One World, Many Peaces

Who and What are North Korea's Nukes Really For?

Today's short-range missile tests in North Korea compounded and confirmed what this weekend's nuclear tests re-announced: that the Communist country is pissed off at and about something which on the surface is as unclear as in its depths. US anti-proliferation and pre-emptive strikes, the South's out and up moves, domestic unrest due to economic problems and leadership questions top the list of potential prompts and causes, but do they in themselves explain the situation and propose a resolution?

How would North Korea actually benefit by attacking anyone with nuclear weapons, and knowing this be used to diffuse the hostilities? Few have addressed this pressing issue, and even fewer have discussed the possibility of this being a Cold War-style proxy war between the US and China, which would be fitting as the Korean War of 1950-53 was among the first to directly indirectly pit Communist and Capitalist forces. As we know, that war ended not in peace or victory but in a stalemate upon which the North/South divide on the Korean peninsula is based, and so all that's happening now. Post-war conditions, let alone post-war peace, were never implemented between the North and South and their backers.

This historical and contemporary fact points to a much broader context in which this North Korean nuclear affair and other threats to peace and security today must be understood and addressed. In the end, North Korea's nuclear weapons are geared not towards a particular enemy or purpose, but are a general and generally misguided response to a world still transitioning from the Cold War to a "something else" that remains vague and therefore potentially hostile. The Cold War is a current event creating a future which has not yet been imagined, let alone actualized.

China is the Next US of the 1950s: From Producer to Consumer King

The post-World War Two US economic boom up to the late 1950s is generally either considered as the golden age of America or the start of when things went so wrong that only radical change could/can fix them. But what each perspective takes for granted is that a major reason for this remarkable era was that the US shifted from being a primarily exporting nation to a consuming nation of its own goods. Flash-forward and back to today, and China seems to be going through the very same transformation before its own and the world's eyes. What will this change entail?

"China’s economnic structure is currently changing, and is gradually shifting to a development model which is led by domestic consumption." The shift has several important causes and even more important implications, according to Li Dao-kui, the chairman of the finance department of the School of Economics and Management of Qinghua University and others. Recognizing declines in exports due to the global recession, the government has taken active measures to make up for it from within.  To what extent this intra-emerging market will be open to international competition remains unclear.

Perhaps with extreme danger both domestically and globally by mimicking the disaster in US loan practices, the government may allow individuals to obtain guarantee-free loans of five times their own salary from banks. There is debate as to whether this is a long-term strategy or a short-term one designed to counteract the recession, but in any case "opening internal markets" (i.e., from coast to inland) may benefit few other countries than China itself to the tune of over 1 billion people. So? The difficulty in conceiving the magnitude of this shift is surpassed only by that of its repercussions.

These new trends, while just recently reaching new peaks, have been in the works for a while, and the cultural as well political implications (to say nothing of the economic) cannot be underestimated. Chinese citizens will widely have conveniences like dishwashers, cars, computers, refrigerators and flat screen TVs for the first time, revolutionizing the way they live. What will become popular in terms of cultural commodities (art, music, video, etc.) may become so for the rest of the world to the same degree as Elvis did in the 1950s, revolutionizing not only what's cool but also why it is: it's Chinese.

China as the next great consumer society-- even the greatest ever, barring competition with India--  is without doubt something to watch closely as a current event creating a future in which there may be much more, or much less, to consume. Place your bets.

Victory is Not Peace in Separatist Sri Lanka or Elsewhere

Separatism of one kind or another has, is and will continue to be a threat to peace locally and globally for as long as those who seek separation or to thwart it condone and are enabled to use force in achieving their antithetical ends.  As the killing of the longtime leader of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka goes to show, a military victory over or of separatists never in itself constitutes peace.

Today the Sri Lankan President, whose predecessors have been assassinated by the LTTE, announced that the organization's leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is dead, though the fact remains unconfirmed. He quickly went on to announce that the country is "liberated" and "united," first in the dominant language then in the minority Tamil language of the rebel region. Meanwhile, the displacements caused by the national military's "victorious" move have caused a humanitarian catastrophe that precludes any kind of peace in the originary and destination regions.

Without going into its finer points, this is a classic case of the saying "one group's terrorist is another's freedom fighter." To be clear, this is not to say that secessionism is inherently violent or invalid in any way; the examples of the successful Czech and Slovak states and the so far unsuccessful Canadian province of Quebec stand out but not alone. However, that there is no internationally accepted process for resolving such intra-national conflicts before they become or in being violent, as there are for inter-national conflicts, shows a serious shortsightedness by which millions suffer and die.

What can be said for certain, though, is that the goal of more and even complete autonomy within an existing political framework entails less friction than complete separation close to as a matter of course. It is all too easy to say that in this age of global integration separatism is an anachronism without taking one's head out of the clouds of theory and looking at conditions on the ground. On the contrary, it is highly possible that separatism is itself correlated with globalization because of the disparities due to mismanagement it can create.

Only after or in reaction to becoming part of something is separatism plausible, and with the world being evermore integrated there are only two ways to go: in, or in but out. Safe to say the only way to ensure peaceful resolutions of separatist situations is for internationally accepted standards to developed and implemented, say under the auspices of the UN if it is delivered from its impotence. But as the UN was created to protect peace between nations only (as opposed to within), this seems unlikely. And so separatist violence in Sri Lanka and elsewhere continues as a threatening situation for current peace prospects creating the future, for no good reason at all.

Rights Violators Rule UN Human Rights Council

We wouldn’t ask a person who can hardly count to ensure that others can subtract properly. We wouldn’t ask someone who can hardly taste to be a food critic. Yet, the world is all too willing to let five countries whose human rights records are questionable at best to lead the UN Human Rights Council, and one for the first time too (guess which).  You may find this more than slightly tragicomedic… the sitting members are: Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Russia, China and as of this week, the US. The most disturbing fact of all: they were each elected by the assembly of the world's nations, sometimes by a large majority.

I've got a good idea to add to these: let's have the worst five rejects on American Idol, based on those who most "just don’t understand why they lost because they really really wanted to win," judge the contest and see who actually does. Then, let's see if the show remains ranked at number one for years and years. This is, metaphorically of course, the path to universal upholding of human rights the world is apparently, and for the historical record, now on. But in actuality the contest has lives and quality of life not record deals at stake, there are no winners, and the biggest loser is the UN and humanity itself.

A seat on this council should not be a stepping stone towards less human rights violations; it should be the affirmation that a country has a top human rights record and so has the moral authority to supervise and taken action on those who do not. Obama's desire for a "new era of engagement" in relation to human rights, whatever that means, only indicates that it has not been fulfilled. A seat on the Human Rights Council should be more coveted and competitively sought after than a seat in the G8. Instead, we have five countries who want to put on a good show lip-singing. Vaclav Havel, who more than most leaders knows first hand about the repression and restoration of rights, derided the Council's composition, and rightly so.

There needs to be an immediate shift in the UN from the power dynamics of the Cold War to a real time meritocracy, or the institution will suffer the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, which born in World War One did not survive the sequel. The future will look back upon the current event that is the UN Human Rights Council as one it wishes had not created it, and so perhaps there will be a concerted global campaign to change it before Sudan and Burma are members too.

Unite and Liberate: Thoughts on the 'Eastern Partnership'

What does the recent conference on the EU's "Eastern Partnership" portend? Is the lauded war strategy perfected by Julius Caesar against the Gauls, divide and conquer, being replaced with a peace strategy: unite and liberate (i.e. with us, from an other and yourselves)? The one ushered in the foundational ties upon which the Europe is still being built; the other could either bring about a radical return to two-millennia old geopolitical lines or a new era in which they will, arguably for the first time since, be totally redrawn-- or even erased.

The use of the term "stabilize" by the diplomats in referring to the sought-for process and outcome for the six nations in questions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine) could very well be a euphemism for unite and liberate, so that Russia has one linguistically less reason to feel threatened.  The actual definition for "stabilize" used was to "accelerate political association and further economic integration." Six cucumbers or half a dozen makes the same size salad, and as the French ambassador said the EU may have enough to eat with the unification and liberation of the Balkan states.

"This is not against Russia," was the EU leaders' chorus led by its Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso. Do not think of a pink elephant. The implication of stating that "this" not against Russia is that "this" is, in fact, for the EU. The funny thing is the degree of effort the EU is putting into not seeming they are trying to unite and liberate former Eastern Bloc countries from their former hegemon, Russia. This feigning is a paradoxical continuation of Cold War PR and an about face to it: you were communist others in our backyard, and are welcome into a partnership with us but must stay in our backyard, to the designated 'east' of 'us'; that makes you 'west' of 'them', where 'we' want you to be and for 'them', you are.

The odd thing is how complacent the US is being in maybe the first real big post-Cold War steps taken to redraw the global (rather than strictly continental) politico-economic map. Even the talk of Turkey joining the EU would be a return to the Roman Empire before its linguistic division. The EU is doing such a great job at the tightrope act between Russia and the US that the latter two might one day join up against the former. Unite and liberate as a peace strategy may be the opposite of divide and conquer or the same in another guise, only as this curious current event becomes the future will we know.

'Health Equals Wealth' Says GE's CEO: Are Corporate, Social Justice and Government Interests in Alignment?

I am watching a live video presentation by Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, on the company's global healthcare business, its current state and its prospects. The stunning developments in its diagnostic and treatment technologies, coupled with the fact that over 50% of GE Healthcare's is outside the US and so provides insight as to better models within, were in one way what you'd expect from a company started by Thomas Edison, and in another just blew me away.

Immelt's talk is as much a pitch to Obama and Sibelius as they develop a new healthcare plan for the country, as it is for analysts and investors reeling at GE's steep stock price drop, as it is for employees and their families wondering if the company will continue giving them benefits. A tour de force presentation, Immelt's delivery is at times inspiring and others stumbling. The uncanny similarities between Obama's platform, GE's business strategies and consumer trends really do lend credence to the notion that, working together, they can solve the world's problems all at once with the help of non-profits and NGOs. Cost savings, access improvement and quality Improvement are key goals; products exemplifying them are portable ultrasound, low-dose CT scans, medical equipment tracking.

But the kicker comes in a turn of phrase, "health equals wealth," that brings home several longstanding principles that may prove proportionately beneficial to the world as to GE's bottom line. If both health and profits are maximized together, the traditional saying "at least you have your health" could be turned into "how the hell did you lose it?" From a strict, personal bio-economic point of view, there literally can be no wealth without health, so equating the two makes perfect sense. Immelt draws strong parallels between the Ecomagination initiative, which profited from improving the health of the environment, and this new Healthymagination, targeted towards our bodies.

The point is that profit-driven corporations are not de facto enemies of social justice, and as a committed allies may be able to do more than any activist group alone while doing well by their employees, investors and abiding by regulations. What GE is here taking the lead on in these initiatives is to harmonize business and social interests under sweeping rubrics such as health and the environment, without which the world wouldn't work, let alone  businesses and governments. There is still much to learn, think and do to expand "health equals wealth" into other universally shared aspects of life on earth, and so GE's vision is a welcome current event creating a better future.

Israel Blackmails the EU into Silence

There's going too far, and then there's going way too far. Israel leaped over this line when it warned EU nations that its criticism would jeopardize Middle East peace prospects, particularly the EU's possibly catalytic role. The EU head of external relations said that Israeli-EU ties pivoted on a two-state solution, and criticized Israel for rejecting it outright. The new ultranationalist foreign minister of Israel,  Avigdor Lieberman, was all too quick to attack, signaling for many a radical change inside the country and out.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's far-right (note: we are talking about Israel here) government PR machine told reporters the EU's stand was "very militant." Yeah, critical dialogue between and amongst state leaders is just like invading surrounding territories, encroaching upon settlements, treating self-created native enemies worse than animals, etc. And so, a high-profile meeting to prepare for the next round of peace negations was postponed, setting them up to fail. The blackmail into silence is for now a success. But is this censorial move indicative of Israel's new ruling party's strategy or evidence of a more systemic problem?

The EU is part of a negotiating block quaintly called the "Quartet," along with the US, Russia and the UN. Aside from the fact that making and maintaining international peace is in the constitution of only one of these bodies, the UN, there seems to be vital interests that are excluded. Namely, Arab and Muslim states whose support of Palestinians, though inconsistent, will be vital to any solution and most pressingly to a two-state one. Add to this Israel's obstructionist position that Iran's nuclear plans must be halted before negotiations restart for the Nth time, and it becomes clear that major players are missing from this high-stakes poker game for peace. This, even more than silencing the EU, may be Israel's most victorious and dangerous censoring so far. Who is really being militant?

Stifling debate and criticism is usually one of the first signs of a totalitarian regime in the making, and certainly of one that has already taken power. The striking thing here is that usually this kind of blackmail-censorship is done domestically, whereas Israel is trying to be totalitarian in this sense internationally, albeit only insofar as it concerns itself. That the ultimate victims are peace prospects, including Israel's own, is all the more unfortunate as it is by their own militancy. If these current events continue creating the future, then the world will either have to say enough is enough or deal with the rise of another right-wing totalitarian regime with people they hate within their borders.