Click on the image to see the whole slideshow on issuu.com where you can download it as a pdf.

Inspired by (the ultimate idiots guide to being an African Junta).

The leaders called climate change “one of the greatest challenges of our time,” and duly pledged to hold the global temperature below 2 degrees (as recommended by the IPCC). That’s about where the good news ends.

The text is full of exceptions for so-called ‘developing nations‘ – a group that includes some of the world’s largest polluters, and rich industrialized nations like Singapore. (Haven’t statisticians like Hans Rosling should have vanquished this misrepresentation long ago?)

The only really meat of the agreement is that ‘developed countries’ have made a series of add-hoc pledges to reduce emissions to varying levels ranging from 5% (croatia) to 35% (norway). These pledges will be verified and reported but there is no mention of a legal mechanism or any sanctions of any sort. Developing countries are not held to any pledges whatsoever. In short, this is a non-deal.

Despite not contributing any verifiable reductions, the ‘developing’ countries have negotiated a boatload of climate mitigation funding from the EU, US, and Japan.

There are clearly some good-guys and bad guys emerging in the new climate politics. The Europeans are to be applauded for making both generous contributions and substantial emissions pledges, The teen-level reductions that the US has pledged are certainly an improvement over the Bush years. The real villains emerging in the climate sphere are India and China who are still belligerently stuck on the idea that polluting is their right. They are wrong. Let’s hope they clean up their approach by Cop16.

Download the text here:Climate Deal – Dec 18 [pdf]

One of the remarkable things about this speech is the emphasis on history. Though at times it might seem a bit sophomoric (yes, we remember 911, thanks), he’s not revising, just reminding his broad and indeed global audience how the US got into Afghanistan in the first place. It’s not unlikely that deception over Iraq has tarnished the Afghanistan invasion and subsequent occupation. You can also feel his support for the intellectual projects of international affairs and political science, concepts like failed states, human rights and democratic legitimacy pepper his oration.

The struggle against violent extremism … will be … unlike the great power conflicts and clear lines of division that defined the 20th century, our effort will involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies.

Obama’s recently been making some serious progress with Russia on non-proliferation and a world free of nukes – though for some reason this didn’t get a standing ovation from the military establishment.

And we can’t count on military might alone … We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction … true security will never come from an endless race for ever more destructive weapons; true security will come for those who reject them.

Hmm… I don’t think that was aimed at Russia, so we’re talking to you, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea.

What really comes out is a commitment to diplomacy. A liberalists view imbued with positive-sum game theory. It’s not us vs you, we’re American and we’re with you.

We’ll have to use diplomacy, because no one nation can meet the challenges of an interconnected world acting alone.  I’ve spent this year renewing our alliances and forging new partnerships.  And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim world — one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict, and that promises a future in which those who kill innocents are isolated by those who stand up for peace and prosperity and human dignity.

Let’s skim through the gooy stuff about the light of freedom, unforntionately the last guy who had your job overused that a bit and it’s begining to sound a bit hollow.  But this next part is what really caught our ear because it reflects such a dramatic change from the previous administration.  Obama goes back to the Breton-Woods institutions, the United Nations and role that america played in the marshal plan to rebuild Europe. Instead of selling these under-supported international institutions to the American people – which is a bit of a lost cause in a country of people who think the UN is some european scheme for world government – no, he claims them as our own babies thus linking them to the strong American self-image.

Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, and the service and sacrifice of our grandparents and great-grandparents, our country has borne a special burden in global affairs.  We have spilled American blood in many countries on multiple continents.  We have spent our revenue to help others rebuild from rubble and develop their own economies.  We have joined with others to develop an architecture of institutions — from the United Nations to NATO to the World Bank — that provide for the common security and prosperity of human beings.

Following that up, he crafts an argument for what America as a super-power has done for security and development. The argument seems to be written for a generation of anti-globalists and the young men on the arab street that perhaps never knew, or have forgotten the less-sinister role that the US has sometimes played for the world.

We have not always been thanked for these efforts, and we have at times made mistakes.  But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades — a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, and markets open, and billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress and advancing frontiers of human liberty.

For unlike the great powers of old, we have not sought world domination.  Our union was founded in resistance to oppression. We do not seek to occupy other nations.  We will not claim another nation’s resources or target other peoples because their faith or ethnicity is different from ours.  What we have fought for — what we continue to fight for — is a better future for our children and grandchildren.  And we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and access opportunity.

Since publication, it has been denounced by Binyamin Netanyahu, and criticized by Hamas. Likewise, divisions have emerged between Hamas and Fata about how and when to get the report to the security council.

The flurry has basically been about two main options – neither of which is pretty:  Option A (the “hand it over” option) means that Nato begins handing things over to the Afganis (i.e. the shoddy Afghan National Army) pretty quick.  Option B is the stay option which involves loads of NATO troops over a very long time. The financial crisis and the US’s burgeoning budget deficit means the White House will eventually pull the plug.  The only question is how hurried they will be.  Not very pretty, right?

For Obama, we think there is a better option than this weak dichotomy of ‘should I stay or should I go.’ The middle ground between the unpopular Nato troops and the Afghan National Army is UN peacekeepers (from Muslim Nations.)  We are calling this the DPKO option – slang for the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping operations.

It’s an easy argument to make. The Nato troupes are unpopular and expensive. A recent national opinion poll by several media sources found that “Afghans take an increasingly sceptical view about the presence and effectiveness of foreign troops on their soil,” and there’s an increase in the number of people who think attacks on foreign forces can be justified.

The cost of an entire UN missions, including development funds, civilian bureaucracies, and logistics, is around 55 to 80 thousand dollars a year per peace-keeper. These are taken from difficult places like Liberia and the DRC – some with challenges nearing those of Afghanistan. Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN: “If the US was to act on its own – unilaterally – and deploy its own forces in many of these countries; for every dollar that the US would spend, the UN can accomplish the Mission for twelve cents.”

Afghanistan operations under the NATO umbrella, are costing the US something close to 70 billion dollars a year – no small change – and that doesn’t include commitments from the rest of the coalition. When compared to the cost of UN peacekeeping – that cost looks increasingly unjustified for a force that may cause as many problems as it solves.

The UN option is so much cheaper that the UN could nearly double the number of existing troops add 20% contingency and still come out at under ten billion USD per year – one seventh of what the US is paying now.

And the impact?  The negative implications of sending Western troups to somewhere like Afghanistan can’t be understated – years of fighting various foreign powers has left its mark in Afghanistan. Muslim troops should be viewed quite differently. Recent interviews we conducted of key informants from northwestern Pakistan reveal that the people would be much more supportive of muslim troops. It’s a much better cultural fit, and it would undoubtedly weaken the recruiting position of the Taliban.

For Obama the implications are several-fold. The DPKO option would mean less cost, less American lives lost, and an unprecedented commitment (politically and budgetary) to UN peacekeeping.

Where would the peacekeepers come from? The largest providing nations to UN peacekeeping are Bangledesh and Pakistan, additional commitments from Indonesia, Malaysia, North and West Africa and the Middle East could easily round out a suitably sizable force. Many of these nations already depend on the UN’s peacekeeping pay to support their armed forces.

Before this option takes legs we need sensible data comparing the threat levels in previous peacekeeping operations with those throughout Afghanistan. We’re working on it… O&A

So what happened? As always, there are a number of theories; here are some of the most interesting.

The Obama Effect

odu0607_p1Could Hezbollah’s anti-imperialist schtick be weakened by the fact that the “global imperialist leader” is a good-looking black guy who is sympathetic to the Palestinian plight and quotes the Koran? Could the political team of the “Party of God” be reminiscing about the days when they had a gun-slingin’ Texan opponent to energize the base? Maybe, but this theory has some weak points. First, politics in “The Zionist Entity” have moved as far to the right as Washington has to the left, and Israel is doing all the provoking it can. Indeed, Israeli “military training maneuvers” near the Lebanese border may have been intended to make this point very clear. Likewise, Hezbollah voters aren’t exactly swings; they are fed by a comprehensive cradle-to-grave welfare program and aren’t likely to bite the nipple anytime soon, regardless of any well-spoken U.S. president.

The Fear Vote

Traveling around Lebanon, you can’t miss the plethora of billboards juxtaposing scary images of Hezbollah guerrillas with pictures of delicate Lebanese children. The intent of this message is very clearly aimed at fear-prone Christians. With Christians significantly over-represented in the electoral system, and  their leaders split between Shia and Sunni alliances, Lebanon’s small Christian population were to be the deciding block in this election. The fear campaign may just have been enough for Christians to err on the side of the more familiar Sunni alliance.

Are they even trying?

Did Hezbollah really even want to win at all? Imagine you’re Hassan Nasrallah (even without the O&A makeover). You already run the most powerful army in the country, have territorial sovereignty, and a welfare state to brag about to boot. If you win the elections, you would be graced with a larger and more dysfunctional bureaucracy, potentially sans the international grease to keep the machine running smoothly (à la Hamas).

Any legitimacy you might gain from being an elected government might not be recognized by the West, and then there is the difficulty of running the government with a wacky coalition of Christians et al. Plus the greatly-increased threat of (another) Israeli assault.  All of this might make you think twice about competing in a contest that you don’t really want to win, or running only 11 candidates (10 of whom won).

It’s getting worse…

In reality, the balance of power hasn’t actually changed much at all since the last round. Despite a war between Israel and Hezbollah and significant changes in the electoral law, the number of seats won by the two main coalitions was almost identical to the results of the elections in 2005 (only one seat difference).

What has changed — and probably for the worse — is the sectarian breakdown of the coalitions. All but 3 Sunni seats were won by March 14 and conversely, all but 3 Shia seats were won by March 8th candidates.  In 2005 there was more mixing.

Complicated? It gets worse.  The losing March 8th list actually won the popular vote by a landslide 10%, but because of Lebanon’s unequal electoral system, they didn’t win the parliament. With minimal conflict, high voter turnout, and a squeaky clean process, Sunday’s elections were great step forward for the country and the region.   Hezbollah has accepted the result, albeit a bit begrudgingly.  However, the most difficult part may be yet to come, as forming a government in this fragmented and unstable land is no task for wusses.

So what happened? As always, there are a number of theories; here are some of the most interesting.

The Obama Effect

Could Hezbollah’s anti-imperialist schtick be weakened by the fact that the “global imperialist leader” is a good-looking black guy who is sympathetic to the Palestinian plight and quotes the Koran? Could the political team of the “Party of God” be reminiscing about the days when they had a gun-slingin’ Texan opponent to energize the base? Maybe, but this theory has some weak points. First, politics in “The Zionist Entity” have moved as far to the right as Washington has to the left, and Israel is doing all the provoking it can. Indeed, Israeli “military training maneuvers” near the Lebanese border may have been intended to make this point very clear. Likewise, Hezbollah voters aren’t exactly swings; they are fed by a comprehensive cradle-to-grave welfare program and aren’t likely to bite the nipple anytime soon, regardless of any well-spoken U.S. president.

The Fear Vote

Traveling around Lebanon, you can’t miss the plethora of billboards juxtaposing scary images of Hezbollah guerrillas with pictures of delicate Lebanese children. The intent of this message is very clearly aimed at fear-prone Christians. With Christians significantly over-represented in the electoral system, and  their leaders split between Shia and Sunni alliances, Lebanon’s small Christian population were to be the deciding block in this election. The fear campaign may just have been enough for Christians to err on the side of the more familiar Sunni alliance.

Are they even trying?

Did Hezbollah really even want to win at all? Imagine you’re Hassan Nasrallah (even without the O&A makeover). You already run the most powerful army in the country, have territorial sovereignty, and a welfare state to brag about to boot. If you win the elections, you would be graced with a larger and more dysfunctional bureaucracy, potentially sans the international grease to keep the machine running smoothly (à la Hamas).

Any legitimacy you might gain from being an elected government might not be recognized by the West, and then there is the difficulty of running the government with a wacky coalition of Christians et al. Plus the greatly-increased threat of (another) Israeli assault.  All of this might make you think twice about competing in a contest that you don’t really want to win, or running only 11 candidates (10 of whom won).

It’s getting worse…

In reality, the balance of power hasn’t actually changed much at all since the last round. Despite a war between Israel and Hezbollah and significant changes in the electoral law, the number of seats won by the two main coalitions was almost identical to the results of the elections in 2005 (only one seat difference).

What has changed — and probably for the worse — is the sectarian breakdown of the coalitions. All but 3 Sunni seats were won by March 14 and conversely, all but 3 Shia seats were won by March 8th candidates.  In 2005 there was more mixing.

Complicated? It gets worse.  The losing March 8th list actually won the popular vote by a landslide 10%, but because of Lebanon’s unequal electoral system, they didn’t win the parliament. With minimal conflict, high voter turnout, and a squeaky clean process, Sunday’s elections were great step forward for the country and the region.   Hezbollah has accepted the result, albeit a bit begrudgingly.  However, the most difficult part may be yet to come, as forming a government in this fragmented and unstable land is no task for wusses.

Gaddafi presented a proposal last month to the to the Basic People Congresses (municipalities) to effectively dissolve the government, and instead give the tremendous oil revenues that his government enjoys directly to the citizens of Libya. It’s a wet dream for state-haters. The government would put itself out of business by referenda. The scheme would reportedly give about $23,000 a year to even the poorest families. In exchange, the Libyan people would give up any right to government services like roads, health care, or telephone service. “The money that we put in the education budget, I say let the Libyan people take it,” he said. “Put it in your pockets and teach your kids as you wish, you take responsibility.”

Is Gaddafi on to something here? Perhaps he is, since his government is ranked amongst the most corrupt, most opaque, and dead last in terms of journalistic freedoms. At the same time, however, Libya is the only government in all of Africa with a High Human Development ranking, roughly equal to that of Mexico and ahead of many eastern-European countries like Romania and Montenegro. Despised though he is, Gaddafi.gov is light years ahead of almost all of the regimes throughout Africa and the Middle East.

It is perhaps due to this performance, that when the plan went out for a vote last month only 64 of the 468 municipalities, voted for Gaddafi’s plan to hand out the money now, while 251 endorsed the plan in principle “but asked for [it] to be delayed until appropriate measures were put in place”. Thus, though not officially dead the plan has certainly had the wind knocked out of it.

Libertarians will find little solace in this outcome, indeed they now have to share their ideological bed with the most despised African socialist, but they also have to live with the reality that the people of a sovereign state put libertarianism up to a vote (admittedly imperfect) and chose ‘government.’

Gaddafi can now go back to doing a pretty decent job of governing and continue to use state resources to pay his army of female virgin bodyguards. Good for him.

In the US, it is illegal to get dope but perfectly legal to buy truckloads of deadly assault rifles. To say nothing of the normative values this conveys, the externalities for the country’s southern neighbors are deadly. The money and arms that flow south over the border from the US have created a lethal cadre of well-financed and extravagantly-armed drug armies. The numbers are staggering; 7337 people have died in the violence since January 2007. That’s more than all of the American fatalities in Iraq and Afghanistan combined (or the casualty equivalent of 50 thus-far swine-flu epidemics). This all led much Washington discussion about Mexico as a failing state.[look at page 36 this report]

mexico-gunsThe Mexican government has responded to this bloodbath in force. President Calderon declared war on the drug cartels and deployed 45,000 troops and 5,000 federal police throughout the country to combat the narcos. The US, never willing to have only one dog in the flight, is now supplying Calderon’s Government with Black Hawk and Bell Helicopters and $1.4 billion of security aid. (You know you have a domestic security threat when you need Black Hawks.) While that sounds like a lot of money, especially in light of Mexico’s relatively meager $3.9 billion defense budget, it pales in comparison to the cool $25 billion that is estimated to flow from US drug users to Mexican drug lords every year.

The Mexican government is embarrassingly out-gunned and out-cashed and can’t sort any of this out without reforms farther north. Both Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and President Obama have publicly acknowledged that the costs of War on Drugs and lax weapons laws, but neither is optimistic about the potential to reinstate an assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. If they can’t, then the epidemic in Mexico and across Latin America will continue to claim more lives.