Category Archives: Current Events

Qaddafi is Dead, What Next?

Posted on by

Several events in the Mideast will have major influence on the reshaping the region. Egyptian Coptic Christians continue to be persecuted with the death of several shot at a recent gathering and the burning of another of their churches. Tunisia elected the assembly that will draft a new constitution and Muammar Gaddafi was captured and executed along with one of his sons. The election in Tunisia perhaps will have the most impact. An article by Charles Levinson in the Online Wall Street Journal leads off with the sentence, “In an election viewed as a template for emerging Mideast democracies, Tunisians appeared poised to offer a new narrative:  an assembly composed largely of an Islamist party promising a moderate platform, and two secular parties that have pledged to work with it.”

The Islamist Nahda Party won 43 of the 101 seats so far assigned of the 217-seat assembly that will rule for one year. The party has said it would not push for Islamist ideals in the new constitution. The Progressive Democratic Party that had campaigned heavily against Islamists won far fewer seats than had been expected. The U.S. government apparently isn’t skeptical about the outcome. Nahda leaders had visited with the State Department in Washington, D.C., and were said to be “…generally well received.” Aid to Tunisia had been increased before the election, and the Peace Corps will be reestablished. Hillary Clinton issued a statement praising the election, but with no mention of Nahda’s apparent victory.

There has been a flood of news reports since the execution of Muammar. I found a site that had a collection of political cartoons, and I appreciated many of them. My favorite was a cartoon that showed “Dozens of dangerous animals were shot dead in Oho this week…and one in Libya.” There was another that showed an oil pump from the Mideast to the U.S., with the captions “What could possibly go wrong.” Perhaps the most interesting was a depiction of President Obama on the Jay Leno show saying, “Jay, and then I personally beat Gaddafi to death with my Nobel Peace Prize.”

There is some pressure mounting for an investigation of Gaddafi’s death. It will be difficult to claim he was dead when discovered, since there is video of him being dragged from a drainage pipe wounded and bloodied, but still alive. He could be heard pleading for mercy for himself and his sons as he is being yanked around by his hair and beaten amidst taunts from his captors. The display of his shirtless corpse in a walk-in freezer was gruesome. I cannot help but cynically think, “Imagine the outrage if they had water boarded him.”

It is difficult to argue with the outcome of Gaddafi’s capture and death, which brought to mind Benito Mussolini’s execution in Italy during World War II. There were thousands of casualties in the bloody battle between the rebels and Gaddafi loyalists, and Gaddafi’s 42-year tyranny generated deserved hatred. He was buried in a secret location in the desert with the son who had been captured with him and his Defense Minister. He had three sons killed during the insurrection, but the one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, is still at large. He is thought to be trying to make it to make it to Niger to join other regime loyalists or perhaps to Algeria to join Gaddafi’s wife, daughter, and two other sons. There is concern that al-Islam might try to mount an insurgency against the new rulers if he succeeds at escaping to a country that won’t turn him over to the International Criminal Court to be tried for war crimes.

I’m more concerned about the speech given by the head of the Libyan National Transitional Council to announce Gaddafi’s death. He said, “…Islamic Sharia law would be the ‘basic source’ of legislation, and that existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified.”

Current Events in the Middle East

Posted on by

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was recently in Libya promising U.S. support in rebuilding and establishing political stability. I disagreed with the military support used against Gaddafi’s forces, but I think that engaging in the remaking of the Middle East is wise. The British Telegraph reported that Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, Libya’s prime minister and interim leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil. She pledged $11 million in additional aid bringing the total since the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi began in February to $135 million. Part of the new aid money is for educational programs and seeking ways to diversify the economy beyond oil. State Department weapons experts are already in Libya working to find and destroy shoulder fired surface-to-air missiles.

The overall situation in the Middle East certainly remains volatile. Libyan rebels continue to hammer Mummar Qaddafi’s home town of Sirte, although they have finally captured Bani Walid.  Coptic Christians in Egypt continue to be attacked (see the posting dated May 17), protestors continue to be killed in Syria, etc.

Tunisia will be the first test of a country moving from dictatorship to democracy since the “Arab Spring” or “Jasmine Revolution” began with elections scheduled for late October. A New York Times article describes Tunisia “…as the most European country of North Africa, with a relatively large middle class, liberal social norms, broad gender equality, and welcoming Mediterranean beaches.” The negatives were that the government of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was repressive and corrupt. The elections will choose a constituent assembly while a new constitution is being drafted. The elections have been delayed at least twice to give political parties time to organize and to get millions of people registered to vote. There is of course concern that the well-organized Islamic extremists will win enough votes to give them a strong voice in establishing the path forward.

I hope that world Muslims look at the model of how Muslims view life in the United States where there is freedom of religion and the freedom to prosper. Electra Draper published the results of a poll of 1033 American Muslims in the Denver Post, and I hope the State Department advertises the results. Most of those participating in the poll reject Islamic extremism, although 21 percent reported seeing some support for it in their communities.  There was 61 percent that expressed concern about the rise of Islamic extremism. Only 4 percent of them believed support for extremists is increasing. Perhaps the most encouraging statistic is that 82 percent said they were overwhelmingly satisfied with their lives,79 percent said their communities were good or excellent places to live, and 56 percent said Muslims immigrants  want to adopt American ways of life.

Something I didn’t realize until I made some internet searches is that there were Muslims in American before there was a United States. They weren’t immigrants; they were brought here by slave-traders. It has been estimated as many as 30 percent of enslaved blacks were Muslims. Some of them fought in the Revolutionary War.

We had a British-born visitor at a recent gathering of our book club, and she told a much different story of her experiences with Muslim immigrants in England than what she has seen in America. She said there are very few who assimilate into British society. Most live in enclaves where non-Muslims are not welcome. We should celebrate that the Muslim immigrants to our country have taken a different approach.

Libyan Nuclear Weapons

Posted on by

Supporters of Muammar Gaddafi continue to resist rebel forces in two cities as I type this. There have been concerns about the fate of chemical weapons stores in Libya, but the world can celebrate that Gaddafi was convinced to give up development of nuclear weapons in 2003.

An article on Globalsecurity.org w discusses that Libya wanted to develop nuclear weapons to counteract the weapons believed to be held by Israel. They were willing to work with any country to obtain the training and equipment necessary to operate a nuclear weapons development program.  Argentina sent geologists to Libya to teach methods of uranium prospecting and processing, and the Libyans obtained uranium “yellow cake” from Niger in 1978. India agreed to work with them in development of peaceful nuclear technology, and France agreed to build a nuclear research facility to power a water desalination plant. There were inquiries for nuclear weapons technology to China, North Korea, and Pakistan.  The Soviet Union helped staff a nuclear research facility outside of Tripoli, and at one time planned to build a small reactor for the Libyans. The Japanese provided them the technology necessary to operate uranium processing facilities.

U.S. intelligence had warned that Libya would have deployable nuclear weapons by 2007, but according to the article previously mentioned there were secret talks between Libya, the United States, and Great Britain after that warning. Gaddafi requested the talks immediately after the invasion of Iraq (Wikipedia reference) by 148,000 American, 45.000 British, 2000 Australian, and 194 Polish soldiers. George Bush and Tony Blair announced the invasion was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support of terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people. It is common knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were not found (see the posting dated December 31, 2010 titled “Which President Lied About Weapons of Mass destruction).

Libya continued with efforts to obtain processing equipment despite the talks. In October 2003 a U.S.-led naval operation under the Bush administration’s Proliferation Security Initiative intercepted a shipment of uranium enrichment centrifuge equipment bound for Libya. That operation apparently convinced the Libyans they could not continue with plans for development of nuclear weapons and it was announced on December 19, 2003 that they had agreed to destroy all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.  The agreement provided that Libya’s facilities could be inspected, and one official stated the opinion they were much further along in their development than had been previously thought. Twenty-five tons of equipment and uranium were removed and delivered to the United States. The New York Times reported there were 4,000 centrifuges of Pakistani design that might have been manufactured in Malaysia in the material shipped to the United States. Documents recovered during inspections included design information for a Chinese nuclear weapon. There was also information that as much as $100 million dollars had been paid by Libya to Pakistani scientists for information and equipment.

Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan was instrumental in the international illegal transfer of nuclear materials and technologies. He was involved in development of Pakistan’s uranium enrichment capability, and he established a network of scientists, suppliers, and front companies that provided Libya, North Korea, and Iran nuclear weapons technology and equipment. Michael Laufer of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace developed a chronology of Khan’s activities.  Khan had acquired the blueprints for a Chinese bomb by the early 1980s. It was reported that he was approached by “…an unknown Arab country (possibly Saudi Arabia or Syria) requesting nuclear assistance.” Iran obtained centrifuges from Pakistan that were no longer needed by that country in 1989. Shipments of centrifuges to Libya began in 1997 and continued until they ended their programs in 2003.

There is no doubt Muammar Gaddafi had committed to arm himself with nuclear weapons. I did not agree with the decision to invade Iraq, and there have been many negative consequences of that invasion. However, there was one important positive achieved by that invasion. Gaddafi began negotiations with the U.S. and Britain on weapons of mass destruction immediately after coalition forces entered Iraq. The interception of centrifuges and other equipment by the U.S. Navy a few months later pushed him to end his programs and ship the equipment to the United States. It is frightening to think what might have been if Gaddafi had nuclear weapons when the rebels began to take over Libya.

Current Events in Russia

Posted on by

I am posting a multipart review of the book “The Forsaken, An American Tragedy in Stalin’s Russia” by Tim Tzouliadis that I recommend, and I decided I should do some research on what is happening in Russia today. Much of my reading of history tells me that Stalin’s Soviet Union was preparing to take on the United States as an enemy as we were supposed to be allies during World War II. Reading about current events in Russia leads me to the opinion that the Russians do not consider us to be an ally despite the efforts of the Obama administration to establish better relationships with them. Hillary Clinton famously delivered a “reset button” to Russia, but the televised event was embarrassing. The Russian word “Peregruzka” that was written on the button  means “overcharged” and not “reset.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergi Lavrov informed her of the error. Perezagruzka (with an extra “za”) means reset, and peregruzka means over charged.

Recent events in Russia indicate that dealing with the Russians is likely to get tougher. A Washington Post article by Will Englund and Kathy Lally reports that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will step aside after his one term as president and has called on the ruling United Russia part to endorse Vladimir Putin for the post. The Huffington Post writes that Medvedev will be awarded the position of Prime Minster, the number two position in the Russian government, while Putin will undoubtedly be elected President in a carefully controlled election. Putin was former president Boris Yeltsin’s choice to succeed him when Yeltsin resigned the presidency in 2000. Putin then engineered Medvedev’s election in 2008 when term limits wouldn’t allow him to continue. The recent announcement means that the “managed democracy” policies that have been in effect since Yeltsin’s resignation will be continued in Russia.

Political freedom is not expected to return after Putin and Medvedev trade positions.  Opposition groups are rarely given approval to hold rallies, and unsanctioned gatherings are quickly broken up by police. The major television channels are controlled by the state and rarely air opposition views. It is to Putin’s advantage that he is credited with the Russian turnaround from post-Soviet poverty to prosperity, although much of that economic success comes from higher prices for oil and natural gas. Some analysts think Putin will have to pursue reforms to move beyond a natural-resources economy. Putin believes wealthier Russians need to pay higher taxes. He has called for increases in consumption and real estate taxes.

Putin does have political opponents. Former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov has predicted that the government will fall after Putin returns to the presidency. “This government’s collapse is predictable and inevitable. This won’t take six or five years or the period of time until the next parliamentary elections.”

Putin is expected to continue the strict nationalistic stance that has been his signature from his days with the KGB and though his years as President and Prime Minster. His return to the presidency isn’t likely to ease relations with the United States. There are disputes over the building of a European missile-defense system, economic policies, and Russian support of Syria and Iran. According to an article by Joel Brinkley, Russia continues to sell arms to the Syrian government as protestors are being killed. The Syrian President, al-Assad Alawite is a Shiite Muslim, while three-quarters of Syria’s people are Sunnis. Ending his reign would probably result in a Sunni leader, which would isolate Iran’s Shiite leaders and the terrorist allies, Hezbollah and Hamas. Perhaps the Russian support to Syria and Iran is the reason the Obama administration seemed much less eager to file official protests about the treatment of protestors in Syria than they were in other Middle Eastern counties. I know foreign relations are incredibly complex, but I don’t believe that we should hold out hope that Vladimir Putin is going to become our friend.

Can Low Level Radiation Exposure Prevent Cancer?

Posted on by

Those who believe in the idea that radiation exposure is harmful at all levels would answer the question posed in the title “Absolutely not!” and they would probably add some comments that the question is absurd. I’ll be presumptuous to add they would say something such as, “Everyone knows any radiation exposure is harmful.” Those in that camp believe the effects of low doses of ionizing radiation can be estimated by linear extrapolation from effects caused by high doses, and that biological damage will occur unless the level is zero. Their position is supported by the linear no-threshold (LNT) theory adopted by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) in 1959.

However, those who believe in hormesis (the word derives from the Greek word “hormaein,” which means “to excite”) would observe that many substances such as alcohol and caffeine that can be lethal at high levels have stimulating effects at low levels. There is compelling evidence that the same is true for ionizing radiation. I’ll mention that there is a cottage industry of investigators funded by government-sponsored research money looking for information to support the LNT theory. There are those in that industry who won’t like the information I’m relaying. You should also expect skepticism from people who have been taught (inculcated) that any amount of radiation is bad despite the fact that the world we live in and our own bodies are radioactive.

I am a subscriber to Access to Energy by Dr. Arthur Robinson, and he published a copyrighted article titled, Radiation and Health, in his May 2011 newsletter. It summarizes a paper, Is Chronic Radiation an Effective Prophylaxis Against Cancer? The paper was originally published in the spring 2004 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. The abstract of that article begins, “An extraordinary incident occurred 20 years ago in Taiwan. Recycled steel, accidentally contaminated with cobalt-60 (half-life 5.3 y) was formed into construction steel for more than 180 buildings, which 10,000 persons occupied for 9 to 20 years and unknowingly received radiation exposure.

Intensive studies were performed on the health of the exposed people. It was found that, “Based on the observed seven cancer deaths, the cancer mortality rate for this population was assessed to be 3.5 per 100,000 person years. Three children were born with congenital heart malformations, indicating a prevalence rate of 1.5 cases per 1,000 children under the age 19.” For comparison with people not exposed to the radiation in the buildings, “The average spontaneous cancer death rate in the general population of Taiwan over these 20 years is 116 per 100,000 person years…the prevalence rate of congenital malformation is 23 cases per 1,000 children.” Stated a different way, there was about 3% of the number of cancer deaths for the exposed people compared to what was expected for those in the general population. Birth defects were about 6.5% of what would be expected. Deaths from cancer of people living in the buildings steadily decreased as the time of exposure increased, and had been nearly eradicated after twenty years.

One conclusion of the report was, “It appears that significant beneficial health effects may be associated with this chronic radiation exposure.” (Emphasis added). The journal that published the article was, according to Dr. Robinson, “… immediately savaged … In this case, however, the credential lovers are overwhelmed.”  He then provides a list of the 14 authors and includes their impressive credentials. Dr. Robinson then proposes that “human cancer deaths…can be reduced 20- to 30-fold by increasing whole-body radiation they receive from their environment.”

Failures of the 1991 Russian Revolution

Posted on by

I posted a review of “Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse,” as a companion to this posting. Members of the Soviet Union government who opposed Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms to decentralize much of the government’s power to the republics organized a coup attempt in August 1991.The coup collapsed in only two days in the face of a powerful outpouring of support for a new democracy and Gorbachev returned to power. The failed coup is considered to have led to the demise of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and dissolution of the Soviet Union. Boris Yeltsin won admiration for defying the coup attempt by climbing on top of a tank and calling on people to defend the freedom he had promised. Yeltsin promised to transform the socialist command economy into a free market economy and endorsed privatization programs. However, much of the national wealth fell into the control of a small group of oligarchs. People lost their jobs and savings in economic upheaval in 1992 and 1993 and blamed the reformers instead of blaming the legacy of the Soviet system. The result was constitutional crises in October 1993 and a political standoff and the killing and wounding of hundreds during shelling of the Russian White House. Yeltsin put a new constitution in place approved by referendum that gave strong presidential powers. He became widely unpopular and left office after appointing Vladimir Putin as his successor in the last hours of 1999. People were relieved to have a young and strong leader and overlooked Putin’s background in the KGB.

The title of a recent article from the Washington Post by Kathy Lally “1991 revolution’s goal is a thing of the past,” summarizes where things stand today. One observer is quoted as saying, “We saw the old train (Communism) was taking us in the wrong direction, but we thought all we had to do was change the conductor and we would have comfortable seats and good food. Democracy would take us where we wanted to go, not on our own effort. Sometimes you need to get off and push.”

Russia today does not have fair elections, courts are not independent, and political opposition is not tolerated. Corruption is rampant, and the gap between the rich and poor has widened. There are occasional demonstrations in favor of democracy, but they are mostly ignored except by the police. Opposition to the government is not allowed on the news, which relentlessly carries the message that life is better and Russia is stronger under Putin.  The only thing that keeps the country running is the bribes that are necessary to get anything out of the government. The hope that was created by the defeat of the coup in 1991 has been replaced by disappointment, frustration, and nostalgia. The saddest part of the story is that only a tiny percentage of the population, which is declining because of low birth rates, expresses an interest in changing things. The next presidential election is in March, and Putin is expected to make the decision about who will run.