Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAs world leaders gather this week to address the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush's refusal to negotiate on the two key issues of our day-war and global warming-has been stunning. And the media haven't helped. Focusing on whether Columbia University should have invited Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak, the Bush administration's drumbeat for war with Iran goes unchallenged. Let this not be a reprise of the war on Iraq.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his new memoir: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: The Iraq War is largely about oil." I asked him to elaborate: "It's clear to me that were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture of how that part of the Middle East developed would have been different."
It is an obvious point. It's just too bad that he wasn't willing to admit this before the invasion; his every utterance during his tenure at the Fed influenced decision-makers around the world, particularly in his own backyard at the White House.
As Naomi Klein, the author of "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism," listened to Greenspan, she pointed out, "Under international law ... it is illegal to wage wars to gain access to other countries', sovereign countries', natural resources."
Which brings us to Iran, another oil-rich country. As with Iraq, the Bush administration doesn't talk about Iran's oil, but rather claims that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb. Sound familiar? The answer isn't war; it's diplomacy. Earlier this week, I spoke with one of Israel's top political columnists, Akiva Eldar, with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. He opposes an attack on Iran: "[T]he Middle East is going to be nuclearized in no time. I think that solution should be a regional agreement ... the Middle East should be nuclear-free, including Israel. I think this has to be part of an agreement."
The U.N. gathering of world leaders is an ideal moment to hammer out agreements like Eldar recommends, as it is to take on the other crisis fueled by oil: climate change.
On the global-warming front, the opening of the U.N. General Assembly this week coincided with a major meeting on climate change, attended by more than 80 world leaders. As U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon kicked off the meeting, he said: "We hold the future in our hands. Together we must ensure that our grandchildren will not have to ask why we have failed to do the right things and left them to suffer the consequences. So let us send a clear and collective signal to people everywhere. Today, let the world know that you are ready to shoulder this responsibility and that you will address this challenge head-on."
Yvo de Boer, a top U.N. climate expert, said: "The United States is still the largest emitter worldwide of greenhouse gases. For that reason and for a number of others, the participation of the U.S. is essential." Yet Bush did not participate in the global meeting. Instead, Bush is hosting an invitation-only gathering of "major economies" in Washington, D.C., to discuss voluntary caps on greenhouse gas emissions. This is simply not enough. Ban Ki-moon criticized the Bush meeting, saying, "The U.N. climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating global action."
One of those leaders who came to address the U.N. General Assembly was Evo Morales, the first indigenous president of Bolivia. While the U.S. rarely looks south for leadership, Morales' example is worth considering. He has restored diplomatic relations with Iran. Against tremendous internal opposition, he nationalized Bolivia's natural gas fields, transforming the country's economic stability, and, interestingly, enriching the very elite that originally criticized the move. (Contrast this with the U.S. pressuring the Iraqi parliament to pass an oil law that would virtually hand over control of Iraq's oil to the major U.S. oil corporations.) President Morales told me: "Neither mother earth nor life are commodities. We are talking about a profound change of models and systems."
The twin crises of war and climate change, inexorably linked by our thirst for oil, need a concerted global solution-one that won't be obtained by cowboy diplomacy. The United States must pursue global consensus, not global conquest-before it is too late.
Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on 500 stations in North America.
© 2007 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate
23 Comments so far
Show AllI posted about a week or so ago about the meek inheriting the Earth. I will say so again. I wrote about how we don't hear those words very often. When we do finally reach a point where petroleum is extremely expensive and the developed nations scramble for a way to deal with changing their existing ways of getting energy, the poor nations will be the least affected. Where I live now, many people still do things manually and it's amazing to see how innovative they are and move things around and perform all types of jobs we in the "First World" countries wouldn't consider. To see a water buffalo and its strenth and ability to work. To watch a skinny, seemingly weak man move loads of material on a type of four wheeled bicycle. I could go on with examples, but my point is that these societies would not notice the lack of petroleum too much. They would quickly adjust if oil simply ran out.
Yes, there would still be problems such as health care and cooking; these are true problems which will have to be addressed. As for water, I've been using a 20 liter water purifier for the past three years and the filters work just fine. As I wrote in that post, any backpacker would know that a good water purifier works well and there'd be no need to buy into this bottled water sham.
I don't write this out of joy but I think it will be the wealthy who will have the most difficulties, while the poor in this world won't have much trouble making the adjustments. And if the governments began a program of widespread solar energy in these tropical lands, they would get some clean and renewable energy for homes, hospitals and businesses.
Yes, I think it will come to pass, that the meek shall inherit the Earth.
Despite your president's hubristic intransigence in such matters as empire and earth stewardship, we can continue to take heart in the ferocious commitment of such heroic individuals as Amy Goodman to the cause of sanity and peace in these times of trouble.
Greenspan may have in his latter days conceded to what was known by many at the periphery regarding one of the primary motives for the assault upon Iraq, but "Democracy Now" has long been clear in such matters.
We can only hope that the ignorance and self-serving that have overtaken political governance in both Bush's US and John Howard's Australia is now drawing to a close.
I take heart in the growing tide of intelligence and goodwill reflected in the work of both Amy Goodman and the behind-the-scenes crew at Common Dreams.
VDS, Victoria, Australia
"The twin crises of war and climate change, inexorably linked by our thirst for oil, need a concerted global solution-one that won't be obtained by cowboy diplomacy."
Couldn't agree more on your conclusion; but we first must decide on what to do, when to do it and then get to it!
Global warming and the peaking of world oil are rapidly advancing and threatening major social and economic disruptinons that could hinder or destroy world porsperty.
Peak oil and Middle East war or violence could reduce oil supplies to the industrial democracies at any time now and create prolonged shortages of the liquid fuels that power world prosperity. The destruction of just 3 oil choke points in Saudi Arabia, would throw the world into prolonged economic and social chaos as oil dependent economies stagnate or shrink.
Any prolonged shortage of liquid fuels can only result in an extended and domestically popular world war as our oil dependent prosperity vanishes.
Conventional Oil shortages mean: fight or decline or starve. No nation or group will volunteer for more povery, suffering, or social disruption. And Americans are certainly not going to sit by idlely as their prosperity and mobility dimininsh along with the oil supplies that make them possible.
I can almost hear the crowds scraming for war as the media sends out pictures of unsold cars, over crowded trains, grounded aircraft,inadequate home heating oil as winter appraoches and long lines of jobless people.
To prevent World War:Oil we must act now --before nature or violence forces our hand and thrusts us into the unthinkable: global war and chaos!
Except for the war option, we are wholly unprepared for reduced convential oil or even a failure to increase annual oil supplies by millions of barrels; and we may not be preapred for war either. Technological war may not be effective without abundant petroleum supplies and, if we are lucky, the oil rich nations will enter into mutual defense treaties with mature nuclear powers and checkmate the nuclear option. So what do we now:
1. initate an international treaty on how to fairly allocate available convential oil or other liquid fuels in times of liquid fuel shortages;
---Waiting for a crisis is waiting until it's too late!
2. Focus Congress and the peace movement on an energy policy with the goal of replacing oil with clean, renwable, energy at a rate equivalent to what we would do once nature or violence cut oil supplies
--Waiting for a crisis is waiting until it's too late!
3. Immediately equalize benefits, subsidies, and policy consequences between depletable energy and clean, renewable energy with the greatest net energy balance;
---Waiting for a crisis is waiting until its too late.
4. Invest gasoline tax revenues in infrastructure to make clean, truly renewable energy as available as gasoline and diesel fuel.
--Waiting for a crisis is waiting until it's too late!
How do we do this? Organize outspoken,peace loving, people by Congressional districts to offset the energy lobby where the votes are.
Together the American people could make a sustainable clean peace a reality; but only if we act now! ---Bill Garrett
P.S. Where are the presidnetial candidates on these national secutiry issues?
Don't go slinking away NEW YORK!
Stuff happens! I do these things myself from time to time.
But I agree with you, that this of late, has not been the Amy Goodman I remember when I first started watching her on Democracy Now! Lately she's so cautious and bland. How I wish she would hang out there further and use the words "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." I know she is tracking her production on a path that she feels will not get it kicked off the air.
Come on Amy,
Take off the gloves! The angry Elephant is wobbling right now.
Show no mercy!
NEW YORK observer:
Mistakes are the basis of all knowledge and, as your description of "red to deep crimson" belies, are a big part of what makes us know we are alive.
Your "mistake", and maturity to follow it up, highlights the crucial question of the day of human cognition: how do we stay on topic?
It appears to me that most everyone is caught up in being a career instead of being a human.
In villages of old if a serial murderer was on the loose most everyone would put their tools down, get deputized, and join the search until the culprit was apprehended. Now I surmise, as is the case with the Amys and Ellens of the world, it would be impolite or poor writing to include the words impeach and impeachment in every article until the deed is done.
However, considering that we are all collectively pursuing a path of genocidal suicide, I believe it's time to do the very human thing of including the words of impeach and impeachment as the main body or as an attachment to all human intercourse.
Thus, NEW YORK observer, I thank you for your mistake.
bildad-
As you explain and Galen seconds, I went Boom.
Not very observant of me; and especially embarrassing when my remarks (about Ellen Goodman) were pretty harsh.
Beyond this mea culpa and apology, I can only offer the following red-faced account of myself, which will probably make me look worse than just slinking away:
After unobservantly glancing at and unconsciously 'misreading' Ellen Goodman for Amy Goodman, it never occured to me that it could be Amy, since this particular piece of Amy's coincidently had all of the bad characteristics
that I normally attribute to Ellen.
Now having said this too, my face has gone from red to deep crimson. Even with no one looking.
Again, my apologies to all -- including Amy and Ellen.
"his has had a rippling effect and every major issue during the Bush/cheney/Heritage Foundation/PNAC/etc dictatorship."
It's not Bush-Cheney anymore, but Bush-Clinton. The CNN pundits and others are all on board with HRC now.
Boom.
New York Observer: How observant ARE you? It seems that you have never watched or listened to "Democracy Now!" or you would not be so critical of AMY Goodman, whose columns rarely appear on newspaper editorial pages.
The ELLEN Goodman you mention is a different person who writes for the Washington Post and does not have a daily radio show/webcast, but whose columns are widely syndicated in newspapers.
More mush words from Ellen Goodman.
She and many other tip-toe progressive columnists like her only help to keep Americans in their delusional comfort zones.
Example: Goodman, (above) identifies Bush as breaking international law by using US military might to steal other nations' resources. But she won't come out and say he is therefore a criminally-acting president who needs to be impeached. Too impolite? Okay. How 'bout challenging congress for going along with Bush's criminality? No, no. That's also too impolite for Ellen.
The most she's willing call US policy is "Cowboy Diplomacy." Wow! Now THAT ought'a get her sleepy readers up off their feet and marcfhing in the streets!
God help us.
Goodman is syndicated in over 300 newspapers around the country, most of which love to use her chronically mushy way of representing the progressive viewpoint to show how balanced their newspaper opinion coverage is - as these average newspapers run rightwing fumaroles like Mona Charen on the same "balanced" pages, day after day.
If you don't fall asleep while reading Goodman's columns, you quickly come to see that on a host of issues, her hallmark technique is to call on the rest of us Americans to be more progressively courageous and honest, while almost never showing these qualities in her own analyses.
Goodman's policy instincts may be generally decent, but her forensic style is so weak against the Right, it's actually worse than blank space.
In her tract above, she
Oh, I dunno - I think "cowboy diplomacy" has done wonders for our foreign policy goals in the last 6 3/4 yrs. Not to mention the USA's reputation in general. Remember, we're "Kickin' major ass" in eye-rack! Whoo-hoo!
Yes, Mr. Morales is a true leader as well as a voice for a vast majority of the people in Bolivia. Bush is the exact opposite. He is no leader in the true sense of the word and he is not the voice of a vast majority of Americans.
Bush has no voice. He is the puppet on the strings attached to him and some ventriloquist is making it appear that he is saying whatever has been written for each particular show. His head is nothing more than wood and his body used to play out the acts of those controlling the strings.
If only we could go backstage and see who these people are that control the puppet president. We'd probably see the same people who were doing the same with former presidents.
The puppet masters have never had it so good. However, we have been betrayed - Republican and Democratic - betrayed by our elected leaders, (especially the Democratic party since last November), betrayed by the media, and betrayed by those in a position to speak out, and, naturally, by the corporations. And perhaps those who have been betrayed the most are the men and women of our armed forces and the people of New Orleans and New York City.
What a shame that at such a crucial time in history, that the USA, which still can make a positive change, is being lead by a wooden headed puppet on strings which are tightening around the collective neck of the people of the world.
Greetings dougrambo...
If you think consumers are willing to make sacrifices to clean up the environment, or for any other reason, you should share your insight with all the candidates and elected officials in the USA. All of them are pushing tax breaks for almost everybody. Is there anybody running for office promoting a tax increase for the middle class?
Sacrifice doesn't just mean adding a little granola to your diet! Maybe two or three percent of the population would be willing to give up a little something for social justice or international peace, but the great majority are going to hang onto all of it until the bitter end.
It looks like a national death-wish to me, but maybe I'm just reading too much of the news.
Evo came off as a brave, intelligent and righteous leader, not the dangerous caricature the oligarchy makes him out to be. His actions for Bolivian's benefit speak louder than his detractor's condemnations.
What's amazing to me is that so many leaders of so many nations are either too afraid or too ignorant to challenge anything brought forward by the United States.
Is the whole world really that stupid and weak?
Jacob Freeze: How can you make such a stereotype statement that "consumers don't care anymore than Bush and his billionaire buddies" Of course we do! I wish to God we had pursued alternative forms of energy. Something that the handwriting on the wall was trying to tell us. But alas Big Oil as they are now are calling the shots! I'd much rather pull up to the station and fill my tank with liquid sunshine,battery juice,chicken shit or peppermint oil than this F&$%#@@**ing crude oil that makes these fat-ass oil executives rich!!!
zoya September 26th, 2007 12:21 pm
"Hey Democrats, how about de-registering?"
I'm already registered as an independent, have been for some time, but I too would encourage others to do the same.
Lobo Gris
Hey Democrats, how about de-registering?
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/?q=node/29
Free market advocating, anti-regulation preaching, Ayn Rand worshipping Greenspan made such a fool of himself during that exchange trying to cover his arse claiming coruption, human proclivity for greed, and lawlessness created the scenario. What was left unsaid was the obvious: the necessity of regulation.
What was amusing was when he admired Clinton as a Republican based on "shared Values".
Again, nothing to see here, move along.
It's easy to blame Bush for almost anything, but American consumers don't care any more about the future than Bush and his billionaire buddies. Ms. Goodman talks about "pursuing global consensus," but the reality would be more like "give up your car and pay a lot more taxes to build public transportation," and that's only the beginning.
The consumer society of the United States is dominated by a death-wish, and the typical consumer could only react with horror and aversion to anything like the heroic sacrifice implicitly advocated by Ms. Goodman.
Yup, and I just saw her restate yesterday, with emphasis, that impeachment is still off the table.
I wonder if she realizes how many Democratic and Independent votes she is going to cost the Democratic party with her stance that almost matches Bush in it's stubbornness. She should take a look at the polls which show the Democratic controlled Congressional approval ratings at 11%.
Lobo Gris
On the Daily Show, Stewart said that the United States selected its president as opposed to Bolivia; Evo morales repsonded that it is up to the people to change it. We have failed to democratically elect a president in the last 2 elections and this has had a rippling effect and every major issue during the Bush/cheney/Heritage Foundation/PNAC/etc dictatorship.
US citizens have to make the change we want...any way necessary!
When Nancy Pelosi said "impeachment is off the table" last November, she renewed the Bush Regime's license to steal and murder for at least another two years.
Since that event the Democrats have been unable to slow the Regime's quest to steal and murder. What part of IMPEACHMENT don't the Democrats understand?