Nuclear power is the focus of our Special Report this week. Do you know the facts? [QUIZZIN 32]
Categories
If power were a fruit, I guess it would be an orange: sweet at first, it usually turns out to have a sour after-taste. And if you attempt to savor it whole, it’s very bitter.
I’ve come across a few fruity political metaphors lately. Using sweet comparisons seems to help political correctness. ‘A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down’, as a famous flying nanny once said…
Have you heard about Kenya’s watermelons this week? Not the country’s newest export success, no. In the debate surrounding the new constitution approved in Wednesday’s vote, watermelons are those politicians who are ‘green’ on the outside and ‘red’ on the inside. Despite apparently being supporters of the new text (green), they are actually against (red) because it threatens some of their privileges, and they will do everything they can to impede its introduction.
Similarly, did you know that the US and the UK produce coconuts? The term is emerging in both countries to designate black people who are ‘white’ inside because they have assimilated white culture. Some like to proudly call themselves ‘coconuts’ as a mark of successful integration or even a kind of higher social status. But others use it to accuse people of betraying their ethnic loyalty, so be very careful before you call someone fruit names. I wonder where Barack Obama stands on this issue?
Finally, no fruit beats the sabra when it comes to political importance. This cactus fruit, usually called prickly pear in English, has played an interesting role in Israeli national identity for a long time. ‘Sabra‘ is used to describe Jewish people born and raised in Israel, as opposed to those who emigrated after its creation. The ‘sabras’ are supposedly rough on the outside, but delicate on the inside. According to Wikipedia, Benjamin Netanyahu is the first sabra Prime Minister… Well, I can definitely see the rough outside!
Do you know of any political fruit to add to this summer salad?
Hugo Chavez’s latest bout of political theater reeks of George Orwell. In his dystopian novel, 1984, Orwell shrewdly points out that “those who control the present, control the past, and those who control the past, control the future,” an assertion Chavez seems to have taken to heart. The Venezuelan president’s recent decision to exhume the body of legendary hero and national founder, Simon Bolivar, has sparked an onslaught of international criticism about the president’s persistent eccentricities and obsession with the national figure. According to Chavez, a self-professed admirer, follower and disciple of Bolivar, the exhumation seeks to allow forensic scientists to discover the real cause of Bolivar’s death; Chavez believes Bolivar was possibly poisoned by Colombian traitors. The aberrant decision has reinforced perceptions that Chavez is a mad man who is losing his grip of reality; but how crazy is he really?
The search for possible reasons behind the exhumation has yielded a plethora of theories. Some say Chavez wishes to divert attention from domestic problems such as the economy’s unrelenting recession or a recent scandal over imported food left rotting in the country’s ports. Others claim that, if he can prove that Bolivar was indeed poisoned by Colombian traitors, Chavez would use such evidence to support his contentious relationship with the current Colombian government. Yet others believe that Chavez seeks to use Bolivar’s body as a political gimmick to rile up support for his Bolivarian movement ahead of crucial parliamentary votes in September. Regardless of which theory turns out to be right, one thing is clear: Chavez wants to use Bolivar’s symbolic power to pursue his own ends, whatever they may turn out to be.
Categories
The Nuclear Power Predicament
This week the ISN looks at the causes and consequences of a global nuclear renaissance. We ask whether nuclear power is a false prophet for a planet imperiled by climate change and assess the difficulty of reigning in those that seek to turn energy into weapons.
The Special Report includes the following content:
- An Analysis by Trevor Findlay and Justin Alger on the promise of nuclear energy in the fight against climate change.
- A Podcast interview with Dr Oliver Thränert on the need to control the risk of nuclear energy being used for military purposes.
- Security Watch articles on nuclear cooperation between Japan and India, Sino-Pakistani nuclear ties, the Iranian impasse and many more.
- Publications housed in our Digital Library, including an Elcano Royal Institute of International and Strategic Studies study on nuclear weapons in the 2010s and a Congressional Research Service paper on US nuclear cooperation with India.
- Primary Resources, like the Joint Declaration by Iran, Turkey and Brazil on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
- Links to relevant websites, including a TEDTalk on the importance on nuclear energy.
- Our IR Directory, featuring the Russian Federal Nuclear Center (RFNC-VNIIEF) and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA).
The usual suspects never fail to disappoint. With 122 countries voting in favor and 41 abstaining, the UN General Assembly has recently declared clean water and sanitation as a fundamental human right, a move hailed by water rights activists as a “big step in the right direction.” Although passing with an overwhelming majority, the vote’s abstentions are disconcerting, although, considering the culprits, not surprising.
The usual suspects—United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Israel—attempted to justify their abstentions through unconvincing procedural language. Substantively, they argued that declaring water as a human right has no sufficient legal basis in customary international law. Isn’t that the exact purpose of this declaration, to move in that direction? Before the non-binding Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, most human rights now enshrined in treaty law was also not part of international law. Like the UDHR, the current water rights declaration has the power to fuel the onset of a normative and legal shift focusing on codifying the right to clean water and basic sanitation in enforceable treaty laws. The second argument, of a procedural in character, proposes that the vote would disrupt ongoing water rights negotiations at the Human Rights Council (HRC) in Geneva. Why would the HRC—a 47-member body—be deemed more appropriate a forum than the more democratic and representative 192-member General Assembly? If anything, the current declaration can help guide and even compliment the negotiations in Geneva.
So why abstain from such a seemingly basic declaration?