Vi propongo questo articolo di Repubblica, l'intervista a Colaninno, imprenditore (di sinistra) della cordata per salvare Alitalia.
Vorrei farvi notare le domande del giornalista. Si puo' essere d'accordo o no (non conosco a sufficienza l'argomento per esprimermi) su come Berlusconi stia agendo su Alitalie, ma sembra di assistere ad un'intervista condotta da Sean Annity o Bill O'Really di Fox.
venerdì 29 agosto 2008
mercoledì 27 agosto 2008
A windy transmission
Today I was reading the NYT and I ran across this article. Within our discussion, one issue has never been considered, that is the problem of grid's limits. The power lines are indeed so limited that also the a minimal increase in the power line, which is that coming from windy power plants, cannot be sustained. How dumb is that ?
martedì 26 agosto 2008
Risiko
well, not as smart as the game is, but it is clear that something like a game is being played in Ossetia and Abkhazia. The oil pipe line which supposedly would have made Europe less dependent from Russia lies there. With Russia arming the separatists and the US-Poland missile shield agreement, this may change completely. Russia now backing the secession from Georgia has another ace in its pockets. Energy supremacy is clearly what is at stake. This might be highly costly for Italy and all Europe.
lunedì 25 agosto 2008
SUD
Ieri sera ho visto il film su Don Puglisi, prete ucciso dalla mafia. Ogni volta si rinnova il dolore, come ogni anno all'anniversario dell'uccisione di Falcone e Borsellino, come se fosse successo oggi, per chi come me, del Sud, adora la propria terra. Ed ogni lacrima e' un grido strozzato. Come ogni volta, mi sono sentito inutile...
sabato 23 agosto 2008
Joe Biden VP
Finally Barack Obama has chosen. The ticket will be formed with Joe Biden. I really like the guy. He has been very outspoken and very active against the Bush policies. He is very well spoken and experienced on both foreign as for homeland security matters. He has been in the Congress forever, thus he knows the system as well. I think it is one of the best choices by Barack.
Here is the article from the NYT
Here is the article from the NYT
venerdì 22 agosto 2008
Nuclear Development in Italy: where are we ? (2)
Italy was a pioneer of civil nuclear power and in 1946 established the first scientific body to pursue this. In 1952 it established an agency to develop and promote nuclear power, and this was reorganised in 1960 to become CNEN (National committee for nuclear energy).
Following a referendum in November 1987, provoked by the Chernobyl accident 18 months earlier, work on the nuclear program was largely stopped. In 1988 the government resolved to halt all nuclear construction, shut the remaining reactors and decommission them from 1990. As well as the operating plants, two new nuclear BWR plants were almost complete and six locally-designed PWR plants were planned. ENEA (formerly CNEN) also closed various fuel cycle facilities.
Despite its previously high level of activity and expertise, Italy remained largely inactive in nuclear energy for 15 years.
In 2004 a new Energy Law opened up the possibility of joint venture with foreign companies in relation to nuclear power plants and importing electricity from them.
In 2005 Electricité de France and ENEL signed a memorandum of understanding to give ENEL some 200 MWe from the new Flamanville-3 EPR nuclear reactor (1650 MWe) in France, and potentially another 1000 MWe or so from the next five such units built. As well as the 12.5% share, ENEL was also to be involved in design, construction and operation of the plants. However, early in 2007 EdF backed away from this agreement and said it would build Flamanville 3 on its own and take all the output. Nevertheless, in November 2007 an agreement was signed confirming the 12.5% ENEL investment in Flamanville - expected to cost EUR 450 million - plus the same share of another five such plants. The agreement also gives EdF an option to participate in construction and operation of future ENEL nuclear power plants in Italy or elsewhere in Europe and the Mediterranean.
In 2004 ENEL bought 66% of Slovenske Electrarne (SE) with its four VVER 440/V213 Bohunice and Mochovce reactors there. ENEL's subsequent investment plan approved in 2005 involves EUR 1.88 billion investment to increase SE generating capacity, including EUR 1.6 billion for completion of Mochovce units 3 & 4 - 942 MWe gross - by 2011-12.
In October 2007 Italy became the 17th member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which is developing new nuclear fuel cycle technologies to improve proliferation resistance while increasing recycling and reducing wastes.
In 2008 Energy Lab, described as a think tank and involving major utilities, began a feasibility study on building four new nuclear power plants in Italy.
Following a referendum in November 1987, provoked by the Chernobyl accident 18 months earlier, work on the nuclear program was largely stopped. In 1988 the government resolved to halt all nuclear construction, shut the remaining reactors and decommission them from 1990. As well as the operating plants, two new nuclear BWR plants were almost complete and six locally-designed PWR plants were planned. ENEA (formerly CNEN) also closed various fuel cycle facilities.
Despite its previously high level of activity and expertise, Italy remained largely inactive in nuclear energy for 15 years.
In 2004 a new Energy Law opened up the possibility of joint venture with foreign companies in relation to nuclear power plants and importing electricity from them.
In 2005 Electricité de France and ENEL signed a memorandum of understanding to give ENEL some 200 MWe from the new Flamanville-3 EPR nuclear reactor (1650 MWe) in France, and potentially another 1000 MWe or so from the next five such units built. As well as the 12.5% share, ENEL was also to be involved in design, construction and operation of the plants. However, early in 2007 EdF backed away from this agreement and said it would build Flamanville 3 on its own and take all the output. Nevertheless, in November 2007 an agreement was signed confirming the 12.5% ENEL investment in Flamanville - expected to cost EUR 450 million - plus the same share of another five such plants. The agreement also gives EdF an option to participate in construction and operation of future ENEL nuclear power plants in Italy or elsewhere in Europe and the Mediterranean.
In 2004 ENEL bought 66% of Slovenske Electrarne (SE) with its four VVER 440/V213 Bohunice and Mochovce reactors there. ENEL's subsequent investment plan approved in 2005 involves EUR 1.88 billion investment to increase SE generating capacity, including EUR 1.6 billion for completion of Mochovce units 3 & 4 - 942 MWe gross - by 2011-12.
In October 2007 Italy became the 17th member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) which is developing new nuclear fuel cycle technologies to improve proliferation resistance while increasing recycling and reducing wastes.
In 2008 Energy Lab, described as a think tank and involving major utilities, began a feasibility study on building four new nuclear power plants in Italy.
Some simple facts on Italy's energy resources: the magnitude of the problem (1)
Stimulated by the lack of infos and the comments on the previous post, I think it is useful to understand where all this started. I believe Italy is emblematic of the Western situation, since it is quite embarrassing.
Electricity supplied in Italy in 2005 was 330 billion kWh, giving per capita consumption of 5640 kWh/yr.
In 2006 local production from 81 GWe of plant was 315 billion kWh gross, 49% from gas, 15% from oil, 16% from coal and 14% from hydro. Imports of 50.3 billion kWh (effectively, some 15% of its needs) are required, mostly nuclear power from France( More than half comes immediately from Switzerland - 26 TWh in 2005, which imports much of it - 29 TWh in 2006, from France and Germany). This is equivalent to output from about 7 GWe of capacity at 80%.
ENEL (originally Italian Electricity Generation Board) is responsible for electricity production and transmission. In 1992 it became ENEL SpA, a joint stock company, and in 1999 40% of its shares went public. Also generating subsidiaries were formed and sold off with the aim of limiting ENEL's share of the market to 50%. Due to the high reliance on oil and gas, as well as imports, Italy's electricity prices are 45% above EU average.
Italy today is now the only G8 country without its own nuclear power, and is the world's largest net importer of electricity.
Electricity supplied in Italy in 2005 was 330 billion kWh, giving per capita consumption of 5640 kWh/yr.
In 2006 local production from 81 GWe of plant was 315 billion kWh gross, 49% from gas, 15% from oil, 16% from coal and 14% from hydro. Imports of 50.3 billion kWh (effectively, some 15% of its needs) are required, mostly nuclear power from France( More than half comes immediately from Switzerland - 26 TWh in 2005, which imports much of it - 29 TWh in 2006, from France and Germany). This is equivalent to output from about 7 GWe of capacity at 80%.
ENEL (originally Italian Electricity Generation Board) is responsible for electricity production and transmission. In 1992 it became ENEL SpA, a joint stock company, and in 1999 40% of its shares went public. Also generating subsidiaries were formed and sold off with the aim of limiting ENEL's share of the market to 50%. Due to the high reliance on oil and gas, as well as imports, Italy's electricity prices are 45% above EU average.
Italy today is now the only G8 country without its own nuclear power, and is the world's largest net importer of electricity.
giovedì 21 agosto 2008
How convenient is a nuclear plant ?
In a previous post, I started talking about the renewed interest in Italy about nuclear energy produced through fission. On this post, I wanted to say a few words on whether this choice would be convenient for other reasons.
First of all, according to the Energy Information Administration, by 2030, the contribution from nuclear energy production will go down from 15.8 % to 11.8 %. So
The UK have no intention to build new ones as well: British buildings equipped with solar, wind and other micro power equipment could generate as much electricity in a year as five nuclear power stations, a government-backed industry report showed.
In any event, estimated costs are about 6/10 billion euro per power plant (Wall Street Journal 30/05/08) , from E. On, German industry working on one in FInland and from Florida power and light, US provider.
Another thing to consider is that there are not so many mines of Uranium in the world. Three countries have about the 50%, Australia, Kazachistan and Canada. Then, Niger, Russia, Namibia, Uzbekistan, Usa, South Africa and China. Should be expect a New OPEC from the poorest coutries or a new energy dependence like Italy from Russia ?
How much will the cost of Uranium increase in 10 yrs ? According to IAEA, resources will be close to finish in the next 30/35 yrs.
It will be necessary other sources like Plutonium or torium, which are very costly and limited as well and convert to other technologies, like fast reactos.
It should also be considered that at the moment, the cost of raw Uranium is only 22% of the total processing cost an only 15% to the total cost.
These considerations do not take into account maintenance, security and safety and waste.
First of all, according to the Energy Information Administration, by 2030, the contribution from nuclear energy production will go down from 15.8 % to 11.8 %. So
The UK have no intention to build new ones as well: British buildings equipped with solar, wind and other micro power equipment could generate as much electricity in a year as five nuclear power stations, a government-backed industry report showed.
In any event, estimated costs are about 6/10 billion euro per power plant (Wall Street Journal 30/05/08) , from E. On, German industry working on one in FInland and from Florida power and light, US provider.
Another thing to consider is that there are not so many mines of Uranium in the world. Three countries have about the 50%, Australia, Kazachistan and Canada. Then, Niger, Russia, Namibia, Uzbekistan, Usa, South Africa and China. Should be expect a New OPEC from the poorest coutries or a new energy dependence like Italy from Russia ?
How much will the cost of Uranium increase in 10 yrs ? According to IAEA, resources will be close to finish in the next 30/35 yrs.
It will be necessary other sources like Plutonium or torium, which are very costly and limited as well and convert to other technologies, like fast reactos.
It should also be considered that at the moment, the cost of raw Uranium is only 22% of the total processing cost an only 15% to the total cost.
These considerations do not take into account maintenance, security and safety and waste.
venerdì 8 agosto 2008
....YEAHHHHHHHHH !!!!!
Dear ALL,
NUNTIO VOBIS GAUDIUM MAGNUM
GONE ON VACATION ! from 9/8 - 17/8. No more than that, i could get spoiled !!
CALABRIA ASPETTAMI !
ciao ciao
The Health Care debate in the US
Many Italians don't know how big the debate is in the US regarding their HC system. In fact, more and more people would like a more "socialist" or universal one, as Canada or Europe have, whereas in Italy, we debate whether we should go for a more private one, like in the US . I find this article on New Politics quite interesting. I will give an excerpt here, where some common points, with references in the original article, against universal care are discussed.
---Universal coverage costs too much---.
No, it doesn't. Every other industrialized nation offers its people universal coverage, and at a cost much lower than we now spend in the United States, which covers only part of its population. In 2005, we spent 15.3 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on health care compared to France's 11.1 percent, Germany's 10.7 percent, and Canada's 9.8 percent.1 Yet, in 2005 we had 45 million uninsured (it's two million more at this writing!) while other industrialized countries covered everyone's health care.
---Your taxes will go up. ---
Perhaps, but you are still likely to come out ahead when you consider the overall expenses. Single payer will cost most people the same or less than the premiums and medical bills they are paying today, and will be secure regardless of employment or income. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have testified that the United States could insure everyone for the amount of money we're spending.
---Americans get world-class care ---
don't mess around with that. The fact is that the average American doesn't get world-class care. Sure, if you are wealthy and have the best private insurance, your chances of getting excellent care are high. But on almost all measures of health care and mortality, we lag behind Canada and Europe.
---Other countries have much longer waiting times than we do. ---
In actuality in other industrialized countries there are no waiting lists for emergency surgery or urgently needed procedures. It's true that the United States has shorter waits for elective surgery than Canada and England. But recent studies show that some waiting times in the U.S. are longer than in other countries. For example, in a study of seven developed countries, the Commonwealth Fund looked at how many sick adults had to wait six days or more for an appointment. By this measure, only Canada's record was worse than ours. Within our market-driven system, an appointment for cosmetic surgery may be scheduled sooner than an appointment for possible skin cancer. A recent study reported an average wait of 73 days for patients with possible skin cancer in Boston.
---People get care even if they're uninsured---
there is no problem. Don't tell that to the American Cancer Society (ACS), which in September 2007 worked with its sister advocacy organization, the ACS Cancer Action Network, to launch a major initiative to make the access to health care a state and national priority. Research shows that uninsured patients were much more likely to have their cancers diagnosed at an advanced stage, when they are less curable, than were patients with insurance. John Seffrin, the Society's chief executive, has stated that unless the health care system is fixed "lack of access will be a bigger cancer killer than tobacco." And of course the problem isn't limited to cancer: the Institute of Medicine estimates there are 18,000 deaths per year due to lack of insurance. Unnecessary suffering and disease affect millions more who have no insurance or are under-insured.
---Single payer is socialized medicine.---
But single payer is not socialized medicine, because for the most part government will not own the hospitals and physicians will not be on salary to government. It simply changes the financing of health care; the health care delivery system remains the same. It will operate like the Medicare program for the elderly today, in which patients are seen by private doctors in (mostly) private hospitals; this clearly isn't socialized medicine. Single payer is actually "social insurance" rather than "private insurance."
It does strike me that the author had to argue against the "socialized" medicine. Why does the left feel the need to justify the word ?
---Universal coverage costs too much---.
No, it doesn't. Every other industrialized nation offers its people universal coverage, and at a cost much lower than we now spend in the United States, which covers only part of its population. In 2005, we spent 15.3 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on health care compared to France's 11.1 percent, Germany's 10.7 percent, and Canada's 9.8 percent.1 Yet, in 2005 we had 45 million uninsured (it's two million more at this writing!) while other industrialized countries covered everyone's health care.
---Your taxes will go up. ---
Perhaps, but you are still likely to come out ahead when you consider the overall expenses. Single payer will cost most people the same or less than the premiums and medical bills they are paying today, and will be secure regardless of employment or income. Both the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office have testified that the United States could insure everyone for the amount of money we're spending.
---Americans get world-class care ---
don't mess around with that. The fact is that the average American doesn't get world-class care. Sure, if you are wealthy and have the best private insurance, your chances of getting excellent care are high. But on almost all measures of health care and mortality, we lag behind Canada and Europe.
---Other countries have much longer waiting times than we do. ---
In actuality in other industrialized countries there are no waiting lists for emergency surgery or urgently needed procedures. It's true that the United States has shorter waits for elective surgery than Canada and England. But recent studies show that some waiting times in the U.S. are longer than in other countries. For example, in a study of seven developed countries, the Commonwealth Fund looked at how many sick adults had to wait six days or more for an appointment. By this measure, only Canada's record was worse than ours. Within our market-driven system, an appointment for cosmetic surgery may be scheduled sooner than an appointment for possible skin cancer. A recent study reported an average wait of 73 days for patients with possible skin cancer in Boston.
---People get care even if they're uninsured---
there is no problem. Don't tell that to the American Cancer Society (ACS), which in September 2007 worked with its sister advocacy organization, the ACS Cancer Action Network, to launch a major initiative to make the access to health care a state and national priority. Research shows that uninsured patients were much more likely to have their cancers diagnosed at an advanced stage, when they are less curable, than were patients with insurance. John Seffrin, the Society's chief executive, has stated that unless the health care system is fixed "lack of access will be a bigger cancer killer than tobacco." And of course the problem isn't limited to cancer: the Institute of Medicine estimates there are 18,000 deaths per year due to lack of insurance. Unnecessary suffering and disease affect millions more who have no insurance or are under-insured.
---Single payer is socialized medicine.---
But single payer is not socialized medicine, because for the most part government will not own the hospitals and physicians will not be on salary to government. It simply changes the financing of health care; the health care delivery system remains the same. It will operate like the Medicare program for the elderly today, in which patients are seen by private doctors in (mostly) private hospitals; this clearly isn't socialized medicine. Single payer is actually "social insurance" rather than "private insurance."
It does strike me that the author had to argue against the "socialized" medicine. Why does the left feel the need to justify the word ?
giovedì 7 agosto 2008
The Bradbury Museum and Repubblica.
Today, on Repubblica, there was an article, on the Bradbury Science Museum in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Of course, I might be a little biased by the fact I lived there for 3 yrs and I actually visited the museum, but this article seems to me more ridiculous than the actual Museum.
The article points out that there is an apology of the bombs and accuses the Museum of short memory, since it forgets those who died and the devastations because of the bombs.
Now, I have some doubts that this woman really went to the Museum. She mistakenly drives the reader to the conclusion that the bombs were actually built there, whereas they were only designed at LANL. One of them was actually produced at the Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. It does make a difference when you are reporting on something, since you want your facts straight.
In any event what i contest here is the approach of the article. The purpose of the Museum is not to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not even the bombs. It is plenty of Museums doing that. Rather, its purpose is to lead the visitors through the steps and the emotions during the years of the Manhattan Project, from the very place were this was started. The Manhattan project was a majestic endeavor with a dignity in itself. That is the message of the museum, nothing else.
Furthermore, the Museum is basically of the Los Alamos Natl Lab. Any consideration should start from here.
If you go to the Guinness brewery they show you how they produce it, they don't show how many people died drinking beer. There are many other things why the Museum is ridiculous, definitely, not this one. The perspective is quite different.
PS: It is clear that the people who actually stayed at LANL find this article quite idiotic. Stefano talks about it on his blog, as well... eheh
The article points out that there is an apology of the bombs and accuses the Museum of short memory, since it forgets those who died and the devastations because of the bombs.
Now, I have some doubts that this woman really went to the Museum. She mistakenly drives the reader to the conclusion that the bombs were actually built there, whereas they were only designed at LANL. One of them was actually produced at the Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. It does make a difference when you are reporting on something, since you want your facts straight.
In any event what i contest here is the approach of the article. The purpose of the Museum is not to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not even the bombs. It is plenty of Museums doing that. Rather, its purpose is to lead the visitors through the steps and the emotions during the years of the Manhattan Project, from the very place were this was started. The Manhattan project was a majestic endeavor with a dignity in itself. That is the message of the museum, nothing else.
Furthermore, the Museum is basically of the Los Alamos Natl Lab. Any consideration should start from here.
If you go to the Guinness brewery they show you how they produce it, they don't show how many people died drinking beer. There are many other things why the Museum is ridiculous, definitely, not this one. The perspective is quite different.
PS: It is clear that the people who actually stayed at LANL find this article quite idiotic. Stefano talks about it on his blog, as well... eheh
mercoledì 6 agosto 2008
The long tail of Katrina
It is quite sad that after almost three yrs from Katrina, which devasted the South-East of the US, only 133,966 out of almost 200,000 households in Orleans Parish could receive mail and only 40 percent of pubic schools had reopened. From the IPS website, on the side of the blog: "The rapid erosion of New Orleans parallels the erosion of small town America. Up and down the Mississippi, travelers see business districts boarded up and factories rusting. Young people are strikingly absent. In late June, victims of the latest natural disaster – the Midwestern floods – saw bridges floating away, dams and levees surrendering, aging sewage systems collapsing. Their crops and animals floated away.On July 4, politicians repeated the “We’re the greatest” rhetoric while ignoring the country’s decrepit infrastructure.
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that an additional expenditure of $1 trillion is needed to bring infrastructure up to par with modern needs and standards, not counting the cost of repairing damage caused by the recent floods.
Mr. Bush requested $1.8 billion for flood recovery — a drop in the proverbial bucket. While billions per week flow to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of deteriorating bridges, levees and dams await attention." This is all very sad !
The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that an additional expenditure of $1 trillion is needed to bring infrastructure up to par with modern needs and standards, not counting the cost of repairing damage caused by the recent floods.
Mr. Bush requested $1.8 billion for flood recovery — a drop in the proverbial bucket. While billions per week flow to Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of deteriorating bridges, levees and dams await attention." This is all very sad !
you have got to see this....
A few days ago McCain had Paris Hilton on a campaign spot, trashing some celebrities because unfit to lead, as Obama would be. That's Paris' video reply
...and now, let's patrol Italy's streets with the Army
This is the new campaign bluff in Italy. Despite the fact that, statistically speaking, the streets in Rome are safer than, for instance, Amsterdam and London, Berlusconi decided that we need the Army on the streets. This is to create fear, not security, usual spur to make people worried and in need of certainties and it was the same kind of campaign played in the US after 9/11 by the neocons. In Italy you can get killed more likely in your workplace rather than in the streets (statistics at hand) and it is the Nation where there are more deaths on work than in any other EU country. Maybe the Army should be put in dockyards or builders' yards... yours, dear Berlusconi, would be better, damn fool !
domenica 3 agosto 2008
The Cluster bombs and the US wonder
Well over half the world’s governments agreed at the end of May to “consign cluster munitions to the trash bin of history,” in the words of the Cluster Munition Coalition, the civil society collective that delivered the treaty. Meeting in Dublin, Ireland, representatives of 110 governments completed negotiations on a new international treaty that bans the production, use, and export of all existing cluster munitions and commits them to destroy their stockpiles within eight years.
The U.S. government did not attend the negotiations, instead arm-twisting its allies to weaken the treaty. In the end, though, all other major NATO countries joined with the majority in agreeing to get rid of these weapons, which are designed to kill or maim every living thing in an area as large as two football fields. The vast majority of victims of cluster bombs have been civilians.
Stephen Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, held a press briefing in the midst of the negotiations to explain why the U.S. government was not at the table. His explanations were creative.
If the convention passes in its current form, any U.S. military ship would be technically not able to get involved in a peacekeeping operation, in providing disaster relief or humanitarian assistance as we're doing right now in the aftermath of the earthquake in China and the typhoon in Burma, and not to mention everything that we did in Southeast Asia after the tsunami in December of 2004. And that's because most U.S. military units have in their inventory these kinds of weapons.
A reporter astutely asked Mull why it wasn’t possible to “just take the munitions off your ships?” Mull responded:
Well, we - the number one priority of any country's military is to defend its country. And if our military planners are determined that these are necessary to protect American interests, we - it's not something that we're going to unilaterally get rid of.
The cluster bomb treaty would be unilateral…except for the other 110 countries that also agreed to abandon cluster bombs in Dublin.
And why are cluster munitions a necessary defense? Mull again had an answer:
These [cluster munitions] are weapons that have a certain military utility and are of use. The United States relies on them as an important part of our own defense strategy.
When the media inexplicably pushed back, asking what, exactly, this military utility was, Mull ruled out some possibilities:
How many wars like that is the United States going to be in, in the foreseeable future. My personal guess is probably not a lot. I don't think we have that kind of threat from Canada or Mexico, by the way, for example.
No doubt the Canadian and Mexican governments are reassured to hear that the United States does not plan to go to war with them anytime soon.
The U.S. government did not attend the negotiations, instead arm-twisting its allies to weaken the treaty. In the end, though, all other major NATO countries joined with the majority in agreeing to get rid of these weapons, which are designed to kill or maim every living thing in an area as large as two football fields. The vast majority of victims of cluster bombs have been civilians.
Stephen Mull, Acting Assistant Secretary for Political-Military Affairs, held a press briefing in the midst of the negotiations to explain why the U.S. government was not at the table. His explanations were creative.
If the convention passes in its current form, any U.S. military ship would be technically not able to get involved in a peacekeeping operation, in providing disaster relief or humanitarian assistance as we're doing right now in the aftermath of the earthquake in China and the typhoon in Burma, and not to mention everything that we did in Southeast Asia after the tsunami in December of 2004. And that's because most U.S. military units have in their inventory these kinds of weapons.
A reporter astutely asked Mull why it wasn’t possible to “just take the munitions off your ships?” Mull responded:
Well, we - the number one priority of any country's military is to defend its country. And if our military planners are determined that these are necessary to protect American interests, we - it's not something that we're going to unilaterally get rid of.
The cluster bomb treaty would be unilateral…except for the other 110 countries that also agreed to abandon cluster bombs in Dublin.
And why are cluster munitions a necessary defense? Mull again had an answer:
These [cluster munitions] are weapons that have a certain military utility and are of use. The United States relies on them as an important part of our own defense strategy.
When the media inexplicably pushed back, asking what, exactly, this military utility was, Mull ruled out some possibilities:
How many wars like that is the United States going to be in, in the foreseeable future. My personal guess is probably not a lot. I don't think we have that kind of threat from Canada or Mexico, by the way, for example.
No doubt the Canadian and Mexican governments are reassured to hear that the United States does not plan to go to war with them anytime soon.
McCain, the nice guy
Senator John McCain presents himself as a what-you-see is what-you-get presidential candidate: clean, pragmatic, following his convictions even when not politically expedient. He considers himself to be someone who would make an excellent foreign policy president. But this image sits in contrast with the International Republican Institute (IRI), for which McCain has served as board chairman since 1993. Under the cover of spreading democracy and a free market economic system, the IRI installs U.S.-friendly governments and undermines those that are not by supporting coups and ousters.
Formed in 1983, the IRI is one of several umbrella organizations under the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), created by the Reagan administration in 1983. The NED was formed at a time when CIA covert action was coming under increasing scrutiny, prompting its critics to see it as a surrogate for covert action.
The Nation in 2002, for example, argued that the “NED was designed to run a parallel foreign policy for the United States, backing and assisting entities that Washington might not be able to officially endorse.” The IRI is funded by U.S. tax dollars to the tune of $75 million a year.
IRI activities in countries like Haiti and Venezuela are more controversial. In Haiti, even those opposed to Jean-Bertrand Aristide would agree that he was democratically elected. Yet the IRI consolidated democracy against him leading to his violent ouster. Mother Jones reported that “several of the people who had attended IRI trainings were influential in the toppling of Aristide.” Today, Haiti is more poor, divided and violent, and less democratic than it was at the time of Aristide’s ouster.
In 2002 the then-IRI president George Folsom is reported to have applauded the failed Venezuelan coup against President Hugo Chavez. "Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country," he said in a statement the IRI released.
Not expecting the coup to fail, he went on to proudly claim that the role of the IRI had been to “serve as a bridge between the nation's political parties and all civil society groups.”
It’s not surprising that Egypt views the IRI with so much suspicion that in 2006 it asked the IRI to suspend its efforts at democracy building until it received official permission.
Egypt isn’t an emblem of democracy, but as it turns out, neither is the IRI. As the board chairman of this outfit, McCain would have some trust issues in international gatherings right from Day One if he were to win the U.S. presidential election.
The questions that McCain needs to answer are obvious: As board chairman has he been fully aware of the more covert IRI activities? As president, would he endorse a coup if he felt the end result would be a democratic government friendly to the United States? Is the IRI fully accountable and transparent to the American people? As President, would he continue to fund the IRI without an investigation into its mandate?
Formed in 1983, the IRI is one of several umbrella organizations under the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), created by the Reagan administration in 1983. The NED was formed at a time when CIA covert action was coming under increasing scrutiny, prompting its critics to see it as a surrogate for covert action.
The Nation in 2002, for example, argued that the “NED was designed to run a parallel foreign policy for the United States, backing and assisting entities that Washington might not be able to officially endorse.” The IRI is funded by U.S. tax dollars to the tune of $75 million a year.
IRI activities in countries like Haiti and Venezuela are more controversial. In Haiti, even those opposed to Jean-Bertrand Aristide would agree that he was democratically elected. Yet the IRI consolidated democracy against him leading to his violent ouster. Mother Jones reported that “several of the people who had attended IRI trainings were influential in the toppling of Aristide.” Today, Haiti is more poor, divided and violent, and less democratic than it was at the time of Aristide’s ouster.
In 2002 the then-IRI president George Folsom is reported to have applauded the failed Venezuelan coup against President Hugo Chavez. "Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country," he said in a statement the IRI released.
Not expecting the coup to fail, he went on to proudly claim that the role of the IRI had been to “serve as a bridge between the nation's political parties and all civil society groups.”
It’s not surprising that Egypt views the IRI with so much suspicion that in 2006 it asked the IRI to suspend its efforts at democracy building until it received official permission.
Egypt isn’t an emblem of democracy, but as it turns out, neither is the IRI. As the board chairman of this outfit, McCain would have some trust issues in international gatherings right from Day One if he were to win the U.S. presidential election.
The questions that McCain needs to answer are obvious: As board chairman has he been fully aware of the more covert IRI activities? As president, would he endorse a coup if he felt the end result would be a democratic government friendly to the United States? Is the IRI fully accountable and transparent to the American people? As President, would he continue to fund the IRI without an investigation into its mandate?
Iscriviti a:
Post (Atom)
