ELIMINATE SECURITY COUNCIL AND VETO POWER OF PERMANENT MEMBERS AT UNITED NATIONS

When the United Nations was created in 1945, the founders created a peculiar system whereby the Security Council had all the power regarding peace and security, and the General Assembly had very little.

Furthermore, each of the five permanent members—Russia, China, Great Britain, France, and the United States—has veto power over any resolution regarding peace, war or security which is brought to the Security Council.

The conflicts in both Libya and now Syria bring up the necessity to amend the structure at the U.N.  Disband the Security Council.  Put all power in the General Assembly.  No one country should have the power to veto or stymie the work of the world body.

OBAMA'S BELIEF IN U.S. MILITARY HEGEMONY NO BETTER THAN BUSH'S

I don't understand Obama's foreign policy.  Why must the United States send marines to reside in Australia?  The broader question:  why must the U.S. have bases in the Far East, or for that matter, anywhere on foreign soil?

It is clearly a provocative act to the Chinese.  It is belligerent and communicates that the U.S. might resort to starting a war against China because of its predominant economic successes.

Obama is no better than George W. Bush.  Like Bush, he must believe, truly believe, in American hegemony.

CHINA, RUSSIA, BRAZIL: DON'T APPROVE OBAMA'S SCHEME FOR SANCTIONS ON IRAN

I call upon Chinese President Hu Jintao, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Brazilian President Lula to block the foolish and hypocritical drive by the west, especially by Barack Obama and the U.S., to impose sanctions on Iran. Sanctions will harm the Iranian economy and the Iranian people. The U.S. is unjustly seeking to block another nation from developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

Chris McGreal and Julian Borger report in The Guardian today on Obama's push for sanctions.

Write McGreal and Borger:

"Barack Obama has urged Beijing to "ratchet up the pressure" on Iran over its nuclear programme after a breakthrough for the US administration in persuading China to agree to talks on fresh sanctions against Tehran.

"Obama told CBS news that Iran was increasingly diplomatically isolated and that international unity was essential to ensuring it did not develop nuclear weapons.

""The idea is to keep turning up the pressure," Obama said. "We're going to ratchet up the pressure and examine how they respond but we're going to do so with a unified international community.""

The U.S. has been unilaterally imposing sanctions on Iran for the last 30 years and look at the result. Ditto for Cuba. And how about Israel's sanctions on the Palestinians in Gaza - a total blockade of life's necessities for 1.5 million Palestinians. Sanctions harm the ordinary populace and are immoral.

WHY IS OBAMA TELLING IRAN WHAT IT SHOULD DO WITH NUCLEAR POWER?

Pres. Obama ran on a campaign theme of "change you can believe in." But as to Iran, I see very little change in policy and approach as compared to the hated Bush/Cheney policy of making war threats. For Obama, there now should be "sanctions."

I have a suggestion to Obama and all his hard-line foreign policy advisors: recognize that Iran is a sovereign country just like Israel, India and China. If Iran wants to develop its nuclear industry, it has every right to do so.

Here's what the BBC writes about U.S. policy towards Iran:

"The US has said new sanctions against Iran are the "only path" after Tehran announced it was stepping up its uranium enrichment programme.

"Iran's nuclear chief, Ali Akbar Salehi, earlier said Tehran had told the UN's nuclear watchdog it would start enriching uranium to 20% from Tuesday.

"The move heightens fears that Iran is moving closer to weapons-grade uranium.

"The US called on the international community to take new action and France called Iran's latest move "blackmail"."

HOW COULD PRES. OBAMA APPROVE SALE OF WEAPONS TO TAIWAN?

Pres. Barack Obama continues to surprise and disappoint in foreign policy. It's hard to believe that he approves the U.S. sale of over six billion dollars of armaments to Taiwan. This move is sure to incite the government of China as well as the billion plus people in China to apoplexy and anti-American sentiment.

The BBC reports:

"Beijing said it would suspend military exchanges with the US, impose sanctions on companies selling arms, and review co-operation on major issues.

"Ties are already strained by rows over trade and internet censorship."

I voted for Obama principally because of what I thought (erroneously) as his pacific approach to American dealings with foreign countries. I did not vote for him so that he could facilitate a sale of missiles, war planes and tanks to Taiwan.

Imagine the reaction of the man in the street in the U.S. if Russia agreed to sell six billion dollars of arms to Cuba. We have seen the negative and hostile approach of U.S. lawmakers to Russia's sale of helicopters to Venezuela. The hostile reaction of China to this latest deal is perfectly understandable and reasonable.

I call upon Pres. Obama to cancel this deal. Stop the production and sale of weapons that are designed to kill.

DEATH PENALTY IN IRAQ

Once again we receive reports that Iraq is imposing the death penalty on people convicted of major crimes.

Nada Bakri writes in today's The New York Times:

"A Baghdad court sentenced 11 Iraqis to death on Thursday for planning and carrying out a series of devastating attacks last summer.

"The bombings, on Aug. 19, struck Iraq’s Foreign and Finance Ministries in the heart of the capital and embarrassed the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki ahead of important parliamentary elections in March. the attacks also came less than two months after American combat troops withdrew from Iraqi cities, raising fears among many Iraqis that their security forces are not capable of maintaining security yet."

I don't care what the crime, governments should not be allowed to punish by taking a criminal's life. No matter if the convict is a mass murderer, the state should not be allowed to respond and take an eye for an eye. One evil does not justify the state to impose the same evil on the convict.

Furthermore, the death penalty is harsh and cruel. It has no place in a modern liberal democratic society.

Besides Iraq, other countries that still allow the death penalty include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Japan, China and the United States.

DEFENSE DEPT. WARNS CHINA ON MILITARY BUILD-UP

What is the purpose of the Department of Defense stirring up trouble by accusing China of building up its military and weapons systems? This is sure to rile not only Chinese leaders but also the common man in the street.

Here we have the United States, the most armed and militaristic of all countries on earth, telling China it has no right to beef up its military. Put yourself in China's shoes. What would you think? How would you react? Angry and resentful. Incredulous in the face of American hypocrisy.

The Washington Post carries a story by Trini Tran of AP today on its web site. Writes Tran:

"A U.S. Defense Department report released in Washington _ the first under the Obama administration _ said Beijing's rapidly growing military strength is shifting the military balance in the region and could be used to enforce its claim in disputed territories.

"China's objections were strong, signaling what continues to a bumpy start with the new U.S. administration. The two governments have tried to minimize differences, but frictions already have surfaced, including this month's confrontation between a U.S. naval ship and Chinese vessels and China's concerns over the weakened U.S. economy."

Where is Barack Obama on all of this? Was the DOD's statement first cleared with him? Does he approve the old Bush line of dictating to other countries how they should act and behave? It's hard to believe Obama would approve this imperialistic tactic. China's reaction of fury and resentment would have been easy to predict. So why stir up trouble?

Tran reports on China's anger:

"Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang lashed out at the report as "interference" in China's affairs and said his country had formally complained.

""It is a gross distortion of facts and interference into China's internal affairs. China resolutely opposes it and has made solemn representation to the U.S. side," he told a regularly scheduled news conference."

OBAMA: STOP U.S. SPYING ON CHINA IN SOUTH CHINA SEA

Why is it necessary for the U.S. government to compound and worsen matters with China over the presence of the U.S. navy ship Impeccable? Supposedly doing scientific work in the South China Sea, but in all probability spying on the Chinese submarine program centered on Hainan Island, a few miles away, the Impeccable has no business being where it is now.

Ann Scott Tyson reports for The Washington Post that Obama is sending a Navy destroyer to accompany the Impeccable and keep it safe from protesting Chinese fishing boats.

Writes Tyson:

"The U.S. Navy has dispatched a guided-missile destroyer to the South China Sea after Chinese ships allegedly harassed an American ship operating there last weekend, a Pentagon official said yesterday.

"The USS Chung-Hoon, armed with torpedoes and missiles, is stationed in protection of the USNS Impeccable, an ocean surveillance ship. On Sunday, five Chinese vessels surrounded the Impeccable, which is unarmed. The Chinese ships approached to within 25 feet and blocked the Impeccable's path with pieces of wood, the official said."

Oh, by the way, the name of the U.S. destroyer is ironic. Chung-Hoon no doubt is named after a Chinese American, but have we forgotten that the United States had adopted a vehement anti-Chinese policy on immigration, and that the harsh racist immigration laws were relaxed only in the 1950s? Chinese were not welcomed into the United States for fear they would subvert American way of life and culture. The very same arguments that anti-immigration voices now make against Mexicans and Latinos. Now the U.S. is sending an American war ship having a Chinese name into the South China Sea to protect another American vessel engaged in spying upon the Chinese!

How would Obama and Americans like it if the Chinese Navy sent one of their spy ships and stationed it 100 miles off the Eastern Seaboard? There would be much gnashing of teeth and complaining that the Chinese were engaged in hostile acts towards the U.S.

Obama, call off the Navy spy ship and get both ships out of Chinese waters. You are no better than George W. Bush if you allow the military to continue on this provocative course.

WHY IS U.S. NAVY SPY SHIP SAILING IN SOUTH CHINA SEA?

What is the United States doing with a navy ship in the South China Sea? Why does the U.S. need a naval vessel on the other side of the world?

Today, the Navy announced that five Chinese ships had "harassed" the American spy ship.

The BBC reports:

"The incident happened as the USNS Impeccable was on routine operations in international waters 75 miles (120km) south of Hainan island, a US statement said.

"The ships "aggressively manoeuvred" around the Impeccable "in an apparent co-ordinated effort to harass the US ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters", according to the Pentagon.

"Impeccable is designed specifically to detect underwater threats such as submarines for the US navy.

"Aggressive manoeuvring by ships by rival navies in sensitive international waters is not uncommon but Washington was sufficiently disturbed by the incident involving the Impeccable to make its concerns public, the BBC's Kevin Connolly reports from Washington."

I want Obama to pull U.S. war ships out of far-away seas and oceans. They have no business being there anyway other than to spy on foreign countries and cause resentment and incidents like the above.

Suppose China had one of its spy ships sail 75 miles off the coast of Long Island? What would the American people say about that? That it was justified by international law and that China had every right to be there? Or that China was engaged in spying on the American people and that it should immediately pull its ship away from the United States.

Some Americans will say that China is merely testing a new U.S. president but this is patently ludicrous. China has no reason to "test" Obama. Most Chinese hope that Obama will reverse Bush's antagonistic policies towards China and that Obama will establish more friendly relations. So there is no inner dynamic in China or its government to put Obama to a test.

This incident in the South China Sea underlines once again the imperialistic, militaristic and hegemonic foreign policy of the United States. Obama, call off the Navy ships and bring them home. The world awaits a new American foreign policy and hopes for a Pax Obama that relies not on guns and bombs but on diplomacy and mutual respect.

END DEATH PENALTY NOW

Maureen Fan writes today on the web site of The Washington Post that a court in China has sentenced an Olympic official to death for taking millions in bribes. The court then gave a reprieve from the death sentence.

Reports Fan:

"Liu Zhihua, 59, oversaw construction, real estate, sports and traffic projects for the Beijing Olympic Games until he was fired in June 2006 over charges of corruption and bad morals. His high-profile antics and "decadent lifestyle" attracted the shocked attention of the country's top leaders, according to Chinese media reports."

The official is lucky in receiving a reprieve. How many others in China are sentenced to death, and then suffer the execution of the sentence?

When will "civilized" countries do away with the death sentence? I mean not only China but the United States, Iraq and Iran?

Proponents claim the death penalty prevents and deters other criminals from committing serious crimes. But there is no credible evidence that this is true. Other proponents say that the death penalty is a just penalty, in other words, proportional retribution for crimes that offend society. But why should the state take a person's life, no matter how serious a crime was committed? Saddam Hussein should not have been hanged; that was cruel and violent and unworthy of the state of Iraq. And certainly no one can argue that the death penalty "rehabilitates" because the condemned loses his life and his chance to reform.

The death penalty is cruel and unusual and inflicts horrible physical and emotional punishment on the condemned. A state, given all its power, overreaches its powers when it condemns and then executes the person convicted. And there is no evidence whatsoever that the death penalty deters others.

The United States is just as guilty of inflicting cruel and unusual punishment via the death penalty as the rest of the unenlightened countries that put their citizens to death.

BUSH ADDS TO LEGACY OF MISTAKES - OFFERS INDIA UNLIMITED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

The agreement to sell nuclear technology to India is another of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy disasters.

India is not a signer or party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has not agreed to use nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes. Contrast India's refusal to join the NPT with Iran which is a member. Yet the U.S. Congress just last week went along with Bush's illogical and dangerous agreement to give India full access to nuclear technology.

Now Pakistan wants the same deal. India is its arch rival and potential lethal enemy. It makes nothing but sense for Pakistan to ask its "ally" in the "war on terror" to extend the same access as Bush has now extended India.

And what must Teheran be thinking? Bush and Cheney froth at the mouth over Iran's pursuit of nuclear power, yet so cavalierly give a non-signer to the NPT full access.

And what must Russia and China be thinking? I suggest both these nuclear powers interpret the move as a ratcheting up by the Americans of the nuclear arms race. The lesson for both Russia and China is clear - stop dismantling your nuclear arsenals; instead, fortify them!

Bush has done great damage in lives and resources with his foolish war in Iraq. But his legacy of disasters surely will include this dangerous and unwise nuclear agreement with India.

BUSH - HEAD TRASHER OF U.S. CONSTITUTION - CRITICIZES CHINESE FOR LIMITING RIGHTS

I would like to see George W. Bush just shut up, to quote Keith Olbermann, when it comes to his telling and lecturing other countries and regimes how to manage their own internal affairs.

Last night, TV reports showed Bush lecturing the Chinese on their society, wishing that the Chinese would respect such things as freedom of speech and religion. This would be well and good if Bush had clean hands. But he does not. He is after all the person responsible for creating Guantanamo, military tribunals, use of harsh interrogation methods (a euphemism for waterboarding and torture), Abu Ghraib, rendition of suspects to other totalitarian regimes for extreme punishments, flouting of valid laws passed by Congress, and an overall trashing of individual constitutional rights.

Here is the report of Bush's speech in The Washington Post as reported by Debbi Wilgoren and Michael Abramowitz.

BUSH TRAVELS TO OLYMPICS, BRINGS FAMILY MEMBERS

George Bush is on another trip, this time to South Korea, Thailand and China. As usual he is mixing business with pleasure, all the better to charge the expenses to the U.S. taxpayer.

Apparently he is taking a large family contingent with him on Air Force One. The Bushes know how to milk the Treasury for their own personal gain. They all want to see the Olympics in Beijing.

Anyone want to guess how many Bush family members are on this trip?

FREE TRADE BENEFITS MORE DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, HURTS LESS DEVELOPED

The Dohar WTO trade talks collapsed yesterday in Geneva amid fighting and irreconciliable differences between principally the United States and India and China over the insistence by the U.S. and other more developed countries that they must maintain their farm subsidies.

Anthony Faiola and Rama Lakshmi write in The Washington Post today:

"The failure of the talks after nine days of intense negotiations underscored what is likely to be the biggest challenge in coming years to expanding world trade: the reluctance of emerging juggernauts such as India and China to risk their newfound success by offering rich nations greater access to the hundreds of millions of consumers rising out of poverty in the developing world."

So much for the Bush insistence that "free trade" is always beneficial and an unalloyed bonum. If that were really the truth, the U.S. would have compromised by unraveling its farm subsidies. This sticking point in the Dohar talks has always been the dirty little secret of free-trade agreements. We (i.e. Americans) want you (i.e., the rest of the world, especially, less developed countries) to allow our goods, especially agricultural ones, and our other products into your societies without import tariffs, but we refuse to end our subsidies to our farmers and manufacturers. In other words, "free trade" really is a one-sided agreement. Trade with us Americans and accept our terms, otherwise we will cut you off. This is the American threat.

Report Faiola and Lakshmi:

"The talks in Geneva at times took on a highly charged, personal tone that immediately cast the negotiations as a power struggle between the developed and developing worlds. Within 24 hours of landing in Geneva nine days ago, Brazil's foreign minister, Celso Amorim, infuriated First World negotiators, comparing their efforts to hype their proposed trade concessions to Nazi propaganda. His comments drew sharp reprimands, particularly from Washington's top negotiator, U.S. Trade Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, the daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivors . . . ."

"Opposition to the talks had been building in India since June, when 35 farmers groups from across that nation gathered at a conference in New Delhi to discuss the implications of the trade negotiations with trade and food policy activists. They called upon wealthy nations to remove their farm subsidies, saying such assistance to First World farmers denies a level playing field to subsistence-farming nations such as India."

India and China and other developing countries would not agree this time to American trade intransigence. Thus the much lamented demise of the Dohar Agreement. It shows how Bush and his other Republican "free trade" enthusiasts view the rest of the world, especially the poorer and less economically developed countries.

IRAN HANGS 29 CRIMINALS IN CRUEL IMPOSITION OF DEATH PENALTY

As my readers know, I am adamantly opposed to military action by the U.S. or Israel against Iran on account of its nuclear power development. However, from time to time, I think actions of the Iranian government are reprehensible and cruel. Consider for example the news reports today that Iranian authorities executed 29 criminals this morning by hanging.

The BBC reports:

"The latest hangings were carried out after the death sentences were approved by the country's Supreme Court, IRIB reported. "Twenty-nine drug smugglers and well-known bandits were hanged in Evin prison on Sunday at dawn," the statement said. "These criminals had smuggled thousands of kilos of narcotics in the country and outside the country." "

The only countries to rival Iran as the leading executioners are the United States and China. You might think that more civilized a country is, the less it would utilize the death penalty. But that apparently is not so.

For a state to impose and carry out taking a person's life is barbaric, cruel and without societal benefit. Some argue that the death penalty is a deterrent. If so, why does the world still have people who commit crimes punishable by death?

When the state takes a life, it is just as inhumane and barbaric as any murderer. Every imposition of the death penalty must be condemned whether done by China, the U.S. or Iran.

BUSH HARMS U.S. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BY RECKLESS ATTEMPT TO SHOOT DOWN SATELLITE

I recall that last year when China shot down one of its decaying satellites that the U.S. government was highly critical of the exercise, claiming that China wanted to engage in an arms race towards developing intercontinental missile warfare systems. Now the United States is itself engaged in the very same development. The reasons given by the U.S. military for this provocative exercise are too transparent for anyone to accept. As if the whole exercise were to save Earth from harmful space debris.

The real reason is that the U.S.military wants to prevent highly sophisticated spy technology from falling into the hands of other countries. Secondly, the U.S. government wants to develop an intercontinental missile system that could deliver warheads anywhere in the world, and also, develop a system which could shoot down missiles or satellites of any other country.

Consequently, this exercise of shooting down a errant U.S. satellite is fraught with military and political danger to the rest of the world. It shows how far the government of the United States under Bush and Cheney is prepared to go to establish military hegemony. Russia and China will especially feel threatened. Any talk of multilateralism, or cooperation and negotiation with other countries, will be blown up at the same time the U.S. shoots down the satellite, and, even if the U.S. fails in this effort, severe damage will have been done to international relations.