The army has a bit of a problem in relations between male and female soldiers. It isn't the US army, which has its own share of problems, it's the Australian army. And the line they've taken, from the top down, is very firm. If you haven't had a chance to watch this short address, it is recommended you do. Then imagine how a similar speech could play out in the US.
Monday, June 17, 2013
A Firm Stance by the Military
The army has a bit of a problem in relations between male and female soldiers. It isn't the US army, which has its own share of problems, it's the Australian army. And the line they've taken, from the top down, is very firm. If you haven't had a chance to watch this short address, it is recommended you do. Then imagine how a similar speech could play out in the US.
Pakistan's Quagmire an International Concern
Another day, another disquieting incident in Pakistan, home of possibly the world's most dangerous nuclear weapons program. Militants attacked a bus of students from a women's university, and then proceeded to attack the hospital where survivors were being treated. Although this attack garnered little attention outside of minor news blurbs, it included all the facets that Western nations are concerned about: homegrown terrorism, suicide bombers, a coordinated attack, and significant civilian casualties. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a group with links to al-Qaeda.
As with each attack, international concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal surface. Can Pakistan, a country with deep internal divisions, keep itself together? This attack, on the very fundamental elements of reform Pakistan has struggled with - women's rights - comes on the heels of and as a test to the newly elected government of Nawaz Sharif.
Sharif, a political mainstay of Pakistani politics (this is his third term), has a slew of election promises to uphold. While improving the economy will be quite a challenge on the heels of an accelerating US withdrawal from neighboring Afghanistan, ending drone strikes in a country that reels from the majority of American targets will be an even more daunting task. Pakistan has been the center of US operations and there is little evidence to suggest that even as the physical American presence on the ground decreases, the threat of the US military will as well.
Attacks like the one this past week are exactly why. A country with fundamentalist, militant opposition, an active military, and nuclear weapons, is a dangerous mix. And concerns nations far removed from the subcontinental neighborhood. It wouldn't be such bad idea if these stories made more than a dent in the international news blotter.
As with each attack, international concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal surface. Can Pakistan, a country with deep internal divisions, keep itself together? This attack, on the very fundamental elements of reform Pakistan has struggled with - women's rights - comes on the heels of and as a test to the newly elected government of Nawaz Sharif.
Sharif, a political mainstay of Pakistani politics (this is his third term), has a slew of election promises to uphold. While improving the economy will be quite a challenge on the heels of an accelerating US withdrawal from neighboring Afghanistan, ending drone strikes in a country that reels from the majority of American targets will be an even more daunting task. Pakistan has been the center of US operations and there is little evidence to suggest that even as the physical American presence on the ground decreases, the threat of the US military will as well.
Attacks like the one this past week are exactly why. A country with fundamentalist, militant opposition, an active military, and nuclear weapons, is a dangerous mix. And concerns nations far removed from the subcontinental neighborhood. It wouldn't be such bad idea if these stories made more than a dent in the international news blotter.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
UN good at counting; everything else - not so much
A new report from the United Nations (UN) human rights commission indicates that the death toll of the Syrian Civil War stands at nearly 93,000 (Full report here). This is not the first time the UN has released a report on the Syrian death toll. The list only includes those whose names and locations of death are known, thereby all-but guaranteeing that the actual toll of the war is much higher. The UN seems to be great at compiling sources and counting reports of deaths. It is not unimaginable that a team of graduate students could likely do the job (and there are databases of civil war deaths and civilian deaths of wars - example here).
The biggest missing piece is action, or even a call to action. The UN was created to (emphasis ours):
In fact, the current UN report concludes most irreverently:
"Examining reported killings is an important step in understanding violence in Syria. But it is only a first step. Further analysis is necessary to answer substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict."
It seems to completely gloss over the fact that this is not a historical conflict where historical data is being examined - this is happening now - today. The next step is not to answer "substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict." The next step is to use this evidence to encourage a stand against the violence and bringing the conflict to an end.
The biggest missing piece is action, or even a call to action. The UN was created to (emphasis ours):
- To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
In fact, the current UN report concludes most irreverently:
"Examining reported killings is an important step in understanding violence in Syria. But it is only a first step. Further analysis is necessary to answer substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict."
It seems to completely gloss over the fact that this is not a historical conflict where historical data is being examined - this is happening now - today. The next step is not to answer "substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict." The next step is to use this evidence to encourage a stand against the violence and bringing the conflict to an end.
Previous Illexum posts on Syria:
Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
To Do What Feels Necessary (May 4, 2013)
The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet (January 31, 2013)
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Unreliable Energy Focus: Subsea Operations & the Dream of Flatness
This article is the first (of hopefully many) that will focus on the international energy sector. Without a consistent publication schedule, they will be titled, for the time being "Unreliable Energy Focus."
(source: Bloomberg Businessweek)
Floating oil platforms, subject to weather and waves, are expensive and soon could be a thing of the past, if the energy industry is taken for its word in a recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek. In fact, the industry wants to put nearly all the technology currently on the ocean's surface on the sea floor, sans humans. Subsea operations would be entirely mechanical and largely automated.
While the image above may look like fantasy, putting machinery down on the abyssal plain, able to withstand the extreme pressure and temperatures, is already happening, though not on the scale desired by the energy industry. The energy (largely oil, some gas) is currently pumped up, albeit inefficiently, often miles to the surface where it is processed.
There are, nonetheless, a number of technical and environmental factors to be considered that are being overlooked by the business case. To start, the abyssal plain is flat and largely featureless, but it is not "tabletop flat" and it is not entirely lifeless. To put it gently, humanity knows very little about the abyssal plain, and even less so about the natural processes that occur there. Putting major machinery there could disrupt fragile chains that we know nothing about (not that we haven't done that before).
Additionally, without humans, what is the plan for maintenance, repair, and damage control? It seems that the whole system would be built on sensors and robots that could fail and produce far-reaching issues. Deepwater Horizon happened not so long ago and the long-term effects of that spill are still unknown. In a sense, is the system setup to handle a black swan event?
It was in 1961 that the first pressure control valves were places on the seafloor by Royal Dutch Shell. Even though technology moves ever faster, putting everything on the seafloor and moving to entirely subsea operations so quickly is unlikely - it has been a long and gradual process since 1961. Moreover, an evaluation of the potential environmental impact needs to be conducted. The short-term benefits should not trump long-term concerns. After addressing these issues, it may be time to move forward, but it would be a failure if we kid ourselves about this being easy.
Floating oil platforms, subject to weather and waves, are expensive and soon could be a thing of the past, if the energy industry is taken for its word in a recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek. In fact, the industry wants to put nearly all the technology currently on the ocean's surface on the sea floor, sans humans. Subsea operations would be entirely mechanical and largely automated.
While the image above may look like fantasy, putting machinery down on the abyssal plain, able to withstand the extreme pressure and temperatures, is already happening, though not on the scale desired by the energy industry. The energy (largely oil, some gas) is currently pumped up, albeit inefficiently, often miles to the surface where it is processed.
There are, nonetheless, a number of technical and environmental factors to be considered that are being overlooked by the business case. To start, the abyssal plain is flat and largely featureless, but it is not "tabletop flat" and it is not entirely lifeless. To put it gently, humanity knows very little about the abyssal plain, and even less so about the natural processes that occur there. Putting major machinery there could disrupt fragile chains that we know nothing about (not that we haven't done that before).
Additionally, without humans, what is the plan for maintenance, repair, and damage control? It seems that the whole system would be built on sensors and robots that could fail and produce far-reaching issues. Deepwater Horizon happened not so long ago and the long-term effects of that spill are still unknown. In a sense, is the system setup to handle a black swan event?
It was in 1961 that the first pressure control valves were places on the seafloor by Royal Dutch Shell. Even though technology moves ever faster, putting everything on the seafloor and moving to entirely subsea operations so quickly is unlikely - it has been a long and gradual process since 1961. Moreover, an evaluation of the potential environmental impact needs to be conducted. The short-term benefits should not trump long-term concerns. After addressing these issues, it may be time to move forward, but it would be a failure if we kid ourselves about this being easy.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Foreign Arms in Syria
As the civil war rages on in Syria, foreign countries continue to wade in the murky waters of arms deals to government and rebel forces.
Russia, for one, is providing advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. Despite initial reports that the missiles had already arrived, Russian sources indicated that the missiles -- part of a 2010 arms deal -- wouldn't arrive in Syria for months. Those same sources said, however, that delivery could be expedited based on conditions on the ground in Syria or changing positions/activities of Western governments.
On Monday, meanwhile, the EU ended its arms embargo on Syria, opening the door for countries like Britain and France to arm the rebels. Canada's foreign minister responded to the news negatively, claiming that more arms flowing into Syria will only cause further bloodshed.
To make matters even worse, news came out Friday that the developer of Russia's MiG fighters will ink a deal to ship at least 10 fighter jets to Syria. While details are sketchy, one can only hope that such a deal does not come to pass.
In short, while there does not appear to be any move toward direct military intervention by foreign governments, all indications seem to point to a weapons influx in the near future. This of course brings us back to the question: who are we arming? According to numerous accounts, the most organized and effective faction of the Syrian rebels is Jabhat al-Nusra -- a group with ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq. The U.S. State Department designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organization in December 2012, and the UN just added the group to its sanctions blacklist.
Therefore, those states looking to arm the Syrian rebels have some issues to address:
-Providing arms to Jabhat al-Nusra would violate the UN sanctions.
-Providing arms to other Syrian groups would likely be less effective, not to mention the fact that the arms could well end up in the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra fighters. Indeed, reports indicate that entire units of Free Syria Army soldiers have defected to Jabhat al-Nusra.
-Providing arms could provoke an arms race between Western powers and Russia to equip their respective sides.
-Providing arms could be the first step in the road to direct military intervention.
An arms escalation could further derail peace talks. A U.S.-Russia conference planned for early June to discuss Syria, for example, will not be taking place in light of the recent arms developments. With a weapons influx seemingly imminent, peace in Syria appears as elusive as ever.
Previous posts on Syria:
Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
To Do What Feels Necessary (May 4, 2013)
The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet (January 31, 2013)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)