rights, against tyranny and corruption, also have deep anger towards the United States and sometimes other powers.
The events in Iran have inspired many misinformed articles with superficial analyses written with no regional understanding.
The US and Europe should not meddle in this matter. This is up to Iranians, and any support for the opposition from us will only serve Khamenai and Ahmedinejad.
I do have one question though - why in the world did the authorities not wait until enough time had passed for the votes to be counted before announcing a predetermined result?
This would be a mistake.
Taking a hard line on Iran has produced no results thus far, and it gives the like of President Ahmedinejad plenty of propaganda. It also stokes popular anger at the West among Iranians, as they feel ignored, oppressed and persecuted by a hypocritical world power.
The issues of dignity and pride are much more important than most in the West realize. Being preached to be former colonial powers, powers that caused the world financial crisis, and who brazenly violated their own laws to fight terrorism at any cost is something which only drives people further from us, not towards.
Don't confuse protest and popular anger at a domestic leader with support for the West. Many who stand up and fight for rights, against tyranny and corruption, also have deep anger towards the United States and sometimes other powers.
The events in Iran have inspired many misinformed articles with superficial analyses written with no regional understanding.
The US and Europe should not meddle in this matter. This is up to Iranians, and any support for the opposition from us will only serve Khamenai and Ahmedinejad.
I do have one question though - why in the world did the authorities not wait until enough time had passed for the votes to be counted before announcing a predetermined result?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Africa could power Europe
German company Munich RE is looking to raise funds for a project that would power Europe through solar energy generated in the Sahara desert.
Apparently some think it is not a good idea to place solar panels in a potentially unstable part of the world. I would think, however, that the infrastructure would not be as heavy, need as many personnel, and be cheaper to maintain.
Not to mention that most hydrocarbons, with their huge infrastructures, come from unstable or potentially unstable parts of the world. Algeria provided 15% of Europe's gas imports in 2008, and it is more reliable than Russia, which supplied 40% of all gas imports to Europe in 2008.
Tunisia is a rather stable country, and AQ in Libya has been totally unable to establish an effective organization there.
I don't know enough about the technical aspects of this or what the costs of the equipment, infrastructure and maintenance would be. However it still seems like a good idea to me.
Apparently some think it is not a good idea to place solar panels in a potentially unstable part of the world. I would think, however, that the infrastructure would not be as heavy, need as many personnel, and be cheaper to maintain.
Not to mention that most hydrocarbons, with their huge infrastructures, come from unstable or potentially unstable parts of the world. Algeria provided 15% of Europe's gas imports in 2008, and it is more reliable than Russia, which supplied 40% of all gas imports to Europe in 2008.
Tunisia is a rather stable country, and AQ in Libya has been totally unable to establish an effective organization there.
I don't know enough about the technical aspects of this or what the costs of the equipment, infrastructure and maintenance would be. However it still seems like a good idea to me.
Eliminating Sovereignty
Popular unrest has not lead to more accountability, but, it seems, less thus far in Russia. Even as that state comes under more and more economic pressure, it is getting ever more heavy handed.
The Russian Constitutional Court's directive this week to 11 of its "ethnic republics" ordered them to eliminate all references in their constitutions to "sovereignty".
For a short piece from the poitn of view of a Tartar former official, see here.
For a more general article about the Constitutional Court decision, see here.
The Russian Constitutional Court's directive this week to 11 of its "ethnic republics" ordered them to eliminate all references in their constitutions to "sovereignty".
For a short piece from the poitn of view of a Tartar former official, see here.
For a more general article about the Constitutional Court decision, see here.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Cliches, cliches
One thing that drives me crazy in Western media is the constant surprise when we see an example of a woman in the Middle East that is not clad in black robes from head to foot.
I was excited to see this article on Salon.com from Der Spiegal, but I was quickly disappointed.
While Zahra Rahnavard is certainly an interesting woman, she is not the first pious Muslim woman to stand up a corrupt and self-righteous regime by any means.
We are so fixated on the veil.
This excerpt shows unfamiliarity with the myriad styles of veiling in Iran, where many women show a few inches of hair and sometimes much more, and wear make-up, as well as colorful scarves, which are sometimes simply draped over the head and tied with a loose not. It is also well known that Iranian women dress as they please under those long robes, which they can take off at home or safe inside their friends homes.
'When Rahnavard arrived before Sunday's press conference, she was wearing a colorful headscarf and heavy make-up, a violation of rules in Iran. A denim shirt could be seen at the sleeves of her chador.'
Of course, news organizations love to show file photos of women in oppressive chadors, and veils, but often if you watch their television footage there are many women in the back ground, out of focus, who do not look this way.
Ulrike even quotes an Iranian beautician who makes this point:
'"Iranian women are self confident, sexy and intelligent," says Mahin as she massages a client's face. The rest of the world doesn't perceive this, she says. Instead it thinks of the image of the oppressed woman in a chador.'
There are many reasons for covering in one form or another, and many, many, many, different ways of dressing in the Muslim world. Muslim women are just as intelligent and diverse as we, and they make conscious choices. Yes, some are most certainly coerced or forced upon them, but like any human being they adapt and assert their power in very different ways that get very little attention in our media.
Don't reduce what this woman is doing to her make-up or her flowered head scarf.
On a related note, here is an excellent deconstruction of a picture taken in the aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006. Do these women look like the pictures they usually show from Hizbullah territory, or Arab countries in general?
I was excited to see this article on Salon.com from Der Spiegal, but I was quickly disappointed.
While Zahra Rahnavard is certainly an interesting woman, she is not the first pious Muslim woman to stand up a corrupt and self-righteous regime by any means.
We are so fixated on the veil.
This excerpt shows unfamiliarity with the myriad styles of veiling in Iran, where many women show a few inches of hair and sometimes much more, and wear make-up, as well as colorful scarves, which are sometimes simply draped over the head and tied with a loose not. It is also well known that Iranian women dress as they please under those long robes, which they can take off at home or safe inside their friends homes.
'When Rahnavard arrived before Sunday's press conference, she was wearing a colorful headscarf and heavy make-up, a violation of rules in Iran. A denim shirt could be seen at the sleeves of her chador.'
Of course, news organizations love to show file photos of women in oppressive chadors, and veils, but often if you watch their television footage there are many women in the back ground, out of focus, who do not look this way.
Ulrike even quotes an Iranian beautician who makes this point:
'"Iranian women are self confident, sexy and intelligent," says Mahin as she massages a client's face. The rest of the world doesn't perceive this, she says. Instead it thinks of the image of the oppressed woman in a chador.'
There are many reasons for covering in one form or another, and many, many, many, different ways of dressing in the Muslim world. Muslim women are just as intelligent and diverse as we, and they make conscious choices. Yes, some are most certainly coerced or forced upon them, but like any human being they adapt and assert their power in very different ways that get very little attention in our media.
Don't reduce what this woman is doing to her make-up or her flowered head scarf.
On a related note, here is an excellent deconstruction of a picture taken in the aftermath of the Israel-Lebanon war in 2006. Do these women look like the pictures they usually show from Hizbullah territory, or Arab countries in general?
MENDing the Niger Delta
MEND, or the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, is a fascinating terrorist group. It is not separatist or religious, but has the seemingly altruistic demand that the notoriously corrupt Nigerian government reinvest revenues from the significant amounts of oil extracted from the region for development as well as cleaning up the environmental damaged caused by oil spills and the work around oil infrastructure.
The exact origins of the group are not well understood. They emerged in force in 2006 and have shown an enormous capacity to learn and conduct highly effective attacks, even on maritime facilities at least 75 miles out to sea.
As far as I'm aware, only Iraq has suffered a more severe disruption of oil extraction and transport, and the situation there is improving. Nigeria's coast is also now the second most dangerous after Somalia's.
MEND has managed to reduce Nigerian oil output by more than 25% - and the organization is conducting more daring attacks all the time.
In general, though security around hydrocarbon infrastructure is generally high, there is not a significant risk of disruption. Attacking these facilities takes a high degree of planning, organization and skill. Attacking maritime oil platforms in particular takes a specific skill set. Al Qaeda has not developed these skils among its fighters to date, and therefore has been trying to co-opt Somali pirates, though they do not seem to have yet been successful in this regard. It is worth noting though that Al Qaeda justifies attempts to damage energy infrastructure simply to force hydrocarbon firms and governments to spend enormous amounts of money on security measures. This is one of their forms of 'economic jihad'.
MEND however has continued improving its skills. Attacks thought to be linked to Niger Delta militants are occurring in Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon. Security in the Gulf of Guinea is compromised, and this is a major source of oil supplies for the global market.
Deputy oil minister Odein Ajumogobia told VOA, "Nigeria has a production capacity of 3.2 million barrels a day. Today, we are down to about less than half of that in terms of production. Over one million barrels are shut in as a direct result of security issues in the Niger Delta. That is something that should concern all of us."
MEND eschews any religious or other motivation, and recently informed the US, after apparently false claims by the government, that it faces no danger from MEND.
Oil workers however have been warned to leave or be subject to attack.
Industry and security sources told Reuters that "it is virtually impossible to fully protect hundreds of kilometers of pipeline running through remote and largely unpopulated areas."
MEND has also been known to hire members of organized crime for their skills.
Oil firms may not be swayed by the concerns of human rights activists or environmentalists, but working to ensure security and environmental protection around project areas helps everyone's security. It can even improve the overall security for local communities and encourage development, as road development for the BTC crews the Turkish jandarma guarding the pipeline meant village roads were paved and kept passable year round, when previously they had been impassable in the winter.
When oil firms stop claiming they have no responsibility for the actions of government personal that kill, extort and otherwise exploit local populations, they ultimately reduce the security of their investments, as no one has any incentive to keep it safe. In the case of Nigeria, organized criminals steal oil, which funds other criminal activity, and lines the pockets of particular figures in the government. They have no incentive to pursue meaningful change.
When oil firms step up to meet this challenge, they won't find themselves practically at war just to extract a fraction of the oil they would be able to in a truly secure environment, and they would even save on lawsuits, and particularly on the smaller need for security measures.
The exact origins of the group are not well understood. They emerged in force in 2006 and have shown an enormous capacity to learn and conduct highly effective attacks, even on maritime facilities at least 75 miles out to sea.
As far as I'm aware, only Iraq has suffered a more severe disruption of oil extraction and transport, and the situation there is improving. Nigeria's coast is also now the second most dangerous after Somalia's.
MEND has managed to reduce Nigerian oil output by more than 25% - and the organization is conducting more daring attacks all the time.
In general, though security around hydrocarbon infrastructure is generally high, there is not a significant risk of disruption. Attacking these facilities takes a high degree of planning, organization and skill. Attacking maritime oil platforms in particular takes a specific skill set. Al Qaeda has not developed these skils among its fighters to date, and therefore has been trying to co-opt Somali pirates, though they do not seem to have yet been successful in this regard. It is worth noting though that Al Qaeda justifies attempts to damage energy infrastructure simply to force hydrocarbon firms and governments to spend enormous amounts of money on security measures. This is one of their forms of 'economic jihad'.
MEND however has continued improving its skills. Attacks thought to be linked to Niger Delta militants are occurring in Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon. Security in the Gulf of Guinea is compromised, and this is a major source of oil supplies for the global market.
Deputy oil minister Odein Ajumogobia told VOA, "Nigeria has a production capacity of 3.2 million barrels a day. Today, we are down to about less than half of that in terms of production. Over one million barrels are shut in as a direct result of security issues in the Niger Delta. That is something that should concern all of us."
MEND eschews any religious or other motivation, and recently informed the US, after apparently false claims by the government, that it faces no danger from MEND.
Oil workers however have been warned to leave or be subject to attack.
Industry and security sources told Reuters that "it is virtually impossible to fully protect hundreds of kilometers of pipeline running through remote and largely unpopulated areas."
MEND has also been known to hire members of organized crime for their skills.
Oil firms may not be swayed by the concerns of human rights activists or environmentalists, but working to ensure security and environmental protection around project areas helps everyone's security. It can even improve the overall security for local communities and encourage development, as road development for the BTC crews the Turkish jandarma guarding the pipeline meant village roads were paved and kept passable year round, when previously they had been impassable in the winter.
When oil firms stop claiming they have no responsibility for the actions of government personal that kill, extort and otherwise exploit local populations, they ultimately reduce the security of their investments, as no one has any incentive to keep it safe. In the case of Nigeria, organized criminals steal oil, which funds other criminal activity, and lines the pockets of particular figures in the government. They have no incentive to pursue meaningful change.
When oil firms step up to meet this challenge, they won't find themselves practically at war just to extract a fraction of the oil they would be able to in a truly secure environment, and they would even save on lawsuits, and particularly on the smaller need for security measures.
Monday, June 15, 2009
EU insists on commercial approach to Central Asian gas
If this is true, it seems unbelievably naive.
Ahto Lobjakas writes that the EU insists market forces drive commercial development of the gas industries and pipelines coming from Central Asia to Europe.
"The EU still views reaching out to the Caspian region as, first and foremost, a commercial undertaking. The bloc's officials appear sincerely to believe that the free interplay of market forces will obviate the need for political intervention."
This completely ignores the fact of Russian and Chinese willingness to offer massive investment or aid to countries that are willing to play ball with them and not work the West. If the EU continues this way, it will forever be dependent on a belligerent and prideful energy supplier.
The soft power of Russia, and especially China, in the development game is increasing. These governments can offer loans and grants, build infrastructure cheaply (China even supplies its own labourers), and most of all, do not attach troublesome conditions of transparency and human rights to their assistance.
Of course in the CIS, Russia is not exactly a soft power, but more of a bully.
But the EU seems to be ignoring this as it maintains its stance that market forces drive Central Asian gas development.
"These high-minded sentiments presuppose a level playing field -- which simply does not exist. If the EU avoids political involvement, it risks treating as abstractions very concrete geopolitical interests. Inevitably, the interests of the strong will prevail over those of the weak. The EU itself, as a player, is consigning itself to fighting for its interests with one hand tied behind its back."
Russia is trying to maintain its stranglehold over most of the Central Asian gas supply, the export of which is almost entirely controls thanks to Soviet-era infrastructure, geography, and a lack of funds in most of the countries for even maintaining existing energy infrastructure, let alone building more.
The EU needs to wake up and start making some hard choices. Things are unlikely to change much as long as Italy, France and Germany keep defending Russia and bowing to pressure from the Kremlin.
Ahto Lobjakas writes that the EU insists market forces drive commercial development of the gas industries and pipelines coming from Central Asia to Europe.
"The EU still views reaching out to the Caspian region as, first and foremost, a commercial undertaking. The bloc's officials appear sincerely to believe that the free interplay of market forces will obviate the need for political intervention."
This completely ignores the fact of Russian and Chinese willingness to offer massive investment or aid to countries that are willing to play ball with them and not work the West. If the EU continues this way, it will forever be dependent on a belligerent and prideful energy supplier.
The soft power of Russia, and especially China, in the development game is increasing. These governments can offer loans and grants, build infrastructure cheaply (China even supplies its own labourers), and most of all, do not attach troublesome conditions of transparency and human rights to their assistance.
Of course in the CIS, Russia is not exactly a soft power, but more of a bully.
But the EU seems to be ignoring this as it maintains its stance that market forces drive Central Asian gas development.
"These high-minded sentiments presuppose a level playing field -- which simply does not exist. If the EU avoids political involvement, it risks treating as abstractions very concrete geopolitical interests. Inevitably, the interests of the strong will prevail over those of the weak. The EU itself, as a player, is consigning itself to fighting for its interests with one hand tied behind its back."
Russia is trying to maintain its stranglehold over most of the Central Asian gas supply, the export of which is almost entirely controls thanks to Soviet-era infrastructure, geography, and a lack of funds in most of the countries for even maintaining existing energy infrastructure, let alone building more.
The EU needs to wake up and start making some hard choices. Things are unlikely to change much as long as Italy, France and Germany keep defending Russia and bowing to pressure from the Kremlin.
When is volunteering not ethical?
I just noticed one of the Goolge ads posted on here was called "ethical volunteering".
When is volunteering not ethical?
I suppose if you're a volunteer suicide bomber, that's not ethical.
When is volunteering not ethical?
I suppose if you're a volunteer suicide bomber, that's not ethical.
Simple ideas can have such a devastating impact
Much has been made of the inability of powerful conventional armies to combat insurgents.
The Sunday Times ran a short article yesterday about a boy, who normally works as a porter, who was paid what he normally makes in a week to simply deposit a light bag into a spot at a crowded market. It then exploded, shattering his foot and killing 3 people.
I always wonder, why hasn't this been a tactic before? So simple and effective, and almost impossible to gaurd against, particularly in a country where public awareness campaigns are difficult to mount thanks to illiteracy, poverty, distrust of the government and lack of coordination within the government.
The Sunday Times ran a short article yesterday about a boy, who normally works as a porter, who was paid what he normally makes in a week to simply deposit a light bag into a spot at a crowded market. It then exploded, shattering his foot and killing 3 people.
I always wonder, why hasn't this been a tactic before? So simple and effective, and almost impossible to gaurd against, particularly in a country where public awareness campaigns are difficult to mount thanks to illiteracy, poverty, distrust of the government and lack of coordination within the government.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
What's the real issue?
Though I'm a bit of a lefty myself, I find much of the criticism over Shell's recent settlement to be missing the point. $15.5 million is peanuts, true, and the firm claims to spend some $280 a year in social/development projects, yet there has been little progress in cleaning up the devastated Niger Delta.
But Shell is a business after all, and a business we need if we want to have all our electric appliances plugged in at home and keep driving our cars to buy simple food items most Americans can no longer get within walking distance of their homes.
That being said, there is in my view quite a strong business case for the firm to do more. Stop blaming thieves for oil leaks, and fix the damage from the leaks from 15 years ago before theft was such a problem. If there had been real engagement with development in the local area at that time, locals wouldn't have as much incentive to steal today. Not to mention that even if the wildly corrupt Nigerian government doesn't enforce the ban on gas flaring, you have no excuse not to stop this toxic and wasteful practice.
Things are only getting worse, and it seems we have a real insurgency on our hands that threatens to spill over into the Gulf of Guinea. Nigerian waters are now the second most dangerous after Somalia, according to the International Crisis Group.
The main militant group in the region, MEND, has managed at various times to shut down half of Shell's oil production in Nigeria alone. It has reduced the country's annual output by 25%, costing billions to both oil companies and the government since 2006. In that time, oil workers have had to live in high-security compounds with panic rooms due to hundreds of kidnappings. Oil is stolen from pipelines and infrastructure, even out at sea, is attacked. Crew are targeted as they travel to installations, requiring heavy security for all crew members for the duration of their stay in the region.
$15.5 million and legal fees may not be much to Shell, but I would think that billions in lost revenue, the inability to expand production, the cost of constantly repairing damaged infrastructure and the constant security presence simply to protect workers must also run pretty dang high.
So why the refusal to engage meaningfully with local communities?
Has anyone ever done a thorough cost-benefit analysis? I don't know who protects their personnel, but I know private military contractors ain't cheap either.
Human security initiatives have worked elsewhere, even in the case of apathetic and corrupt governments that rely on commodities to keep them comfy (Azerbaijan).
Indeed, this is closely related to counterinsurgency. The BTC pipeline runs across 3 countries with separatist groups, but has seen very few attacks. In some cases, local communities are now interacting much better with government officials thanks to facilitation from development projects necessary to the stability and sustainability of the communities surrounding the project area.
Not to say there haven't been problems there. And in any case, oil installations will cause destruction of some kind where ever they are built, just as all development does, not matter how 'green'.
Long story short, we need to be calling on oil companies to be more responsible because its good for all of us, including them. More pirates are bad, and they collude with organized crime, some of which finances terrorism. One reason Al Qaeda advocates attacks on energy infrastructure is simply to hurt the West through the high cost of security measures on these facilities.
But Shell is a business after all, and a business we need if we want to have all our electric appliances plugged in at home and keep driving our cars to buy simple food items most Americans can no longer get within walking distance of their homes.
That being said, there is in my view quite a strong business case for the firm to do more. Stop blaming thieves for oil leaks, and fix the damage from the leaks from 15 years ago before theft was such a problem. If there had been real engagement with development in the local area at that time, locals wouldn't have as much incentive to steal today. Not to mention that even if the wildly corrupt Nigerian government doesn't enforce the ban on gas flaring, you have no excuse not to stop this toxic and wasteful practice.
Things are only getting worse, and it seems we have a real insurgency on our hands that threatens to spill over into the Gulf of Guinea. Nigerian waters are now the second most dangerous after Somalia, according to the International Crisis Group.
The main militant group in the region, MEND, has managed at various times to shut down half of Shell's oil production in Nigeria alone. It has reduced the country's annual output by 25%, costing billions to both oil companies and the government since 2006. In that time, oil workers have had to live in high-security compounds with panic rooms due to hundreds of kidnappings. Oil is stolen from pipelines and infrastructure, even out at sea, is attacked. Crew are targeted as they travel to installations, requiring heavy security for all crew members for the duration of their stay in the region.
$15.5 million and legal fees may not be much to Shell, but I would think that billions in lost revenue, the inability to expand production, the cost of constantly repairing damaged infrastructure and the constant security presence simply to protect workers must also run pretty dang high.
So why the refusal to engage meaningfully with local communities?
Has anyone ever done a thorough cost-benefit analysis? I don't know who protects their personnel, but I know private military contractors ain't cheap either.
Human security initiatives have worked elsewhere, even in the case of apathetic and corrupt governments that rely on commodities to keep them comfy (Azerbaijan).
Indeed, this is closely related to counterinsurgency. The BTC pipeline runs across 3 countries with separatist groups, but has seen very few attacks. In some cases, local communities are now interacting much better with government officials thanks to facilitation from development projects necessary to the stability and sustainability of the communities surrounding the project area.
Not to say there haven't been problems there. And in any case, oil installations will cause destruction of some kind where ever they are built, just as all development does, not matter how 'green'.
Long story short, we need to be calling on oil companies to be more responsible because its good for all of us, including them. More pirates are bad, and they collude with organized crime, some of which finances terrorism. One reason Al Qaeda advocates attacks on energy infrastructure is simply to hurt the West through the high cost of security measures on these facilities.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Update
Regarding the post below and one previous, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer pointed out at a press conference in Brussels today that no ISAF forces intentionally kill civilians, underlining that Taliban and other insurgents do intentionally kills civilians. He also noted the example of girls being attacked with acid by the Taliban when they try to attend school.
The statement was given in response to a question concerning security for the upcoming elections and civlian causualties. The Secretary General also said he will continue to apologize for any civilian casualties.
Of course, he's soon to be replaced.
The statement was given in response to a question concerning security for the upcoming elections and civlian causualties. The Secretary General also said he will continue to apologize for any civilian casualties.
Of course, he's soon to be replaced.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Drones for PR
I wrote in a previous post about the possible use of a video of a US air raid that supposedly proves Taliban members caused civilians to be killed before, during and/or after a US air raid. That video has yet to be released.
I was beginning to wonder why we don't more routinely release videos of Taliban atrocities, since they make such excellent propaganda use of coalition mistakes and often talk about the suffering and deaths of women and children.
In Pakistan, the video of a young girl being flogged by the Taliban did more than the Pakistani government ever could to help turn public opinion strongly against them. So why hasn't ISAF begun releasing tapes of this nature when they have them?
It seems now they will.
Today Combined Joint Task Force-82 released a video of a grenade attack in Afghanistan which had been perpetrated by someone in the crowd while Coalition forces were working to free and armoured vehicle. At least 2 witnesses said the grenade had been thrown by the soldiers.
This is an excellent tactic. Why not use drones to spy a little more and release footage of Taliban and insurgent atrocities? This would show their true colors to foreign donors who only support them as fighters against foreign invades, but who would never want to be ruled by them. Press releases and other claims by Coalition Forces are likely to fall on deaf ears. Video of local events witnessed by tens or hundreds of people are much more difficult to counter.
I was beginning to wonder why we don't more routinely release videos of Taliban atrocities, since they make such excellent propaganda use of coalition mistakes and often talk about the suffering and deaths of women and children.
In Pakistan, the video of a young girl being flogged by the Taliban did more than the Pakistani government ever could to help turn public opinion strongly against them. So why hasn't ISAF begun releasing tapes of this nature when they have them?
It seems now they will.
Today Combined Joint Task Force-82 released a video of a grenade attack in Afghanistan which had been perpetrated by someone in the crowd while Coalition forces were working to free and armoured vehicle. At least 2 witnesses said the grenade had been thrown by the soldiers.
This is an excellent tactic. Why not use drones to spy a little more and release footage of Taliban and insurgent atrocities? This would show their true colors to foreign donors who only support them as fighters against foreign invades, but who would never want to be ruled by them. Press releases and other claims by Coalition Forces are likely to fall on deaf ears. Video of local events witnessed by tens or hundreds of people are much more difficult to counter.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Development and CSR
So far, I've written a feature article and a book chapter, to be published this fall, on corporate social responsibility in Turkey. My subsequent research has actually led me to different conclusions than the experts I quoted in the feature article, but it is a fascinating subject.
Some believe it is only Western multinationals driving the development of CSR in Turkey. However this European Stability Initiative report alone, without discussing the CSR agenda, proves otherwise.
Today I received a call for papers from UNRISD on the effects of the financial crisis on social policy and governmental policy regarding financial regulation as well as social issues. I'm thinking of writing a piece on what has changed with the CSR situation in Turkey since the financial crisis.
Some have argued that CSR is doomed thanks to the financial crisis, whereas others believe it is in demand now more than ever and firms find it in their interest to do. Many CSR efforts remain largely tied to public relations campaigns, but there are businesses out there that find certain concrete actions necessary. Yet I found highly visible foreign multinationals such as HSBC participate in Turkish-style corporate philanthropy without incorporating more accepted forms, such as compensating employees for volunteer time, despite lots of glossy publications stating their comprehensive supstainability programs. (I aslo write about this in my above-mentioned article).
After discovering many Turkish firms outperforming HSBC on this end and rising public awareness in Turkey about climate change and other health issues, I'm eager to see what's happening in the current economic situation.
Some believe it is only Western multinationals driving the development of CSR in Turkey. However this European Stability Initiative report alone, without discussing the CSR agenda, proves otherwise.
Today I received a call for papers from UNRISD on the effects of the financial crisis on social policy and governmental policy regarding financial regulation as well as social issues. I'm thinking of writing a piece on what has changed with the CSR situation in Turkey since the financial crisis.
Some have argued that CSR is doomed thanks to the financial crisis, whereas others believe it is in demand now more than ever and firms find it in their interest to do. Many CSR efforts remain largely tied to public relations campaigns, but there are businesses out there that find certain concrete actions necessary. Yet I found highly visible foreign multinationals such as HSBC participate in Turkish-style corporate philanthropy without incorporating more accepted forms, such as compensating employees for volunteer time, despite lots of glossy publications stating their comprehensive supstainability programs. (I aslo write about this in my above-mentioned article).
After discovering many Turkish firms outperforming HSBC on this end and rising public awareness in Turkey about climate change and other health issues, I'm eager to see what's happening in the current economic situation.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Raising Shia influence would stabilize the Arab world?
Apparently this is one of the strange ideas of the Bush-era neo-cons who were deciding policy in Iraq.
Just one of the interesting insights in this Vanity Fair article from David Rose. He outlines efforts by Sunnis in the heart of the heartland of the Iraqi insurgency, including sheikhs, businessmen and academics, to reach out to US officials and cooperate to rebuild the country as early as 2004.
Despite talks with some high-level US officials who agreed bringing them in would help to stem the deterioration of security in the country, including military figures, those in Washington remained steadfast that dealing with anyone with connections to the Ba'ath Party or Sunni insurgents was off limits.
Just one of the interesting insights in this Vanity Fair article from David Rose. He outlines efforts by Sunnis in the heart of the heartland of the Iraqi insurgency, including sheikhs, businessmen and academics, to reach out to US officials and cooperate to rebuild the country as early as 2004.
Despite talks with some high-level US officials who agreed bringing them in would help to stem the deterioration of security in the country, including military figures, those in Washington remained steadfast that dealing with anyone with connections to the Ba'ath Party or Sunni insurgents was off limits.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Iranian influence a mixed bag
Nathan Hodge over at Danger Room has an interesting post on the US Army's Human Terrain System and its concerning Iranian influence in Afghanistan
Hodge makes some good points about the quality of the reporting, but what stood out to me was the effect of indirect and direct Iranian assistance in Bamiyan province.
This province, famous for the two 1000-year-old Buddhas carved out of the mountains, and which Taliban blew up, is home to a large population of Hazaras. These are a distinct ethnic group which has traditionally been quite low on the Afghan totem pole. They also speak a dialect of Persian, practice Shia Islam, and many have worked and lived in Iran.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never been against the schooling of girls despite its insistence that they cover their hair in public and wear no make up, as well as giving them fewer rights than men. However their attitudes towards women are eons passed those of the Taliban, and Afghan women returning from Iran to Bamiyan are showing increased interest in education and work. This may be far more effective than competing Western NGO's attempting to influence local populations.
Like many Afghans, most Hazaras have had little access to education ever. Perhaps for them, especially those living in still-safe Bamiyan, life quality really is improving.
Iran has also invested significantly in Afghanistan's development, inthe agricultural sector, power grid and transport, as well as built schools and libraries and provided emergency food assistance.
However there have also been reports that the Iranian government is providing some light assistance to Taliban and other fighters, presumably to keep ISAF and US forces busy, despite tha Taliban's intolerance of Shias. Any such assistance may level off if the recent spate of attacks and bombs, tied to Taliban friends Jundallah, in Iran continues.
Hodge makes some good points about the quality of the reporting, but what stood out to me was the effect of indirect and direct Iranian assistance in Bamiyan province.
This province, famous for the two 1000-year-old Buddhas carved out of the mountains, and which Taliban blew up, is home to a large population of Hazaras. These are a distinct ethnic group which has traditionally been quite low on the Afghan totem pole. They also speak a dialect of Persian, practice Shia Islam, and many have worked and lived in Iran.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has never been against the schooling of girls despite its insistence that they cover their hair in public and wear no make up, as well as giving them fewer rights than men. However their attitudes towards women are eons passed those of the Taliban, and Afghan women returning from Iran to Bamiyan are showing increased interest in education and work. This may be far more effective than competing Western NGO's attempting to influence local populations.
Like many Afghans, most Hazaras have had little access to education ever. Perhaps for them, especially those living in still-safe Bamiyan, life quality really is improving.
Iran has also invested significantly in Afghanistan's development, inthe agricultural sector, power grid and transport, as well as built schools and libraries and provided emergency food assistance.
However there have also been reports that the Iranian government is providing some light assistance to Taliban and other fighters, presumably to keep ISAF and US forces busy, despite tha Taliban's intolerance of Shias. Any such assistance may level off if the recent spate of attacks and bombs, tied to Taliban friends Jundallah, in Iran continues.
Finally
I am amazed that in 8 years of the 'war on terror' there has been no major push, publicly at least, to draft and adopt new international law on the capture and detention of transnational combatants not tied to a state.
However the Georgetown University's Center on National Security and the Law is planning a campaign to do just that.
As the Geneva Convention does not cover the capture and detention of transnational terrorists without uniforms or insignia, governments have been able to make up the rules as they go. The Bush administration was of course in no hurry to adopt or even develop such legislation. The current administration already seems amenable to the idea; the center's former head, Neal Katyal, is now the Obama administration's Principal Deputy Solicitor General.
Hopefully, this new international legislation will become a priority.
However the Georgetown University's Center on National Security and the Law is planning a campaign to do just that.
As the Geneva Convention does not cover the capture and detention of transnational terrorists without uniforms or insignia, governments have been able to make up the rules as they go. The Bush administration was of course in no hurry to adopt or even develop such legislation. The current administration already seems amenable to the idea; the center's former head, Neal Katyal, is now the Obama administration's Principal Deputy Solicitor General.
Hopefully, this new international legislation will become a priority.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Propaganda wars
As pointed out by others, one key message the US and coalition forces in Afghanistan should be putting out is being totally overlooked; The Taliban and other insurgents are responsible for just as many, if not more, civilian deaths.
Yet the PR teams have generally remained on the defensive concerning civilian casualties, without bringing more public attention to the brutality of insurgents.
This could be about to change; the US forces are weighing the option of releasing a video they claim will show the actions taken in Garani, where 25 civilians died in an air strike, will justify their deaths. Even if the video clearly shows, as they claim, that the Taliban hiding among civilians, I highly doubt proving the use of human shields will have any affect whatsoever on Afghan civilians, most of whom despise the Taliban in any case.
However, if it is true that the video shows the Taliban holding civilians captive, and particularly if it also shows them killing civilians with hand grenades after the air strike, this may indeed help in the propaganda war.
Yet here again, the fact that the Taliban not only use civilians as human shields but commit unjust murders is not the focus of the message, but the justification of civilians deaths.
US General David Petraeus says the video will justify the actions of the forces and show that they successfully targeted Taliban fighters. Perhaps the emphasis should be more on the actions of the Taliban, not only hiding among civilians but forcing them into a trap and killing them to place the blame on US forces.
Perhaps the main problem is that those tasked with public relations in Kabul remain far more concerned about PR regarding their home populations than combating Taliban and Al Qaeda propaganda among local populations. (In Pakistan, the beating of a young girl by the Taliban in the Swat Valley helped to inflame public anger at the group there.)
"Recording an ongoing body count is hardly going to endear us to the people of Afghanistan," says British Royal Navy Capt. Mark Durkin, spokesman ISAF, told the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on the arguments over the usefulness of body counts in public relations to communicate victory:
“Does it buck up the troops and the home front to let them know the enemy is suffering, too? Or does the focus on killing distract from the goals of generating legitimacy and economic development?"
I think it's become pretty clear that in Afghanistan body counts are not the point.
In fact, it seems that only the American public is interested in them, and I would be interested to see some research on how many Americans actually think high body counts communicate success, especially amid the numerous reports that we are fighting an uphill battle in parts of Afghanistan. Body counts were also touted as measures of success in Vietnam for a time.
The governments of European contributors to ISAF forces do not release body counts except in rare instances.
Indeed in the Israel/Palestine conflict, the body counts of Palestinian killed versus IDF forces are always far higher. However this has not led to any cessation in the conflict and has only radicalized more Palestinians.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda have made excellent use of civilian deaths caused by Coalition forces in their propaganda, undermining the claims of the US and ISAF that they are not intent on killing Muslims. Both groups have shown in their public statements that they follow international news media and use what they find there to show that they are winning. With ideologies that rest on the willingness of numerous volunteers to either commit suicide attacks or fight to the death, as well as reinforcements from abroad, body counts have little relevance regarding foot soldiers.
The Taliban and affiliated groups have also begun warning civilians to stay away from certain areas, such as government buildings and certain markets, to reduce civilian casualties and create a perception that they do not kill Muslim civilians unless they are somehow collaborating. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have lost a great deal of support thanks to killing civilians, and these groups are pro-actively developing some of their propaganda around this key point while NATO and the US remain on the defensive.
Another interesting point the WSJ makes is that body counts are highly unreliable. The Taliban typically remove their dead after a fight. Thus US forces then must monitor funerals and communications to confirm which insurgents were killed, if any. This leaves a great deal of room for error.
The other side to this is publicizing the developmental successes to local populations and finding a way to root out the endemic corruption that has taken hold. In some areas, Coalition forces are welcomed, in others they are reluctantly tolerated.
In any case, winning the propaganda war among Afghans may be an uphill battle as long as violence and corruption persists.
Yet the PR teams have generally remained on the defensive concerning civilian casualties, without bringing more public attention to the brutality of insurgents.
This could be about to change; the US forces are weighing the option of releasing a video they claim will show the actions taken in Garani, where 25 civilians died in an air strike, will justify their deaths. Even if the video clearly shows, as they claim, that the Taliban hiding among civilians, I highly doubt proving the use of human shields will have any affect whatsoever on Afghan civilians, most of whom despise the Taliban in any case.
However, if it is true that the video shows the Taliban holding civilians captive, and particularly if it also shows them killing civilians with hand grenades after the air strike, this may indeed help in the propaganda war.
Yet here again, the fact that the Taliban not only use civilians as human shields but commit unjust murders is not the focus of the message, but the justification of civilians deaths.
US General David Petraeus says the video will justify the actions of the forces and show that they successfully targeted Taliban fighters. Perhaps the emphasis should be more on the actions of the Taliban, not only hiding among civilians but forcing them into a trap and killing them to place the blame on US forces.
Perhaps the main problem is that those tasked with public relations in Kabul remain far more concerned about PR regarding their home populations than combating Taliban and Al Qaeda propaganda among local populations. (In Pakistan, the beating of a young girl by the Taliban in the Swat Valley helped to inflame public anger at the group there.)
"Recording an ongoing body count is hardly going to endear us to the people of Afghanistan," says British Royal Navy Capt. Mark Durkin, spokesman ISAF, told the Wall Street Journal.
The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article on the arguments over the usefulness of body counts in public relations to communicate victory:
“Does it buck up the troops and the home front to let them know the enemy is suffering, too? Or does the focus on killing distract from the goals of generating legitimacy and economic development?"
I think it's become pretty clear that in Afghanistan body counts are not the point.
In fact, it seems that only the American public is interested in them, and I would be interested to see some research on how many Americans actually think high body counts communicate success, especially amid the numerous reports that we are fighting an uphill battle in parts of Afghanistan. Body counts were also touted as measures of success in Vietnam for a time.
The governments of European contributors to ISAF forces do not release body counts except in rare instances.
Indeed in the Israel/Palestine conflict, the body counts of Palestinian killed versus IDF forces are always far higher. However this has not led to any cessation in the conflict and has only radicalized more Palestinians.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda have made excellent use of civilian deaths caused by Coalition forces in their propaganda, undermining the claims of the US and ISAF that they are not intent on killing Muslims. Both groups have shown in their public statements that they follow international news media and use what they find there to show that they are winning. With ideologies that rest on the willingness of numerous volunteers to either commit suicide attacks or fight to the death, as well as reinforcements from abroad, body counts have little relevance regarding foot soldiers.
The Taliban and affiliated groups have also begun warning civilians to stay away from certain areas, such as government buildings and certain markets, to reduce civilian casualties and create a perception that they do not kill Muslim civilians unless they are somehow collaborating. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have lost a great deal of support thanks to killing civilians, and these groups are pro-actively developing some of their propaganda around this key point while NATO and the US remain on the defensive.
Another interesting point the WSJ makes is that body counts are highly unreliable. The Taliban typically remove their dead after a fight. Thus US forces then must monitor funerals and communications to confirm which insurgents were killed, if any. This leaves a great deal of room for error.
The other side to this is publicizing the developmental successes to local populations and finding a way to root out the endemic corruption that has taken hold. In some areas, Coalition forces are welcomed, in others they are reluctantly tolerated.
In any case, winning the propaganda war among Afghans may be an uphill battle as long as violence and corruption persists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)