Rockall

The Guardian: Rockall claim puts Britain on collision course with Iceland

I was looking at a list of disputed territories, and I came across the dispute over "Rockall." I don't know if you have ever heard of it, but I found the fact that this has been and continues to be a point of international dispute rather ludicrous. There are even plans for an international conference to decide who has sovreignty of the rock (claimed by the UK). Meanwhile, Iceland is furious that Britain is potentially claiming something which they believe is rightfully theirs.

I think one of the major reasons why this rock is so important is that rightful claim to the rock affords the nation in its possession access and control to many miles of ocean. In these many miles of ocean are believed to be large reserves of oil and natural gas, which obviously can turn out to be quite profitable. What nations won't do in the name of the pursuit of oil, eh?

I liked how The Irish News referred to it: "It has been invaded more times than Iraq and is thought to hold huge oil and gas reserves." It makes it sound so much more majestic than a big rock in the middle of the ocean.


For more information, visit this BBC article on it.

More Troubles?

Earlier this month, the people of Northern Ireland awoke to news which many Ulster residents had – perhaps naively – hoped would forever remain only in the memories of history. Irish republicans had murdered British soldiers and an Ulster constable; the first successful, after at least 25 unsuccessful, attacks against security forces in Northern Ireland in the last 18 months.

On 7 March, Irish republican terrorists gunned down two unarmed British soldiers outside the Massereene Barracks in County Antrim, Northern Ireland. The soldiers had ordered pizza that night, as they commemorated their last evening in Northern Ireland before being sent to fight in Afghanistan the following day. As the soldiers went to get their pizza, the terrorists opened fire, releasing at least 60 shots. Two more soldiers were seriously injured, as well as the two civilian pizza delivery men. Forty-eight hours later, a police constable was shot dead by a sniper in County Armagh. The acts marked the first time in over a decade that Irish republican terrorists had succeeded in murdering security forces in Ulster.

The paramilitary group the Real IRA (a designated terrorist organization by the British and American governments) irreverently claimed responsibility for these acts of cowardice. After the murder of the PSNI officer, who was only two years short of retirement, the group issued a statement which read, “As long as there is British involvement in Ireland, these attacks will continue.”

Many in Ulster are now on edge, wondering whether the attacks were a final flare emanating from the dying embers of a once ferocious fire or whether the attacks signal a wave of new violence which Northern Ireland had hoped to put behind itself after the landmark Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

It is clear, however, that times are very different from what they were at the height of the Troubles. When my Irish grandfather was alive fifteen years ago, he could not have imagined the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) standing side-by-side in solidarity with the leader of republican party Sinn Fein in the immediate aftermath of a republican terrorist attack. Yet, that’s exactly what happened in the aftermath of the Massereene Barracks attacks. Northern Ireland’s First Minister Peter Robinson (DUP) stood with Sinn Fein Deputy Minister Martin McGuinness, a former IRA leader, who called the gunmen “traitors to the island of Ireland.” As Robinson stood with McGuiness, a former terrorist who has now become a political ally, he urged Unionists – some who might want to seek violent revenge – to allow “due process of law” to win out. It is a clear sign that the leadership of Northern Ireland desperately wants peace to win out.

Of course, in spite of the very promising initial gestures, no one can be really certain of how this chapter will finish. Indeed, some believe that it was the insistence of Sinn Fein’s president Gerry Adams to reduce or eliminate the presence of special intelligence and security forces which left these soldiers open targets. Earlier this year, a 300lb car bomb was diffused in a country lane in County Down. Clearly the IRA have been sophisticating their operations, and British intelligence forces, constantly under pressure from Sinn Fein to reduce or remove their activities, have been unable to stop them.

Finally, although at the political level it seems as if things are generally changing for the better, for many of Ulster’s working class, resentment still runs high. One Ulster teenager told the London-based Telegraph, “The British Army is still here so they are legitimate targets. Nothing has changed, the war goes on.” Although Northern Ireland’s affluent have prospered from these years of peace, with much of Belfast’s swanky restaurants and shops resembling those in London, Ulster by-and-large remains a divided community. Just as it was 20-years ago, Ulster’s Catholics and Protestants still live separately and the counties are still fragmented into loyalist and republican communities.

Nevertheless, few in Northern Ireland want to restart the three-decade long conflict which resulted in the deaths of 3,700 people. Let us all hope that although these deaths were three too many, they will be the last.

The Politics of Richard

In case you're interested, I filled out this little survey which asked about my positions on certain issues. Just thinking back to when I started this blog coming up for five years ago, my politics hasn't changed too much, but I think that it certainly has matured. I don't believe in absolutism and leave myself open to the possibility of changing my political opinions as my perspective changes and experiences grow. Who knows how my political views will change over time, but this provides you with a little snap-shot of where I am right now in my political development.

[01] Should the US adopt a universal health-care policy?
Health-care should be a right that is available to all persons on the planet. It is ludicrous that one of the world's wealthiest nations has a millions in its population who are without health insurance. At least philosophically, I am a strong supporter of Britain's NHS system. Although I do recognize its flaws, the system does ensure that every Briton will at least have basic coverage, and that is much better than having millions of people who simply cannot get medical treatment and need it. I acknowledge, however, that it would be difficult for the United States to completely remake its current privatized system without any meaningful transition. Thus, our first priority is to make sure that no person falls through the cracks when it comes to health insurance.

[02] Would you do meth if it was legalized?
Definitely not.

[03] Abortion: for or against it?
I don't really know (m)any people who are "for" abortion. Personally, the idea of abortion is very troubling, but I don't think it's a decision that's ever made lightly. Within the first 20 weeks, I think that if a person really needs to terminate a pregnancy, then she may make that choice. I would not encourage her to have the abortion, but I would not stop her. Politically, the government, as the Supreme Court has ruled, has no authority to ban the practice unless per Constitutional amendment.

[04] Do you think the world would fail with a female president?
No, what a ridiculous question.

[05] Do you believe in the death penalty?
No. Killing people to show that killing is wrong is practically ineffective and morally objectionable. Executions cost the state much more than life imprisonment without parole. The difference between life imprisonment and the death penalty often comes down to either ineffective state-provided defence attorneys or race, especially in the Southern states - where most of the executions are carried out.

[06] Do you wish marijuana would be legalized already?
Yes, and distribution should be regulated.

[07] Are you for or against premarital sex?
Since most places won't even let me get married, it's a bit silly for me to be against pre-marital sex.

[08] Do you believe in God?
Yes, at least, I believe in a collective consciousness that unites humanity. I like the Hindu concept of original derivation - that we all derive from a common source and that that common source still lives within us today. I follow the Methodist religious tradition, though if I had been raised in a different tradition, I'd probably be that. I would very much like God to exist, and as Immanuel Kant taught, it's probably better to just assume he does, if such thoughts are comforting/beneficial. I go to church regularly, and I like the idea of people coming together in a community to learn from each other and for the betterment of themselves and society. I think that's the purpose that organized religion serves. If a religion gets too caught up in doctrine, however, that can be quite harmful.

[09] Do you think same sex marriage should be legalized?
Yes, though I oppose different sex marriage (only joking :D).

[10] Do you think it's wrong that so many Hispanics are illegally moving to the USA?
Well, they're not just Hispanics. In any case, I don't like the fact that people have to break the law to live in this country, when I immigrated here legally and fairly easily. I don't think it's their faults for being "illegal," and that the government instead should look for ways to make legal immigration easier. Immigration is one of the greatest American traditions.

[11] A twelve year old girl has a baby, should she keep it?
Well, obviously this should be determined on a case-to-case bases. In principle, if I was a 12-year-old girl who discovered she was preggers, I would consider an abortion (though, I would rather not have to do that) or, if I was strong enough (emotionally and physically) to carry the babe to term, I would give it up.

[12] Should the alcohol age be lowered to eighteen?
Certainly. Lower the buying age to 18 and the drinking age to 16, but maintain current intoxication laws and a no-tolerance policy for blood alcohol while driving up to age 19.

[13] Should the war in Iraq be called off?
"Called off"? We need to follow what Senator Obama and Prime Minister Maliki said and start withdraw U.S. troops from that country immediately, with the goal of total withdrawal in 1-1.5 years.

[14] Assisted suicide is illegal: do you agree?
No, I support assisted suicide, but it needs to be regulated to those with terminal illnesses and/or of a certain age (I'm thinking like ADVANCED age).

[15] Do you believe in spanking your children?
Sure. I turned out fine.

[16] Would you burn an American flag for a million dollars?
I'd burn a million. I'm not saying this because I disrespect the American flag; I'd do it to the British, too. A flag is a cloth object, and while it is a symbol of the country, there certainly should be no law forbidding its desecration.

[17] Who do you think would have made a better president? McCain or Obama?
Definitely Obama. Just in contrast of temperment, Obama is far more capable than McCain. Candidate McCain was arrogant, out-of-touch, uninformed, and, as we saw with his choice of Sarah Palin, apt to make rash judgements that would endanger the welfare of the nation. Also, the fact that McCain had his eyes on going to war with Iran and/or Russia is terrifying. Obama's position on diplomacy is much more open-minded and is precisely what this world needs right now. In addition, McCain would surround himself with the old Bush crowd, and that's just totally unacceptable.

[18] Do you think Obama will be killed?
The Secret Service these days is pretty damn good. So, no, I think it's very unlikely.

[19] Should child predators be forced to wear signs identifying themselves?
No. That's overkill.

[20] Are you afraid others will judge you from reading some of your answers?
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind."

Good-bye, Mr Bush

A little tribute to Former President George W. Bush. The "former" part just makes him sound so much more dignified, doesn't it?

The Democrats Should Seat Burris

In what some describe as Governor Rod Blagojevich's last laugh, the indicted Illinois governor named his appointment to the former senate seat of President-Elect Barack Obama, in spite of strong allegations that the governor had previously tried to sell the seat for money or political favours to the highest bidder.

Today at noon, the 111th Congress will be sworn in, and Blagojevich's appointment, former State Atty General Roland Burris, intends to be sworn in as Illinois's junior senator. Burris, however, is finding little support from Illinois state officials or his potential US Senate colleagues. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D:NV) has stated that Burris will not be seated by the Senate because he "has not been certified by the state of Illinois."

Reid is referring to the fact that the Secretary of the State of Illinois Jesse White did not certify Blagojevich's appointment. However, Burris, also reminding people that he was the state's attorney general, has said, "As I read the U.S. Constitution, it says the 'governor shall fill a vacancy,' and as a former attorney general of my state, I have no knowledge of where a secretary of state has veto power over a governor carrying out his constitutional duties." Governor Blagojevich has signed the formal appointment papers, but Secretary White has not.

As I see it, although Blagojevich is a clearly corrupt politician, there have been no allegations of corruption with Burris. Furthermore, and more importantly, if the Constitution says that the governor shall fill a vacancy, then it should be the Governor of Illinois and not the United States Senate that has the final word on this decision. I say, let them seat Burris. According to the law, there is nothing illegal about his appointment, and just because the Senate does not like the man who appointed him does not give them the right to toss out his Constitutional right to do so.

The Courage of Conviction

The trouble with politics, it seems, is that politicians run on changing government but end up letting government change them. It's no wonder that people often feel jaded or apathetic about politics when men like Gov. Rod Blagovich and Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick clearly abuse the power entrusted to them by the public. Yet, even when politicians don't find themselves embroiled in some kind of scandal, it's rare to find politicians whose actions in office is quite as stirring as their actions in trying to achieve office.  Rarely is an idealist found in political office.

If the nature of American politics is to appease a wide swath of varying interests and ideologies (as it seemsthe Framers, including James Madison intended), it's little wonder that politicans are highly cautious to make bold steps to achieve concrete results. In this brutal game of survival, who is going to align himself and rest his future on big steps to effect necessary change?

In November, Americans elected a candidate who ran on a platform of bringing change to Washington, and it seems that that candidate, Barack Obama, has already set a new (improved) tone for the Executive. However, in spite of everyone's most fervent faith in this man, how likely is it that Obama will be able to usher truly transformative changes?

It's quite unlikely that Obama will, despite his campaign pledge, sit in face-to-face dialogues with Raul Castro or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It's almost a foregone conclusion that Obama will not dismantle America's nuclear arsenal. He won't be as critical of Israel as he will be of Palestine. He's unlikely to fight for the rights of gay people to get married and he's not going to abolish the death penalty.

Although I wish Obama would do all these things, I know that he won't. Obama knows, just as I do, that there are certain underlying expectations in the mind of this wide and diverse electorate. These unspoken understandings of the general electorate are known as the nation's "warrants." If Obama wants to get re-elected, he knows that he cannot challenge any significant national warrant without a very good reason. An ideological or even logical appeal will not work on its own; some truly transformative event needs to "happen" - a rude, but important awakening for the American public.

While I have no doubt that Obama intends to "change" Washington, I also know that he is shackled by the nature of American politics. At least, for now it seems, he'll try to change the tone with which we confront the warrants of our nation, but he is unlikely to make as drastic changes as his supporters would like or his opponents fear.

The sad paradox about politics is that in order to beat the Machine, one must first become a part of the Machine. Unfortunately, once somebody is a part of the Machine, he's unlikely to do away with the entire Machine, since that means undermining his own, newly-achieved power. So instead, the best that can happen is certain cosmetic changes to make things run better or smoother. But, without something truly dramatic - some kind of national trauma that "awakens" the American public, just as the attacks on Pearl Harbour did in changing the warrant on "isolationism" in America - it'll still be a long time coming until true, transformative change comes to America.

India's new terror laws under critcism

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Amnesty criticises new terror law
In the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks, which resulted in the death of 170 people, the Indian government has been swiftly working to pass a set of anti-terror laws. The Indian government is also forming a new federal investigating agency to review India's security structure and the attacks themselves.

Human rights groups like Amnesty International have become quite critical of the proposals which call for detaining suspects for six-months without bail, under court orders. The Indian Home Minister P Chidambaram has defended the new laws, saying that they adequately balance the need to protect India with individual freedom and human rights.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Hamas declares Israel truce over

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Hamas declares Israel truce over
The Islamist military group which controls the Palestinian territory of the Gaza Strip has declared that it will be ending its six-month-long ceasefire with Israel. The cease-fire, in practice, has not been entirely followed since it was brokered in Egypt exactly six months ago today. Despite its enactment, there have continued to be sporadic rocket attacks on Israeli operations in Gaza.

Israel's foreign minister Yigal Palmor has said that this decision shows Hamas's lack of commitment to peace. Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of the Fatah party is meeting with US President George Bush today and will meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev tomorrow. Russia, the USA, the EU, and the UN are forming a "diplomatic quartet" to see to the crisis, but there is little about which to be optimistic.

Meanwhile, Israel has failed to ease its blockade on the Gaza Strip, which is totally devastating the Palestinian economy. The United Nations has declared that Israel's actions are fermenting a "profound human dignity crisis".

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Guantanamo closure plan ordered

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Guantanamo closure plan ordered
George Bush's Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, who was recently picked by Barack Obama to remain in his cabinet, has ordered that plans be drafted for the closure of the American military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Apparently, Secretary Gates made this decision partly while keeping in mind the agenda of the incoming president, who has vowed to close the facility within two years.

This request is little more than Gates asking for a proposal on how the government should go about closing the camp and moving the remaining 250 "unlawful enemy combatants" to a new facility.

This move is likely to send a positive signal around the world, as many countries - Arab and non-Arab alike - have been harshly critical of the centre, which has detained some prisoners for years without formally charging them with any crime.

Coleman leads Franken by 0.0000001%

Out of 2.9 million votes cast in Minnesota on election day, the number of votes separating Democrat Al Franken from defeating Republican Norm Coleman is five. Yes, that is correct; the same number of digits on one of your hands, while it would take 580,000 hands to count the other ballots. This is as close as we'll probably ever see to a tie in an election of this scale.

So what happens now? Although the votes have been counted, many ballots that were "challenged" by both campaigns are now being reviewed. A campaign will challenge a vote when a ballot looks like it might be in violation of the law or the voter intent is unclear. While the Franken campaign challenged only several hundred of the ballots that went to Norm Coleman, the Coleman campaign challenged about 1,000 Franken ballots. The ballots challenged by the Franken campaign (ie. votes that probably were counted for Coleman) have all been counted, but there are still 379 Coleman campaign challenges. This means that Al Franken has a good chance at gaining more steam.

I had always had my doubts going into this primary that Al Franken could win this, but things are looking fairly good for him at this point. He only needs to gain a net of 5 or 6 votes out of 379. There is a very good possibility that by this time tomorrow, Al Franken will be leading in the count.

So, then what? Well, there is aslo a matter of absentee ballots that were rejected on Election Day, but, upon further revision, a court has decided that they should be counted after all. These are votes that are legitimate, but a clerk on Election Day made an error and considered them to be invalid. For example, one individual who ran the Hispanics for Coleman team voted absentee, but because he has two surnames (as is, apparently, not uncommon in Latin American culture), the registrar of voters could not find his name filed on the voter role, and his is now one of those rejected absentee ballots that the courts declared need to count. Because it has been the Franken campaign that has been pushing for this, it seems likely that Franken only looks to gain from these ballots.

So if, in the end, it looks like Franken will be ahead - albeit minisculey - in the votes after the remaining challenges and absentee votes are being counted, the canvassing board in Minnesota may declare Franken the winner of the election. Norm Coleman might not like this and will likely vow to fight more in the courts. On 3 January 2009, Franken will likely hurry down to Washington, DC to be sworn in by Vice-President Cheney to the Senate. Once he has done that, it is highly unlikely that Coleman will have a decision reversed. However, if Coleman shows up to be sworn in and Franken does to, it will be quite a testy predicament.