Climate Change in Perspective

For John, BLUF:  The people who are panicking over climate mate change, eg, te end is in ten years, are not doing good analysis.  As California is learning, life is not as modern and acceptable when the electricity goes out.  Are People prepared to go back to how it was in 1800?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

On climate change, humanity is not ‘evil’

From The Globe and Mail (Canada), by Prof Bjorn Lomborg, 26 September 2019.  (Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and a visiting professor at the Copenhagen Business School.).

Here is the lede plus four:

Speaking at the United Nations, 16-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg said that if humanity really understands the science of climate change and still fails to act, we’re “evil.”  This is because climate change means “people are dying.”  Helpfully, she also told us what we must do to act correctly:  In a bit more than eight years, we will have exhausted our remaining allowance for carbon emissions, so we must shut down everything running on fossil fuels by 2028.

While this claim is not uncommon, it is fundamentally misguided. Yes, global warming is real and human-caused, but her vision of climate change as the end of the world is unsupported.  The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that by the 2070s, the total effects of climate change, including on ecosystems, will be equivalent to a reduction in average income of 0.2 to 2 per cent.  By then, each person on the planet will be 300 to 500 per-cent richer.

We don’t emit CO2 with malign intent.  Indeed, it is a byproduct of giving humanity access to unprecedented amounts of energy.

Just a century ago, life was back-breaking.  Plentiful energy made better lives possible, without having to spend hours collecting firewood, polluting your household with smoke, achieving heat, cold, transportation, light, food and opportunities.  Life expectancy doubled.  Plentiful energy, mostly from fossil fuels, has lifted more than a billion people out of poverty in just the past 25 years.

That is not evil – it is quite the opposite.

Stopping climate change may be important but the shortcut that leaves billions in poverty is not an acceptable solution.  We need more engineering, and more trade offs.

Regards  —  Cliff

Population Change

For John, BLUF:  My whole life I have been receiving messages about the dangers of population growth.  Maybe that isn't the future.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

THE WORLD MIGHT ACTUALLY RUN OUT OF PEOPLE

From Wired Magazine, by Reporter Megan Molteni, 4 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

YOU KNOW THE story.  Despite technologies, regulations, and policies to make humanity less of a strain on the earth, people just won’t stop reproducing.  By 2050 there will be 9 billion carbon-burning, plastic-polluting, calorie-consuming people on the planet.  By 2100, that number will balloon to 11 billion, pushing society into a Soylent Green scenario.  Such dire population predictions aren’t the stuff of sci-fi; those numbers come from one of the most trusted world authorities, the United Nations.

But what if they’re wrong?  Not like, off by a rounding error, but like totally, completely goofed?

That’s the conclusion Canadian journalist John Ibbitson and political scientist Darrell Bricker come to in their newest book, Empty Planet, due out February 5th.  After painstakingly breaking down the numbers for themselves, the pair arrived at a drastically different prediction for the future of the human species.  “In roughly three decades, the global population will begin to decline,” they write.  “Once that decline begins, it will never end.”

I don't buy into a never-ending decline in population.  The rest makes good sense.  Some people love having and raising children.  Others don't.  The trend is the don't folks outnumber those who want lots of children.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Mass Migration Sanctioned?

For John, BLUF:  If you can't control your borders you can't retain your nation.  Just ask Native Americans.  What they did to those before them the Europeans did to them.  Just think about Space Invaders coming here to colonize this planet.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

PC GONE MAD: Criticising migration could become CRIMINAL offence under new plan

Here is the sub-headline:

A LEADING MEP has warned EU citizens they could be “jailed” for criticising migration policies if a new United Nations agreement is acted upon.

MEP is Member of the European Parliament.

From Express (UK), by Reporter Thomas Hunt, 1 December 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

The United Nations Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration seeks to make immigration a universal human right.  MEP Marcel de Graaff said:  “I would like to say some words on the global compact on migration.  On the 10th and 11th of December there will be an international congress in Marrakesh Morocco.  The participating countries are set to sign this agreement and although this joint agreement is not binding it is still meant to be the legal framework on which the participating countries commit themselves to build new legislation.

“One basic element of this new agreement is the extension of the definition of hate speech.

“The agreement wants to criminalise migration speech.  Criticism of migration will become a criminal offence.

“Media outlets that give room to criticism of migration can be shut down.

“The compact for migration is legalisation of mass migration.

“It is declaring migration as a human right so it will, in effect, become impossible to criticise Mrs Merkel’s welcome migrants politics without being at risk of being jailed for hate speech.”

The United States has withdrawn from the United Nations efforts, thus safeguarding the right of Native Americans (First Nation in Canada) to criticize Europeans and Asians) for mass migration to their territories.

On the other hand, this is about Europe, where free speech is nearing extinction.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

Progress in the Holy Land?

For John, BLUF:  I think President Trump is actually making progress in resolving the problems in the Holy Land  and the Palestinians are not all happy about it.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

On the Palestinian Refugee Issue, President Trump Is Magnificently Right

From PJ Media, by Mr David P Goldman, 31 August 2018.

Here is the lede:

President Trump appears to have undertaken a revolution in Middle Eastern diplomacy.  Reportedly, the United States will eliminate refugee status for the descendants of Palestinian refugees of 1948, the only group of people anywhere in the world to inherit refugee status.  The U.S. also reportedly will eliminate funding for UNRWA, the only UN agency dedicated to a single group of refugees, namely the Palestinian Arabs.

I guess the alternative is to declare that all those people crossing our border from the South will always be refugees and insist on their right—and responsibility—to someday return from whence they came.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pushing Back on Russia

For John, BLUF:  In case you thought this poisoning in England was not a big deal, we have folks trying to make it a bigger deal than it is.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Don’t create an international armed conflict between the UK and Russia

This is from The Lawfire Blog, written by Duke Law Professor Charlie Dunlap, on 13 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

Yesterday the British Prime Minister Theresa May stated that “it was highly likely that Russia was responsible” for the March 4th poisoning attack on a former Russian spy and his daughter in Salisbury, England.  May also said that in the absence of a “credible response” from Russia, the UK “will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom.”

According to a new essay by respected scholars Ryan Goodman and Alex Whiting, if an “unlawful use of force” is the conclusion, the two nations were, as a matter of law, in an “international armed conflict.”  My view is that international law should avoid construing events like this which are essentially criminal in nature as creating an armed conflict between two nuclear powers.

Prime Minister May was careful to use the words “use of force” and not “attack” in describing the incident.  Why would that be important?  Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter says that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nation.”  Obviously, a “use of force” violates the Charter.

In response to a comment on the article, saying "As terrible as these crimes were, do they really sound like enough to declare that 200 million people were in an armed conflict?"

To which Charlie replies:

You make excellent points, and I'm not dismissing the seriousness of the actions, but at the end of the day, I can't agree with you. The fact of the matter is that as bad as it is that three people were injured, a state of armed conflict between two nuclear powers carries more potential for harm. The UK can do lots of things to counter and punish Russia without being in an armed conflict with it.

So, there you have it.  Serious things happening, but with a little statesmanship we can avoid armed conflict between nuclear armed nations.

Regards  —  Cliff
-, Wed 3.0

Inching Toward Negotiations

For John, BLUF:  Nikki Haley for President in 2024.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

U.S. says ready to talk Mideast peace; Abbas calls for conference

From Reuters and Reporter Michelle Nichols, 20 February 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

The United States declared at the United Nations on Tuesday it was “ready to talk” with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who rejected U.S.-led Middle East peace efforts as “impossible” after Washington’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

During a rare U.N. Security Council address, Abbas instead called for an international conference to be held by mid-2018 to kick-start the stalled peace process with Israel and create a “multilateral mechanism” to oversee it.  He left the chamber before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley spoke.

Palestinians view the Trump administration’s intentions on Middle East peace with deep skepticism after Trump reversed decades of U.S. policy and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and initiated the move of the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv.

Funny about policy.  The US Congress said it was US Policy that Jerusalem was the Capital of Israel.  It was a number of Presidents, probably advised by the striped pants crowd at Foggy Bottom, who provided waivers to acting on US Policy.  I think Ms Nichols didn't quite capture the kernel of the thing.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff
-1, Sun 0.0

We Veto UN SC Resolution Re US Embassy Move

For John, BLUF:  And rightfully so.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Haley Slams UN for 'Ugly Creation' of Jewish 'Blacklist' as U.S. Vetoes Jerusalem Resolution

From Pajama Media, by Reporter Bridget Johnson, 18 December 2017.

Here is the lede plus one:

Ambassador Nikki Haley today accused the United Nations of empowering the creation of a Jewish "blacklist, plain and simple" with last December's passage of a resolution condemning Israel for West Bank and east Jerusalem settlements.

Her comments came in a Security Council meeting in which the U.S. vetoed a draft resolution, with 14 voting in favor, that condemned the Trump administration's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and discouraged other countries from moving diplomatic facilities there.

The United States abstained in a Dec. 23, 2016, vote on settlements instead of defending Israel in the final weeks of the Obama administration.  The vote on the resolution drafted by Egypt, which demanded Israel "immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the 'occupied' Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem," was 14 in favor in addition to the U.S. abstention.

The thing is, the old way was not moving the ball down the field.  Will the new way?  We don't know, but it is a possibility.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Pres Trump Says NO to UNESCO

For John, BLUF:  And we should say no.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Trump Admin Stands With Israel Against U.N. Bid to Delegitimize Jewish State

Here is the sub-headline:♠

Haley slams anti-Israel UNESCO vote that would designate historical sites as 'in danger'

This Washington Free Beacon article is by Reporter Adam Kredo, from 3 July 2017.

Here is the lede plus one:

The Trump administration is taking aim at a United Nations body that is trying to deny Israel's sovereignty over holy sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to a letter by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is set to vote this week on a resolution proclaiming that Israel has no sovereignty over Jerusalem, its capital city, and a holy site located in Hebron, which is part of the West Bank.

Comment from Writer Sarah Hoyt:

BUT THEY TOLD ME HE WAS ANTI-SEMITE!  IS HE THAT BAD AT IT?

There are those who keep complaining about President Trump being this and that, but he just keeps plowing ahead trying to make this a better Nation and a better world.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Yes, I am a big supporter of Ambassador Nikki Haley.

Sun Editorial Shames Our Congressional Delegation

For John, BLUF:  Another failure on the part of the President.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Bay State's Dems turn their backs on ally Israel

Today's Lowell Sun Editorial nails it.

Here is an extract from the Editorial:

Sadly, Massachusetts' House delegation of nine Democrats voted 4-4 on the resolution (one voted "not present") showing its own lack of unity "to have Israel's back" — famous words once uttered by the hypocrite Obama.  Those turning their backs on Israel are U.S. Reps. Niki Tsongas, Catherine Clark, Jim McGovern and Stephen Lynch.

Only time will tell whether Israeli officials will keep their economic and research commitments to Massachusetts, but who can blame them if they don't following this shameful display of anti-Jewish sentiment from lawmakers who know better.

I am fully with the Editor on this.

Regards  —  Cliff

SecState on Israel

For John, BLUF:  I believe the sticking point is concern about what the Palistinians will accept.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

John Kerry’s Full Speech on Israeli Settlements and a Two-State Solution

The source is Time Magazine.  It is a long speech and I have extracted interesting quotes.

It is also an interesting speech in terms of timing.&Nbsp; Mr Trump's Inauguration is less than a month away.  Is this about a final public plea to the incoming Administration or is it an effort to sum up the current Administration's position for when Mr Trump and Cabinet fail in their own efforts ti bring peace to the Middle East?

With all the external threats that Israel faces today, which we are very cognizant of and working with them to deal with, does it really want an intensifying conflict in the West Bank?  How does that help Israel’s security?  How does that help the region?  The answer is it doesn’t, which is precisely why so many senior Israeli military and intelligence leaders, past and present, believe the two state solution is the only real answer for Israel’s long-term security.

Here is SecState Kerry's point the situation.

And that raises one final question.  Is ours the generation that gives up on the dream of a Jewish-Democratic state of Israel, living in peace and security with its neighbors?  Because that is really what is at stake. Now that is what informed our vote at the Security Council last week.  The need to preserve the two state solution and both sides in this conflict must make response ability to do that.  We have repeatedly and emphatically stressed to the Palestinians that all incitement to violence must stop.

Here SecState Kerry defends the US Abstention on the UN Security Council vote a few days ago.

On the contrary, it is not this resolution that is isolating Israel, it is the permanent policy of settlement construction that risks making peace impossible.  And virtually every country in the world other than Israel opposes settlements. That includes many of the friends of Israel, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia, all of whom voted in favor of the settlements resolution in 2011 that we vetoed, and again this year along with any other member of the council.

East Jerusalem is a problem, a sticking point.  Here is what SecState Kerry says.  I think this is weasel worded Diplospeak, open to various interpretations.

And remember that every U.S. administration since 1967, along with the entire international community, has recognized east Jerusalem as among the territories that Israel occupied in the Six-Day War.

Now, I want to stress this point.  We fully respect Israel’s profound historic and religious ties to the city and to its holy sites.  We’ve never questioned that.  This resolution in no manner prejudges the outcome of permanent status negotiations on east Jerusalem, which must, of course, reflect those historic ties and the realities on the ground.  That’s our position. We still support it.

Here are the six principles SecState Kerry laid out.  At the link are details, but these lead sentences give us the broad view.

• Principle number one; provide for secure and recognized international borders between Israel and a viable and contiguous Palestine negotiated based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed equivalent swaps.
• Principle two; fulfill the vision of the U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.
• Principle number three; provide for a just, agreed, fair and realistic solution to the Palestinian refugee issue.
• Principal four; provide an agreed solution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states and protect and ensure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.
• Principle five; satisfy Israel’s security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation.
• Principle six; end the conflict and all outstanding claims, enabling normalized relations and enhanced regional security for all as envisioned by the Arab peace initiative.

It all sounds good, but the question is, what will the Palistinian Authority (1) agree to and (2) be able to deliver?

Here is Secretary Kerry's pitch for "do it our way".

That is the future that everybody should be working for.  President Obama and I know that the incoming administration has signaled that they may take a different path.  And even suggested breaking from the long-standing U.S. policies on settlements — Jerusalem and the possibility of a two-state solution.

That is for them to decide, that’s how we work.  But we cannot, in good conscience, do nothing and say nothing, when we see the hope of peace slipping away.  This is a time to stand up for what is right.  We have long known what two-states, living side by side and peace and security looks like.  We should not [be] afraid to say so.

Good luck to the Israelis and the Palistinians.

Good luck to us.

As a final thought, from Massachusetts Blogger neoneocon, when running in 2008, then Senator Obama did say that Jerusalem belongs to Israel.  Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Post Sykes-Picot

For John, BLUF:  The solution isn't to be found in DC or Turtle Bay, but in the Middle East.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Does the Middle East Need New Borders?"  The question is from Ms Marina Ottawa, writing in Foreign Affairs Magazine.  The issue is "The Legacy of Sykes-Picot, 100 Years On.

Sykes-Picot.  That is probably an unknown subject for most of us, as it dates back to The Great War, World War I.  But, it is one of the items blamed for the turmoil in the Middle East.  I agree with that assertion, to a point.  The problems is that such a view soon becomes ethnocentric.  The fundamental issue is the people in the Region deciding on what they want and then voting for it and protesting for it and fighting for it.♠♥

At any rate, here is the lede plus two paragraphs:

On May 17, 1916, France and the United Kingdom signed the Sykes-Picot agreement, named after the two diplomats who conducted the negotiations.  The agreement was the first in a series of treaties that would eventually create the modern states of the Middle East following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.  One hundred years later, analysts such as Robin Wright and Jeffrey Goldberg predict that the region’s borders will soon be redrawn once more.  Indeed, in Iraq and Syria, where proto-states outside the government’s control have already emerged, the idea of new borders does not appear so far-fetched.  In Iraq, for example, the Kurds have already announced that they will hold a referendum on independence before the end of 2016.

New borders will not restore stability, however, because the present ones are not the cause of the region’s turmoil.  The states themselves must change if there is to be any sort of peaceful order that can accommodate the demands of the region’s diverse populations.  Yet the prospects for such a transformation are dim.

Often denounced as artificial lines in the sand drawn by ignorant European diplomats, the borders in the region are no more artificial than those established by conflict.  Even the most ardent critics of the status quo have given no indication of where the region’s natural borders lie, because there are no natural borders.  The Kurds, for example, aggrieved by a partition of the region that did not give them their own country, even disagree on whether there should be one Kurdistan or several Kurdish states.

Here is the conclusion:

The deep political reform that could possibly allow Iraq and Syria to become stable countries has not begun in either country. Abadi tried to take some modest steps and failed. Assad did not even try, insisting that all his country needs is new elections. And progress in the fight against ISIS may only make the Iraqi and Syrian governments more repressive and provide additional incentives for those who see new borders as the only solution. The region is stumbling toward the end of Sykes-Picot, but it is no closer to the end of turmoil.

What do you think about this?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  We can help, but the locals have to want it.

♥  And they can't really do that from Europe, the UK or the US or Canada.♦
♦  Why are these folks not fleeing to Mexico, or are they?

That Iran Deal

For John, BLUF:  We are legacy building here.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

From Mr Michael J Totten, and World Affairs Journal we have "The Iranian Nuclear Deal Keeps Getting Worse" Here is how the article starts:

The nuclear deal with Iran is not going well.

Last month, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps fired two ballistic missiles that landed almost a thousand miles away.  The US objected, but the Iranians are defiant.

“The reason we designed our missiles with a range of 2000 kilometers is to be able to hit our enemy the Zionist regime from a safe distance,” said Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh.

The Saudis don’t buy it.  None of the Arab states buy it, except for the Assad regime in what’s left of Syria and the Iranian-aligned Shia government in Iraq.  The rest of the Arab states rightly see Iranian muscle flexing as part of Tehran’s ever-expanding regional hegemony, not just over the Jewish state, but over the entire region, most of which is Sunni and Arab.

It ought to go without saying why nearly every nation on earth, whether or not they’re named “Israel,” ought to be concerned about Iran’s ballistic missile program.  Ballistic missiles can carry nuclear warheads.  Enough ballistic missiles can ravage cities even if they aren’t equipped with nuclear warheads.  That’s why the Secretary of State John Kerry insisted last year that squashing Iran’s ballistic missile program was part of the deal.

But maybe it wasn’t part of the deal.  It’s not entirely clear what is in the deal or if the deal is even entirely settled.

Then there is the link to an article by Mr Eli Lake:

“Like most of Washington,” Eli Lake writes in Bloomberg, “I was under the impression that the nuclear negotiations with Iran ended in July…I should have been more suspicious when no one actually had to sign anything at the end of the negotiations or when the ‘deal’ was not submitted to the Senate as a treaty for ratification.”

Then there is the United Nations involvement and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231.  It seems the UN is tougher than the US on this issue.

Here is the last paragraph of Mr Totten's article:

It’s the last thing anybody should want, but a deal with the current Iranian government is no more valuable than a deal with Darth Vader.  You may recall when, in The Empire Strikes Back, Vader convinces Lando Calrissien to betray his old friend Han Solo. As is his nature, Vader reneges. When Calrissien complains, Vader turns to him, hisses, and says, “I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further.”

And there you have it.  Peace in our times.♠

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Good for one year.

Chinese Premier Goes to Turtle Bay

For John, BLUF:  Chinese is looking to be a respected player on the world state.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Chinese president Xi Jinping will arrive at the UN armed with a list of things he wants changed"

So writes Mr Richard Macauley, for Quartz.

Here is the lede plus 1:

On Sept. 28, Xi Jinping will make his first speech as China’s president to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.  Ahead of his talk, China’s foreign ministry helpfullypublished a list of amendments it would like to see the international body make, “so as to turn the vision of the UN Charter into reality at an early date.”

Some, such as the suggestion that, “the world needs to come together to make [the UN] a strong champion of peace and security,” allow China to sound authoritative without ruffling any feathers.  Others, such as a call to “respect countries’ right to choose their own path of human rights development,” offer a sharper insight into how China wants to reshape the organization to suit its own concerns.  All told, the list of 12 “priorities” that China wants the UN focus on show China both assuming the role of a major world power and also trying to shape the world order to better reflect how China does things at home.

As one would expect.

On the other hand, the UN Annual Budget is $2.8 billion.  The US pays $654.8 million.  China, the world's next biggest economy pays $139.7 million.  I am thinking the Chinese ought to be offering up about twice what they are paying now.

If they want respect.

Regards  —  Cliff

Senator Schumer

For John, BLUF:  If Senator Schumer doesn't replace Senator Reid if will be an interesting battle for the post of Democrat Senate Leader.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Writing in the 9 September issue of The New Yorker, Mr Bernard Avishai tells us "How Chuck Schumer Lost on Iran".

We know that Senator Chuck Schumer (D NY) is opposed to the President Obama's agreement with the other Permanent Members of the UN Security Council, Germany and Iran.  We know that the agreement made its way through the US Senate, notwithstanding Senator Schumer's opposition.

The thing is, Senator Schumer was thought to be in line to replace Senator Harry Reid as the leader of the Senate Democrats.  Now there are those claiming he is unsuitable because of his opposition to the Iran Nuclear Agreement.

My personal view is that:

• Without the agreement Iran would have the ability to press on with a nuclear program, if it wished,
• The economic sanctions regime was not going to last, as the P+1 group (UN Security Council Permanent Members plus Germany) wanted the trade,
• It is not clear that Iran does want nuclear weapons,
• That said, Iran sees itself as a regional power,
• Notwithstanding assurances, detection of a breakout is not guaranteed.
• Nuclear deterrence does work,
• But there are many in Iran believe the "Twelfth Imam" will return, indicating the arrival of the end times.

Regards  —  Cliff

China the Model?

TRIGGER WARNING:  I wouldn't think this needs a Trigger Warning, but just in case, I bring into question the idea that the UN and UN officials are always right.

For John, BLUF:  I am guessing that since many people see themselves as just workers, or academics, their form of government and the economic model don't seem that important.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Elizabeth Price Foley, posting at the Instapundit, gives us a look at one opinion on climate change, "Australia PM advisor says climate change a UN-led ruse.  (PM being the Prime Minister.)  There is also the original article, but it is a pay to play site.

Figueres [executive secretary of the UN’s Framework on Climate Change] is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming.  Communist China, she says, is the best model.  This is not about facts or logic.  It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN.  It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.

Figueres says that, unlike the Industrial Revolution, “This is a centralised transformation that is taking place.”  She sees the US partisan divide on global warming as “very detrimental”.  Of course.  In her authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or ­disagreement.

Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travellers.  As Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation, says:  “Even if the ­(climate change) theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”

Having gained so much ground, eco-catastrophists won’t let up.  After all, they have captured the UN and are extremely well funded.  They have a hugely powerful ally in the White House.  They have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media (the ABC and Fairfax in Australia) to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.

Of course Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe would tell you it is beyond stupid to believe that some UN official (in this case Ms Christiana Figueres) would say the Chinese system of Government and Economics is better than that of the US.

Regards  —  Cliff

5 + 1

For John, BLUF:  It is better to be talking than to be fighting, as Winston Churchill pointed out.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Remember the Fabled 47 Senators and their "Open Letter" to the Iranian Leadership?  The ones who brought down some much hate and discontent on their heads?  Logan Act and all that?♠  Turns out they are not President Obama's biggest problem in cutting some sort of a nuclear deal with Iran.  No, that would be French President Hollande.

From The Daly Mail (London) the other day we have "France tells UN 'insufficient' progress in Iran nuclear talks".  Wait—This isn't just between the US Administration and the Iranians?  Apparently not in the mind of Reporter Michelle Nichols.  The lede:

France warned on Tuesday that "insufficient" progress has been made toward a nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers with specific disparities over research and development and the issue of sanctions.

"Iran must now make difficult choices if it truly wishes to regain the trust of the international community," French U.N. Ambassador Francois Delattre told a United Nations Security Council meeting on U.N. sanctions on Iran.

Apparently it isn't all about SecState John Forbes Kerry and President Obama.

And, there is the issue of how this and other such Executive Agreements are changing the nature of our Constitution.  I put a lot of this on Congress.

The idea that the Administration will launder this Agreement through the United Nations to avoid Senate approval and perhaps Congressional oversight strikes me as wrong.  It is transforming how we do foreign policy, and maybe domestic policy, without the consent of Congress.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The ones who I said the whiners should DEMAND indictments under the Logan Act?

Evolution of a Foreign Policy

For John, BLUF:  Every President has a learning curve.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here is an article from Defense One, authored by reporter George E Condon.♠  He reviews the evolution of President Obama's speeches to the United Nations General Assembly.

"The Evolution of a War President in Six Speeches".

Here is the beginning of the article:

There may be no better way to track the evolution of Barack Obama's presidency than his annual address to the United Nations General Assembly, and no better way to assess where his foreign policy stands today than to watch Obama speak in New York Wednesday morning.

Both the man and the message have matured since he first took to the U.N. podium.  In that first address, on Sept. 23, 2009, the still-new president described himself as "humbled" to be there and his message was of "a discontent with a status quo" in the world.  As he had done in his campaign domestically, he urged other world leaders that day to join him in a global vision he said was "rooted in hope, the hope that real change is possible."  He spoke of ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and talked of "extremists" rather than "terrorists."  Russia was a partner, Guantanamo Bay would soon be emptied, and negotiators would find a way to close the Israeli-Palestinian divide.  Overhanging all else was the need to pull the world back from the economic abyss.

That was the start.  And, today, 28,000 words and five U.N. addresses later, "hope and change" has taken a step back; realpolitik has stepped forward.  There was no more talk of partnerships with Russia.  Instead, there was tough talk for the Kremlin of the type not heard in more than a decade.  In a rhetorical throwback to the days of the Cold War, the president coldly called Russia a "bully" for its actions in Ukraine as television cameras zeroed in on the stony-faced Russian delegation to see if they would storm out of the hall.  The words could have been said by any Cold War president from Truman to Reagan.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Mr Condon led the team that garnered a Pulitzer covering former Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham and his corruption.

President Obama at the UN

For John, BLUF:  Obama is now the Dubya third (fourth?) term?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Today President Obama spoke to the UN General Assembly about the fight against ISIL.♠  Here is a quick review from Foreign Policy Magazine, by Mr Colum Lynch.  The headline is "Obama to U.N.: OK, America Will Be World's Police". Here is an excerpt:

Obama outlined his four-pronged strategy for eradicating the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL: enlist the international community to help fight and destroy the movement; entice nations to counter the appeal of extremist ideology at home; convince governments to provide alternatives, particularly for young people, and offer better education and greater political freedom; and address the wider regional threat posed by worsening sectarian conflict between the region's Sunnis and Shiites.  "Let's be clear:  This is a fight that no one is winning," he said.

I like what the President said, but I am not sure everyone [in the Middle East] is interested in greater political freedom.  Some seem to be interested in their eternal salvation, which they see tied up in how they live their Islamic Faith—or what they see as their Islamic Faith.  For ISIL this is the faith that our Secretary of State, John Kerry, characterizes as "The Order of Satan".  Frankly, this is the key issue and one that can not be resolved by us.  The People of the Middle East have to decide where they come down on this issue.  The danger is that millions will go along to get along.♥

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  No, George, it is not a sign of being aligned with President Obama and the Democrat Team in DC to say ISIL.  It is a matter of using a better translation rather than clinging to some original understanding.
♥  There is Mao's view that "Political [religious] power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Responding to Russia Over Ukraine

For John, BLUF:  A lot of potential down-side.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

If the President, our President, wishes to send a message to President Vladimir Putin of Russia then he ought to do two things.  First is promptly approve the Keystone Pipeline.  The second is push for more fracking.

Why you may well ask?  I expect that President Putin thinks he has Europe on a short leash due to all the oil and gas agreements that bind Europe to Russia over energy.  The degree to which the United States can make up shortfalls will be important as this imbroglio goes forward.  An early announcement that seems to run contrary to President Obama's expected position will be seen as a signal that the Ukraine Crisis has moved up in importance.

Now to a review of the news:

From The Daily Beast we have this headline—"Crimea Is Gone—What Does NATO Do Next?"  The subheadline is "On the centenary of World War I, Europe's suddenly facing a crisis of Russian aggression.  Why NATO must make a show of strength and reassure its Eastern members."  And the lede and next two paragraphs.

Ever since Russia’s not-so-stealthy invasion of the Crimea in Ukraine at the end of the week, rhetoric has rung out in Washington and in Europe like a call to arms.  Except that it’s not—or not yet.

“There will be costs,” said President Barack Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry upped the ante, condemning “the invasion and occupation of Ukrainian territory.”  NATO called an emergency meeting on Sunday to address “Russia’s military action in Ukraine. And because of [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin’s threats against this sovereign nation.”

The Russian parliament meanwhile approved use of Russian troops throughout Ukraine, if Putin decides to do that. And the panicky interim prime minister in Kiev responded, “This is the red alert.  This is not a threat.  This is actually a declaration of war [against] my country.”

Here is a summary from Agency France-Presse.  It has a nice chart and it raises the issue of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P).

Putin said it was his duty to protect ethnic Russians in Crimea and southeastern swathes of Ukraine that have ancient ties to Moscow and look on Kiev's new pro-EU leaders with disdain.

Russian officials also argued they had no need to ask the UN Security Council for permission -- as Putin had demanded for any Western action in Syria -- because the wellbeing of their own citizens was at stake.

Another little tidbit is the Budapest Memorandum, in which the Western nations agreed to provide guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.  If Ukraine gets crushed, especially without a response from the West, NOONE will ever again give up their nuclear weapons or potential for nuclear weapons.  This one is a no brainer.

And here is a good question from a blog at Georgetown University, "Has Russia Begun Offensive Cyberspace Operations in Crimea?"  If there is cyber activity it is likely to include some efforts to mess with Western Europe and the US, so expect the Internet to be running a little slow in the days ahead.

In summary, this situation could put "defense cuts" in a whole new light.  And might be a way, albeit a bad way, to evaluate Keynesian Economics.

Regards  —  Cliff

The UN Preaches

For John, BLUF:  Hypocrites at Turtle Bay.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Over at The Instapundit is a link to a Wall Street Journal article by Ms Claudia Rosett, and this extract of the key point.♠

That’s rich coming from the U.N., which has still not solved its own festering problems of peacekeeper sex abuse, including the rape of minors.  Exposing abusers and holding them to account is a great idea.  The Vatican has spent years addressing the scandal of its own past handling of such cases.  But the U.N. hardly engages in the transparency it is now promoting.

The U.N. releases only generic statistics on violations committed by personnel working under its flag.  The U.N. doesn’t share with the public such basic information as the names of the accused or the details of what they did to people the U.N. dispatched them to protect.  Blue berets accused of sex crimes are simply sent back to their home countries, where in the majority of cases they drop off the radar.

Though the U.N. has been recording a drop in sex-abuse cases since it began releasing numbers in 2007, the number of alleged instances of rape and exploitation each year still runs into the dozens.  (This may understate the realities, given the hurdles to victims coming forward, often in societies in tumult or at war.)  From 2007-13, the U.N. reported more than 600 allegations of rape or sexual exploitation, with 354 substantiated—many of them involving minors. The numbers do not convey how ugly some of these cases get.  Details can occasionally be gleaned when an incident seeps past the U.N. wall of omerta and makes it into the news, as with the peacekeeper gang rape in 2011 of a Haitian teenager, whose agony was caught on video.

As Professor Reynolds says, "If it weren’t for double standards, the U.N. would have no standards at all."

Or, as Saint Matthew says (7:4):

Or how sayest thou to thy brother:  Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  This is about the United Nations trying to take the Vatican to the woodshed over child abuse.