The political power of North Korea’s threats

North Korea has once again defied the globe by making a nuclear test that has raised concerns of the intentions of the communist state to press the red button and launch a nuclear weapon. Scientists have confirmed that the test provoked an earthquake in the North of the country, so this time we are not talking about propaganda.

The North Korean regime uses its nuclear programme as its only mean of negotiation with the rest of the world and Kim Jong-il knows it. If North Korea had no nuclear programme, its negotiation power would be reduced to nothing and the regime would probably have collapsed long time ago. But the imminent threat of effectively developing and using a nuclear weapon makes its neighbors, the United States and the rest of the world take a different approach towards the problem.

Kim Jong-il knows that anything he does (in other words, anything he does and wants the world to be informed of) will be instantly in the headlines of the media of the whole world. The rumours of his health condition and the launch of a rocket which was supposed to carry a satellite but that can be used to transport a nuclear weapon are some examples of the huge media coverage that strengthens the regime. The UN Security Council condemned the launch of the rocket, and in response, North Korea pulled out of the Six Party Talks (involving North Korea, South Korea, the United States, China, Russia and Japan), which were aimed to make the regime stop its nuclear programme. While some objectives were apparently achieved in the Six Party Talks, it appears that in reality Kim Jong-il has no intention of ending its nuclear programme through diplomatic means.

Meanwhile, South Koreans are still in shock after the suicide of their former president, who was formally accused of bribery, and the fear of their neighbor’s intentions to press the red button has worsened the situation. Hopefully the nuclear test was just one more successful attempt of the regime to be in the headlines and strengthen its negotiation power, as it is very unlikely that they will ever launch a nuclear attack. Probably this show will be over the day Kim Jong-il dies and the North Korean people will finally get out of the dark, although his death won’t mean that unification will be easy.

The annual income of North Koreans is around 17 times lower than the one of their southern neighbors and the regime has one of the worst human rights records in the world.

Because life with humour is much better, here you can watch a video of "North Korea's new ambitions", hehe...

Ratzinger: a politically dumb pope

Most of the people I've talked to agree that John Paul II was a very charismatic Pope. He did a very respectable job not only as a spiritual leader but also as a diplomat. He improved relations with other religions and travelled the world, while he understood the importance his figure had and took advantage of it. But Mr. Ratzinger, his successor, has been very different. I haven't heard of many people who feel admiration or devotion towards him. Some of the major controversies he has generated include offending the Muslims in a lecture he gave in 2006 by quoting a text which directly insults Prophet Muhammad. He also said in a visit to Brazil that the proclamation of Christianity in the Americas was not an imposition of a foreign culture and that the natives had been silently longing for the Christian faith. Those comments show his lack of diplomatic intelligence, which doesn't stop there. He also lifted the excommunication to Richard Williamson, a bishop who is a Holocaust denier who said in an interview with the Swedish TV that he believes that no Jews were executed in gas chambers, and that only around 200,000 and not 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. According to the Vatican, Ratzinger was not informed about Williamson's statements. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor regreted the decision to lift Williamson's excommunication and the German media said the "honeymoon" between the Germans and their Pope was over.

But this week he made the most idiotic mistake, one that can have very serious consequences. In a visit to Cameroon, he declared that "HIV/Aids can't be overcome with the distribution of condoms, which can even increase the problem". One must be extremly stupid to make such a declaration in a continent which has more than 60% of the infected population in the world, with more than 24.5 million people infected just in Sub-Saharan Africa. He can defend his views, but not while threatening the public health in such a way. Now the NGOs and other aid agencies working in Africa must have to do a great job in order to make people understand the importance of the use of condoms in the region with the highest HIV/Aids infection rate.

I'm sure we won't have to wait long before Benedict XVI is again on the headlines. What will he say/do now?

Sorry is not enough

Former bank managers have publicly apologized for their wrong decisions which led their banks to lose millions in risky transactions, while at the same time they were receiving huge bonuses and taxpayers' money to pay for their failures.
The anger of the society is understandable as the misbehaviour of those executives was rewarded with public money, and a simple apology won't solve anything. If the correct decisions would have been taken by those executives, who perfectly knew about the volatility of the financial environment, the money that is being used in the bank bailouts could have served to invest in public infrastructure to help the economy boost again. The problem is that private banks have too much power and when they take bad decisions, they perfectly know that the governments will do almost anything to rescue them, in order to prevent an understandable social chaos that would surge if people lose their money. But to which extent can the government intervene in putting limits to bonuses for executives of the financial sector? At least, more restrictions should be imposed to banks that receive public money in order to limit the exorbitant amounts their executives receive in reward for their narrowness.

Cynically, the Royal Bank of Scotland's former CEO, Sir Fred Goodwin, told the UK Treasury Committee he "could not be more sorry", but at the same time said that if bankers felt they aren't paid enough, they will leave. Such a comment demonstrates the sense of untouchability these people have, apologizing and justifying their high pays at the same time.

The political timing in the Gaza conflict

Israel decided to start a military offensive in Gaza just in time, exactly in the last days of the Bush administration, which has been a sponsor of any type of interventionism with the excuse of fighting terrorism. Hamas isn't any victim here, but the power of the Israeli Army and the technology it has, makes any type of armed confrontation between the two factions completely unequal and with a result of much more civilian deaths in the Palestinian side, as it has happened. The figures show that since the start of the conflict in the last days of December, around 1200 Palestinians have died, while only 13 Israelis have perished. But it's not just that, as thousands of Palestinians are now homeless, and most of the population has very limited access to the most basic resources for survival. The Israelis have even bombed a UN building in Gaza, mosques and many other non-military targets. As I've said, it's not a coincidence that the operation took place on the last days of Bush's administration, as it would have been much more difficult for Israel to start such an operation with a new American president, whose main concern internationally is to responsibly end two irresponsible wars. I'm not saying that Obama's administration won't be a very close ally to Israel, but the political timing made this the perfect moment for the Israelis to strike against Hamas. The ceasefire won't solve the problem of the thousands who are now displaced, traumatized and who have lost their beloved ones. So let's see if Israel's position remains the same after Obama's inauguration.

Anyone interested in "saving" Zimbabwe?

With an inflation of 11,200,000 %, a severe cholera outbreak, a life expectancy of 44 years for men and 43 for women, the situation in Zimbabwe could hardly be worse. Robert Mugabe was a political prisoner in the 60's who later became the first black leader of Zimbabwe. But now, he is no longer seen as the liberator who fought for his people. He has remained in power since 1980, heading a totalitarian regime in which the opposition has been oppressed, most of the media has been under control of the government, and with a severe health crisis. Some figures show that more than 1.6 million people live with AIDS in the country.

In March 2008, Mugabe lost the first round of the presidential election, but managed to win the second round, as his main challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai, retired from the race alleging an unfair competition. Tsvangirai's supporters were heavily pressured by governmental forces, and the election was qualified as unfair by different observers. Something must be done immediately to stop Mugabe to continue ruining the people of Zimbabwe.

After the cholera outbreak international leaders have increased their pressure on Mugabe's regime, but the question is, who will take the lead in directing an international force to quit Mugabe (if that would eventually happen) and let the Zimbabwean people freely elect their political leadership. The issue is very delicate, as interventionism is a very dangerous resource that very few actors will be willing to take, specially after the disastrous American invasion of Iraq. South Africa's political situation is delicate now, as few weeks ago president Mbeki resigned over allegations of corruption, so that country is not in a condition to lead a force to solve Zimbabwe's crisis. UK's Gordon Brown has said that "enough is enough" on the issue of Zimbabwe, but its not clear to which extent his government could intervene. In the case of the US, the transition and the focus that the Obama administration will have to solve the mess on Iraq and Afghanistan will also make it dificult to direct such an international force, although Hillary Clinton could adopt the issue as her first duty as the top US diplomat.
So while someone decides to do something, the Zimbabwean people continue suffering, and dying.

Modern Pirates

Twenty first century, top technology everywhere, the orbit full of satellites, surveillance systems in every corner, and even with that, pirates, with nothing more than some old AK-47 rifles and small vessels, keep on hijacking ships (no matter the size) in a chaotic country, with no effective government.

That country is Somalia, one of the poorest countries on Earth, where the GDP per capita is around $600 USD a year. It has been in a Civil War since 1988 and the "authorities" of the country have no resources to control piracy, which threatens not only the commercial ships that navigate through the Indian Sea but also the ships transporting aid to many African countries. The activity has become an extraordinary business, as the ransoms the pirates get payed to liberate the ships are between $300,000 and $1.5m USD. So the pirates have now started to use luxurious goods, build residences and have jet set life styles in a country where most of the people is starving.

From the beginning of 2008 until late November, around 100 ships have been hijacked by Somali pirates. But the pirates have high standards, and don't mind to call the world's attention and still have control over their "business". That was demonstrated when they hijacked the Sirus Star, a Saudi Arabian oil tanker with 2 million barrels of oil, which is one quarter of the daily production of Saudi Arabia. The ship has 25 crew members, who are said to be safe, and the pirates have been negotiating a ransom with the ship owners. If the ransom is payed, other pirates will have the incentive to continue hijacking ships, but with no effective government in the country, and with the Americans being reluctant to interfere, the solution to the piracy in the region, and to Somalia's crisis, seem very far.
At least, for the case of the Sirus Star, the Islamic extremists are considering to act against the pirates, as the ship contains Saudi Arabian property. That shows how chaotic the situation is.

Finally, a memorable quote of General William Ward, the head of the US Africa command: "Piracy is a very complex issue. The oceans are large oceans. I don't know if you would ever have enough vessels to have coverage of the entire ocean,". Amazing justification, or not?

For more about Somalia's conflict, check the BBC special site , and the BBC World Service special reports on the crisis.

USA vs. Europe : Hurt feelings

Most opinions expressed by Europeans about the USA are negative. Europeans feel that people from the USA are stupid, dumb and shortsighted. It could be the case that these feelings are the product of our anger and concern over the USA's superiority in many matters. For example, their army is the mightiest in the world. Even more importantly: they are not afraid to use it. We might feel that Europe is taking the backseat in global politics. It seems that the USA only deals with Europe when they want, not because they have to. Despite our feelings that we are important, we are not.

We express our dislike over Hollywood, their lack of culture and stubborness to accept certain truths. Their internal fight over creationism is ludicrous to say the least. But fair is fair, their culture has pervaded most other cultures. Coca-cola, McDonalds and Hollywood are everywhere. Besides these, what some people might call despicable export products, they boast an impressing array of great writers, philosophers and scientists.

This complaining might be some sort of acceptance of this situation, so besides the absence of this mindless and boring monologue from Europeans there might be long term benefits for Europe. I dare to say: it is time for Europeans to stop complaining about the stupidity of the USA, and focus on our own strenghts. The diversity in Europe could be bundled into a power equivalent to the USA.

Without a power that can constrain the USA and can have a dialogue with, the USA will continue their aggressive global policy. Global warming and the "axis of evil" are prime issues. It might also be good for the average USA citizen. The feeling of superiority and being god's chosen is dangerous. Having to acknowledge another superpower, equaly 'civilized', might force them to rethink their lifestyle and convictions. I will go into this "god bless America" later with more detail.

Obama might change trans-atlantic relations, but I do not believe he is more than an aestatic change. It might sound different and more likable, but the result will be the same. Obama cannot, even if he wants, make significant changes to the USA's global policy. His electorate will not allow this, and every effort will be blocked. While he might not act as Bush, which is a huge improvement, the difference might only be less idiocy.

Ofcourse I believe Obama's slogans: "Change can happen" and "We can do it". Change can happen, and we can do it. But who is we? I somehow doubt this is more that the USA...

Winds of change

Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, bringing hope not only to the American people but to the whole world. But he has not an easy task, as he will have to correct all the policies of the Bush administration which sunk the country in one of its deepest economic crisis, involved it in an unjustified war which has taken thousands of lives and which has destroyed the reputation of the United States around the world. Many didn't believe that Obama would be elected, and they had enough reasons to think that. The country still has an important conservative basis and racism is still an issue. But Obama was smart, he never played the racist-card and he focused his campaign in proposing concrete ways to deal with the mess Mr Bush has left, instead of focusing on attacking the rival candidate, as McCain did. The number of reasons that made McCain lose are many, such as his age, his terrible choice of running mate, his support of the war in Iraq, between many others.
But the fact is that Obama won by an ample margin (Obama 338 electoral votes, McCain 161), and now he, John Biden and all their staff will be in charge of cleaning up Bush's mess. The Democrats also performed well in the Senate election, although they didn't reach enough seats to have a comfortable majority.
The eyes of the world were in the American election, here in Europe it was possible to see posters with Obama's image, Obama action figures in the stores and a lot of enthusiastic people disposed to change their perception of the United States.

But Mexico, had to turn its attention to a national tragedy. In the same day of the US election, an airplane carrying the Secretary of Interior and other government officials crashed in the heart of Mexico City. There were no survivors, and the Mexican federal government is now facing a huge crisis. Some speculate it could have been a revenge by one of the leading drug gangs whose main leader was captured some weeks ago, but I consider that very unlikely as all the airplanes belonging to the federal government are always protected by the army.

Is it over?

Is it over?
John McCain must be having one of his worst days during the campaign. George Bush's Secretary of State from 2001 to 2005, Colin Powell, has endorsed Barack Obama only days before the presidential election. Powell's decision comes in the best time it could for the Obama campaign, which now has all in its favor to win the election in November. Obama raised more than $150 million USD just in September and has enough resources to buy advertisements in key states and quickly answer to any attacks from the Republican candidate, who has limited monetary resources as he chose to have his campaign financed with public money. Obama decided not to take public money for his campaign so there are no limits in the amounts that can be donated to his campaign.

The poor state of the economy, the terrible choice McCain made of choosing the inexperienced (that may be a very soft word to define her) Sarah Palin, and the continuous attacks the Republicans make on the person of Obama, while not focusing on explaining their position on the real issues they would face in office, have paved the way for Senator Barack Obama to become the next president of the United States, who in Colin Powells words "would be a transformational president".

Se habla español (Spanish spoken here)

45 million people speak Spanish as their first language in the United States (without counting the illegal immigrants!). If the undocumented workers were also counted, the figure would undoubtedly rise. Now that the election day approaches in the USA, this figure shows the importance of the Hispanic voters, who may actually decide the election.
Both candidates have done something which is not uncommon in that country, advertising their campaigns in Spanish throughout the media (watch Obama's ad in Spanish), (there are 55 TV networks and more than 500 radio stations that broadcast in Spanish in the USA). They have also been very careful on the issue of immigration, which of course is very sensible to this large group.
But as El Pais (Spanish newspaper) reports (see article in Spanish), by year 2050 the USA could be the country with more Spanish-speaking people in the world, title hold now by Mexico with more than 100 million speakers. So the melting pot theory, which states that the USA is a country formed by immigrants coming from different cultures who use the same language (English) and form a new culture (The American) is rejected by this stunning figure.
Of course someone could argue that many of those Spanish-speaking people also speak English, but for most of them the language spoken at home and in their social groups remains Spanish.
So both candidates should draw more attention to this target group of voters in the final weeks of the campaigning stage or assume the consequences...