Madeline Albright - you're a star!

Former US Secretary of State, Madeline Albright has this to say:

Iraq War Did Not Meet All Just War Requirements

America always has the right to go to war in self-defense but Iraq’s government did not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States.

The war, itself, has been characterized by massive human rights violations committed by anti-government insurgents and terrorists as well as by militias, including some acting as part of the Iraqi security forces.

U.S. troops also have sometimes failed to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, as at Haditha, and all sides have been guilty of mistreating prisoners.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

chuckle chuckle chuckle

No, I haven't lost my head in disbelief that someone in the government has miraculously found a reason to criticize the war in Iraq . I am just vastly amused at how the Albright is trying to make a complete turnaround from her yesteryears; how she is trying to take advantage of the anti-war atmosphere by refurbishing her image, albeit in baby steps. [Note how she carefully avoids talking about human rights violations on the US-side, even as she admonishes The Enemies for them.]

In short, I'll be damned if I believe her pretended intent here, in this posting on The Washington Post. I find it impossible to swallow that she has miraculously turned sensitive and cares about the cost of the war in Iraq and the morality involved therein.

After all, she is the woman who famously said:

the price is worth it

when the price in question was the death of half a million Iraqi children. In an interview on CBS's 60 minutes, she had used this exact phrase to put weight behind UN sanctions which were keeping medicines (and other necessities) away from Iraqis - sanctions, that were in force even 6 years after Iraq's Kuwait invasion, which by the way, was a bloodless war.

I doubt she has fathomed yet that men are not apricots, where you can decide to throw 30% in the rubbish-bin so that the remaining 70% look nicer in your shop. For unlike apricots, every human life counts, and it must count, irrespective of whether the veins carry Iraqi blood or American – life must be viewed as important for its own sake for there to be any human rights at all. And no one can decide whether a life is worth sacrificing, except by the person himself.

From a woman who found civilian deaths par for the course, an acceptable damage, it is indeed laughable to hear about human rights violations.

About 655,000 Iraqis - or more than 500 people a day - have died since the US-led invasion, according to a survey by the British medical journal The Lancet. But US politicians are worried because the war is dragging on so long, costs so much and is impossible to win.

I think it's time for Americans to think about the real costs of this war.

- Sharon Fung, in a letter to the editor, SCMP

Iraq's New Year - The headcount has begun
[GFX source: New York Times]

Maritime park = Factory !!!

Like most Indians, I have staunchly believe that Indian politicians are the greediest and most short-sighted of all. But boy, do we have tough competition!

Hong Kong's energy major CLP Power wants to build an LNG terminal in Sokos Islands - a place designated in 2003 as a marine park by the government. It is the the only location where the Chinese White Dolphin and the Finless Porpoise coexist in local waters, says WWF. Unfortunately, it is also the only place that CLP Power wishes to build its terminal at.

Now I can understand why a corporation, in tradition of all the energy companies behind it, will care little for trivialities such as environmental impact. Its desire has probably all to do with costs and profits, and people be damned. But what was the government thinking when it figured that the project - the building of a factory in an area rich in marine life - would have "insignificant" ecological impact on marine life? Really? You're telling me that you'll pump in huge amounts of hot water day after day for years on end into the surrounding waters - which is how energy plants including this one work - and it won't effect the organisms living in the area? That having a noisy factory next door, and before that, the cacophony of construction, will not impact the habitat of resident animals? All this, after you've already allowed other developments nearby, such as the building of an airport. which are bound to add on to a cumulative effect?

From everything I've ever learnt of ecosystems, even small variations in temperatures snowball into big results. And anyone who thinks that a mere HK$100 million will set things right is an idiot, or bought out, or worst of all - someone who believes that government has a greater duty to business that to citizens.

I guess we won't need China to kill what Hong Kong was.


Update, Sep 2008: The CLP factory plan is shelved! The Hong Kong government and China signed a natural gas supply agreement which killed the economics behind the factory, hence the decision. I like to believe the public and media uproar had something to do with the government's initiative. In any case, a case of all's well that ends well!

It's burning us, It's burning us not...

The attitude on global warming today seems much like the research on cigarette smoking a few decades ago: a pretence there is no proof of harm, and indignance that it must be stopped, gasp, even if it affects profits. This, despite the fact that any adult not suffering from amnesia can tell that the world has become increasingly fickle about seasons.

Parts of China are experiencing their hottest summers in 167 yeras. Canada has not fared much better, at least that was the case till January, but now it has suddenly become frigid beyond reason.

But honestly, I hardly need statistics to tell me what my fine-tuned thermometer-cum-ocular-sensor with enhanced capability to store retroactive information, aka, body can comprehend. I've been in Hong Kong just over two years, and in this short period I have found that the sea-view horizon has been creeping closer at a remarkable speed. Two years ago I could see the outlying islands; nowadays, I have to be thankful if I can spy Kowloon across the harbour clearly. Miraculously, the view returns when Chinese New Year shuts down the factories in nearby China (which, by the way, are not owned only by the Chinese residents but also Hong Kongers).

But the view is really the least of the problems. Prevelance of asthma has been increasing, and many with respiratory allergies swear that they cannot possibly make Hong Kong home.

Far away in New Zealand, pollution is not an issue. Yet, when I visited the countryin December, supposedly its summer season, it clearly wasn't summer. Most days I had my muffler on, and some cities were even expecting a white Christmas.

Needless to say, Hong Kong too this year is nowhere as cold as the last two years have been. But this has not been an impediment to the beliefs of its Chief Executive Donald Tsang.

"...you can only come to one conclusion - we have the most environment friendly place for people, for executives, for Hong Kong people to live,"

he naively announced to a shocked audience - The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce's Clean Air Charter - in November [reports South China Morning Post].

In similar vein, China insists on its right to pollute, saying that its per-capita pollution is low, and so what if it all adds up to high numbers and kills its rivers and ruins its land on the side. And meanwhile, George Bush the Ostrich has found umpteenth reasons to keep himself from signing the Kyoto Protocol.

In short, I can safely surmise that our planet shall have millions of natural disaster refugees before something tangible and fruitful is done to tackle the problem.

Martyrisation 101

Of all the ways they could have brought Saddam to justice, USA chose an unfair trial. There was no international body, no United Nations, to oversee the proceedings. The prosecution was mostly financed by USA and the defense team was mostly killed.

Of all the reasons they could have hanged Saddam for, they chose the least convincing. The first charge - indeed, the one and only charge that the court ordered execution for - is Saddam's action against people suspected of plotting to kill him themselves! The US waited for only one guilty verdict to be handed out, and hanged him in a hurry, while all the other ghastly crimes that actually brand Saddam the dictator that he was - the gassing of Kurds, various tortures and repressions - all these are left behind without closure.

Of all the times they could have hanged Saddam to death, US / Iraqi government chose Eid.

The one final time they could have pretended that Saddam's end was justice delivered, they chose to make it a raucous setting. Hecklers shouted 'Muqtada' - the name of a man whose militia is a prime perpetrator of civil war in Iraq - making it clear that Iraq's future had not passed on to better hands.

I can't think of any reason why George Bush would want to make Saddam a martyr, but he really couldn't have done it better. Of course, what can you expect of a man who claimed that bringing war to Iraq would give it peace. Really, next he'll suggest sex as the way to virginity.

Here's the lynching:


To understand why I call it lynching, and for a translation of what is being spoken in the background read here.

Journalist Gwynne Dyer gives a very interesting perspective on why Saddam was executed so soon after the verdict :

With all of Hussein's other crimes to choose from, why on earth would you hang him for executing the people suspected of involvement in the Dujail plot?

Because the US was not involved in that one. It was involved in the massacre of the Iraqi communists (the CIA gave Hussein their membership lists). It was implicated up to its ears in Saddam's war against Iran. The Reagan administration stopped Congress from condemning Hussein's use of poison gas, and the US State Department tried to protect Hussein when he gassed his own Kurdish citizens in Halabja in 1988...

(Read full text of her article here)


----------