Feeling inspired today as I started reading literature on convergence and panel unit root models. Gonna use some of this stuff in a paper soon to be presented. So, here is some music that inspires me as I work on data modeling issues.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Can the LRA Rebound?
Read an article from the AP the other day on Joseph Kony and the LRA selling ivory and minerals to obtain weapons and other supplies. Kony's 200-300 troops must be the best armed troops in the world or at least the best fed, best housed, something of the sort. If you are selling ivory and gold at black market prices, you are making bankroll.
Oh wait, Kony's forces are pretty much bottled up in eastern Centeral African Repbulic and the Kafia Kingi district of Sudan. The only reason the LRA continues to exist at this point, for my two cents, is that the criminal regime of Omar al-Bashir allows the LRA to hide in Kafia Kingi and will not allow Ugandan, CAR, and U.S. forces to cross into the district in the hunt for Kony and the LRA. My other guess is that the LRA is not that well heeled at the moment because Kony is probably paying al-Bashir for the Sudanese hospitality thus the need to traffic in ivory and gold on the black market.
So, will LRA rebound? Probably not, instead they will continue to exist in a precarious state until al-Bashir grows tired or finally caves to international pressure. Either way, Kony and al-Bashir remain fugitives from international justice. They are thick as thieves as the saying goes, or in this case murdering scum.
Oh wait, Kony's forces are pretty much bottled up in eastern Centeral African Repbulic and the Kafia Kingi district of Sudan. The only reason the LRA continues to exist at this point, for my two cents, is that the criminal regime of Omar al-Bashir allows the LRA to hide in Kafia Kingi and will not allow Ugandan, CAR, and U.S. forces to cross into the district in the hunt for Kony and the LRA. My other guess is that the LRA is not that well heeled at the moment because Kony is probably paying al-Bashir for the Sudanese hospitality thus the need to traffic in ivory and gold on the black market.
So, will LRA rebound? Probably not, instead they will continue to exist in a precarious state until al-Bashir grows tired or finally caves to international pressure. Either way, Kony and al-Bashir remain fugitives from international justice. They are thick as thieves as the saying goes, or in this case murdering scum.
Friday, November 14, 2014
Thinking China
Today it is fairly easy to think about and read about events in Asia. The president is in the Asia-Pacific and the news and entertainment folks follows where he goes. I call them entertainment because I have a hard time considering Fox News, CNN, HNN, MSNBC, etc. to be news media these days.
This morning I took to ForeignPolicy.com to peruse blogs and reports regarding issues in Asia. I found three things that I believe need to be briefly commented on in my own blog. One, Michael Pillsbury makes a well built argument that China and the U.S. are preparing for war. I wrote my master's thesis on Chinese foreign policy in 1998 and used pieces of that work for conference presentations and to inform a book chapter on Chinese-Philippines relations that I co-authored in 1999. At that time I was convinced and remain somewhat convinced that China's intent was to have the capability to engage in military actions with any military force in the world (including the U.S. military) by the year 2015. Chinese purchases of submarines, upgrades to their surface fleet, purchases and development of military aircraft, testing of ASAT capabilities, purchase of an aircraft carrier and development of naval air operations, development of apparent stealth technology aircraft, all point to a military attempting to rival the best in the world.
Two, North Korea has developed cheap, low technology, but efficient UAV capability. I am not sure if efficient is really a good word here since a few of these UAVs have crashed in South Korea. But, those crashes are how we know North Korea has developed this capability. So we do not know if any of these border crossing UAV missions have been successful. But we do know the capability exists and this knowledge is important and something to cause some degree of apprehension.
Three, David Francis and others are correct about the Obama-Xi handshake deal on climate change will be difficult for either side to really achieve. Do we really believe that Obama by use of the EPA can really force inducstry, particularly the energy generating industry, to reduce greenhouse emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025? And honestly, do you really think that this non-binding on U.S. citizens agreement (it is not a U.S. Senate ratified treaty), will be followed through by the next administration. Great job of grandstanding Obama, ressurect that world image that won you the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.nothing. And what kind of deal is it that says, ok we'll cut our emissions by 26-28% by 2025 and you promise to do something by 2030. For my two cents, not a very strong move at all.
This morning I took to ForeignPolicy.com to peruse blogs and reports regarding issues in Asia. I found three things that I believe need to be briefly commented on in my own blog. One, Michael Pillsbury makes a well built argument that China and the U.S. are preparing for war. I wrote my master's thesis on Chinese foreign policy in 1998 and used pieces of that work for conference presentations and to inform a book chapter on Chinese-Philippines relations that I co-authored in 1999. At that time I was convinced and remain somewhat convinced that China's intent was to have the capability to engage in military actions with any military force in the world (including the U.S. military) by the year 2015. Chinese purchases of submarines, upgrades to their surface fleet, purchases and development of military aircraft, testing of ASAT capabilities, purchase of an aircraft carrier and development of naval air operations, development of apparent stealth technology aircraft, all point to a military attempting to rival the best in the world.
Two, North Korea has developed cheap, low technology, but efficient UAV capability. I am not sure if efficient is really a good word here since a few of these UAVs have crashed in South Korea. But, those crashes are how we know North Korea has developed this capability. So we do not know if any of these border crossing UAV missions have been successful. But we do know the capability exists and this knowledge is important and something to cause some degree of apprehension.
Three, David Francis and others are correct about the Obama-Xi handshake deal on climate change will be difficult for either side to really achieve. Do we really believe that Obama by use of the EPA can really force inducstry, particularly the energy generating industry, to reduce greenhouse emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025? And honestly, do you really think that this non-binding on U.S. citizens agreement (it is not a U.S. Senate ratified treaty), will be followed through by the next administration. Great job of grandstanding Obama, ressurect that world image that won you the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing.nothing. And what kind of deal is it that says, ok we'll cut our emissions by 26-28% by 2025 and you promise to do something by 2030. For my two cents, not a very strong move at all.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Rohingya Flight
I have blogged about the issue of Muslims in Myanmar a few times. I am continuing to seek out information on this topic and to consider the ethnopolitical issues associated with being non-Buddhist in Myanmar. In the 1980s through roughly 2010 the situation surrounding Karen population was well documented. Why is it the case that the situation surrounding the Rohingya population is not as well documented?
I have been told by some that the question is one of religion, that the Karen population is Christian and the Rohingya population is Muslim. Most of the Karen population is still a combination of Buddhist and animist, though a particularly large pocket of Karen Christians exists in the Irrawady delta region. So, if the mostly Buddhist population of Myanmar were to take up arms against the Karen, they would be attacking many fellow believers. The facts show that the government and military attacked the Karen population but the actions against the Karen population did not have a great deal of popular support in Myanmar. However, religion does appear to be a more mitigating factor in regard to support in the population for attacks on Rohingya. In dealing with the Rohingya the attacks have been made by the rank and file Buddhists of the population of Myanmar and the government is complicit in that the government does not disuade the populace of making these attacks.
Now, nearly two years after widespread violence against the Rohingya broke out, nearly 100,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar by boat. Most of those fleeing have gone to Bangladesh, where over 85% of the population is Muslim. Nearly 150,000 more Rohingya are living in camps still in Myanmar as internally displaced persons, but without any support from the international community as access to the Rohingya is routinely denied by the government of Myanmar.
For my two cents, I don't care if you are Muslim, Animist, Buddhist, Christian, yellow, red, purple with green polkadots, or whatever, you should not be the target of communal violence for existing as a minority population anywhere in the contemporary world. Governments that support communal violence should be held in contempt and pressured to change their behaviors, not courted as trading partners and political allies--democratic engagement and enlargement may be admirable goals, but does democratic society accept government condoned communal violence as a norm of accepted behavior?
I have been told by some that the question is one of religion, that the Karen population is Christian and the Rohingya population is Muslim. Most of the Karen population is still a combination of Buddhist and animist, though a particularly large pocket of Karen Christians exists in the Irrawady delta region. So, if the mostly Buddhist population of Myanmar were to take up arms against the Karen, they would be attacking many fellow believers. The facts show that the government and military attacked the Karen population but the actions against the Karen population did not have a great deal of popular support in Myanmar. However, religion does appear to be a more mitigating factor in regard to support in the population for attacks on Rohingya. In dealing with the Rohingya the attacks have been made by the rank and file Buddhists of the population of Myanmar and the government is complicit in that the government does not disuade the populace of making these attacks.
Now, nearly two years after widespread violence against the Rohingya broke out, nearly 100,000 Rohingya have fled Myanmar by boat. Most of those fleeing have gone to Bangladesh, where over 85% of the population is Muslim. Nearly 150,000 more Rohingya are living in camps still in Myanmar as internally displaced persons, but without any support from the international community as access to the Rohingya is routinely denied by the government of Myanmar.
For my two cents, I don't care if you are Muslim, Animist, Buddhist, Christian, yellow, red, purple with green polkadots, or whatever, you should not be the target of communal violence for existing as a minority population anywhere in the contemporary world. Governments that support communal violence should be held in contempt and pressured to change their behaviors, not courted as trading partners and political allies--democratic engagement and enlargement may be admirable goals, but does democratic society accept government condoned communal violence as a norm of accepted behavior?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)