Iran: Now it makes sense

Now I understand why the US and others boycotted the UN conference on racism. Pondering this issue, I watched the TV news tonight to get my head around the narrative we are supposed to suck up unquestioningly.

As expected, on both TVNZ and TV3, we got a big "I told you so!" from the countries who boycotted the conference after the Iranian President reportedly had a go at Israel in his speech. From the reports, we have no idea what he actually said, but I did get the very clear message that whatever it was, it more than justified boycotting the conference....if you buy the argument that what a single leader *might* say about another country is reason enough for your country to boycott a major conference on an important issue. I don't buy it. That Canada felt the need to announce the boycott over a year ago makes it even more odd.

I've seen this kind of pantomime before and know very well there is a lot more going on here than some countries getting upset about insults in Israel's direction. That's why the reasons given made no sense to me.

As is too often the case, I had to use the Internet to find out what's REALLY going on. (Amended sentence follows) The major wires services (AP and Reuters) and NZ's TV news and most newspapers, too often are either lazily purveying some government's (country of origin) propaganda as news or actively participating in misleading us. It hardly matters which as the result is the same: we aren't told why things are really happening.

Guess what I found out in about 15 seconds?

Iran is having elections on June 12th (less than 8 weeks from now) and they include the presidency. Conservative incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hate-doll of the US and Israel, is standing against two reformers, pormer PM Mir-Hossein Mousavi and former speaker of the Majlis (legislature), Mehdi Karroubi. Both are reformers.

Now the boycott and theatre around it make sense....right down to the silly rainbow wig of the "protester" (I wonder who he really was?) thrown out of the conference venue during Ahmadinejad's speech. The US and others have a very real interest in making it very clear to Iranian voters that a vote for Ahmadinejad is a vote for more of the same lack of engagement with Iran and continued banking sanctions against Iran. The US and its allies (including NZ) want to see a reformer elected.

The Wikipedia article reports a poll taken in late March showing Mr. Mousavi on 52% and President Ahmadinejad on 36%.

It may well be that Ahmadinejad, running behind in the polls, had every intention of using his speech at the conference to play to a populist, America / Israel-hating home crowd and show he is able to stand up for Iran in before the world. Maybe this was the Iranian version of Bush's "Bring it on". A play to patriotism to win votes.

I don't like Ahmadinejad. He is divisive and negative. I hope he loses. But what a shame the 8 countries who didn't turn up at the UN Conference on Racism saw it as disposable in their wider game. Racism isn't a trivial issue and everyone could have sat quietly through Ahmadinejad's rant and got on with real, important work. That they chose not to is revealing by itself.

NZ boycotts UN conference on racism

Rather than front up and take part in the debate at the UN-sponsored World Conference on Racism, the US, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Israel are not going to turn up. Canada's conservative government was first to bail out early last year.

The apparent reason is conflict around Israel's policies in Palestine. The response from much of the West is the usual one: turn a deaf ear. To be fair, the Arab states are just as deaf in response to criticism of their behaviour and policies.

Israel is easily the most contentious issue on the global agenda for the past 60 years. Failure to deal with this issue has lead to many wars and atrocities, directly and indirectly, including 9/11.

Why on Earth would we (NZ or anyone) allow a single issue to break up a major international conference? Yet this appears to be exactly what is happening. The wrongs of racism are exactly what the conference is about.

Instead, the listed countries are adopting a "talk to the hand" stance, plugged their ears and boycotted the conference in an attempt to block the airing of criticism about Israeli behaviour in Palestine. Are we seeing criticism of Israel - again - being portrayed as "anti-semitism"? It would appear to be the case.

Why not turn up and make the opposing case?

I note the Herald article, sourced from AP, includes the (2005) claim that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for "Israel to be wiped off the map" but neglects to mention that Israel has been threatening to unilaterally nuke Iran since at least 2002.

Reporting the Iranian president's comments out of context appears to be required journalistic practice in the English-speaking world, at least.

Peak Everything? NZ needs a population policy.

I spent a good chunk of this evening trying to get to the bottom of the growing food shortages.

Biofuels have come under fire for shifting grain grown for food into use as fuel. That means less food to go around so prices go up. The US farmers who were persuaded to grow corn for biofuels are happy about being paid well for a change and are moving to defend their new-found incomes. The "National Corn Growers Association" says "corn is not the culprit" and points the finger at higher oil prices and the big margins added to food prices by processors, distributors and retailers after it leaves the farm gate. They use an almost comical example of a box of corn flakes to illustrate the point. Yes, that must be it. People all over the world can't afford boxes of corn flakes any more. Admittedly, their press release is intended for domestic US consumption. In a global context, it comes across (to me) as myopic and self-serving.

There is a spider's web of side-effects and unintended consequences radiating out from almost every measure related to food or fuel. We could spend all day fascinating ourselves with how growing more corn in the US has reduced soy production there, creating opportunities for Brasilian soy farmers who are themselves displacing cattle in the Mato Grosso. The owners of the displaced cattle are felling more rainforests and the cycle repeats. Up to a point. Two years after the trees are cut down, the rain seems to stop falling. No more rain if there's no more rain forest. Not just in Brasil, but everywhere downwind of the declining forest cover. Apparently, those forests seeded rain clouds for places as far away as Europe. The effects of human activity cascade on and on, touching pretty much everything because we are now numerous enough that almost anything we all do can and does have global consequences. We have scale, as they say.

This very brief vid on human population growth and the role oil has played is well worth watching.



What does all that mean? To me, it sounds like the feeling you get when you hit a sharp curve driving at too high a speed. You have reduced your margin of error to a razor's edge and almost ANY perturbation or pebble on the road can turn your finely balanced transit of the corner into disaster and see you through the guard rail and over the edge. Ooops. No 'replay' button in the real world. We have grown used to not being prudent.

Except in our case, speed is actually the increasingly intense pressure our growing population is placing on every system we touch. Water, air, soil, forests, fisheries, energy....all of it...and more. On one level, the core problem behind most others is staringly obvious. There are roughly 70 million more mouths to feed each year than there were last year. The human population of the world continues to rise and that is affecting everything one way or another. We need more food every year this remains the case.

Problem. Soils are degrading. Energy and fertiliser to produce food are rapidly rising in price. Demand is outstripping supply. Water is becoming insufficiently available in more places as rains stubbornly refuse to fall or there just isn't enough of the stuff to grow people as well as their food.

The whole picture adds up to a level of human activity that isn't sustainable. The core reason is human population, with a supporting cast of myriad subsidiary effects that are in turn causes of other effects.

Kelpie Wilson of Truthout.org has written an excellent article ("More food is not the answer") on the the present situation. The article is prompted, in part, by a recent United Nations report by the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development).

Ever heard of "Peak Phosphorous"? Read the article.

New Zealand doesn't have a population policy that I'm aware of. If it does exist, it is rarely talked about. We should begin that debate as soon as possible and take the time to have a real debate about it and let people think on it. How many Kiwis would be enough? Almost everyone I've talked to says somewhere between 5 and 6 million. Is that reasonable?

As it is, the issue of population rarely comes up and when it does some idiot or other automatically assumes any move to look at population consciously will lead to forced sterilisation or other nonsense. Another idiot will then tell you to "off yourself if you're so worried about it". Not much rational debate to be found in that sort of atmosphere. But it does need to begin.