Break through on Syria's tense situation in the UN's security Council

After having voted against an armed military intervention in Syria, the two members of the UN's security council have apparently agreed to back down from their position. Russia and China now agree that the violence in Syria must stop.



"Russia is finally ready to compromise over its opposition to a United Nations Security Council resolution demanding the Syrian president ends the violence against his own people, the French foreign minister suggested yesterday." (Source: Canada.com)

China also agrees that a solution must be found in order to solve Syria's problem, but states that Russia and themselves, felt that the US were pursuing a policy that did not meet the interests of the two members of the security council.

"As a Global power, China wants to have influence in certain strategic locations, that serve their interests, and these interests should be respected."

Now, unfortunately, all we can do is wait, while the members of the Security Council reach a common decision on what to do with Syria. Meanwhile the conflict between rebel and government forces continue, leading to hundreds of deaths everyday.

Putin Vows to Pursue Enormous Military Rearmament Campaign

"Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has vowed if re-elected to the presidency to pursue the largest arms buildup the country has experienced since the end of the Cold War" (Source: NTI).

So apparently Putin has made a promise to the people of Russia that, if re-elected he'll initiate an enormous re armament of Russia.
I'm not sure if this is a mere campaign promise which he won't actually pursue after being re-elected, or if it's actually something to worry about. Ever since the end of the cold war, the US and Russia have made several agreements in order to reduce their military power (specially their nuclear arsenal), so that tension between the two powers would reduce. But what does Putin mean with this promise of re armament? Is he predicting a future conflict? If so, it might not even be against the US but in some other war scenario. The first thought that comes to my mind is that this would be the middle-east, specially in a time where more and more news reports state that Israel is planning a full attack on Iran.

Update

Sorry to everyone that I haven't been posting stuff here the last couple of weeks but I have been really busy. Posts will come back at a regular baisis starting today!

Why Greece and Portugal ought to go bankrupt

Source: Financial Times

Now, I didn't get too much into the article, but, What the hell?
There's already enough speculation amongst the financial markets without financial newspaper also talking about what they shouldn't. A newspaper's role is to transmit news stories to it's readers, not provide personal opinions. Greece and Portugal should not go bankrupt, if they did, the Euro would most likely end, maybe again that's what the US are aiming for. The UE is already fragile, and these kind of things even make it worse, think before you write. This was kinda short so I might get back to it eventually.

Baltasar Garzón - Prominent Rights Judge Is Convicted in Spain

"The judge, Baltasar Garzón, one of Spain’s most contentious judicial personalities, is renowned for pressing cases against former dictators, including Gen. Augusto Pinochet of Chile, and ordering an inquiry into atrocities committed by fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War."
(Source: New York Times)

Ok so a few months ago, a bunch of radical right wing party members in Spain, decided to look into Baltazar Garzón's case against the Chile dictator August Pinochet. Back then, Garzón was able to build a up a criminal case against the General, and arrest him during his visit to Spain. He was extremely important in the falling of the Chile dictatorship and in by that mean, opnening the precedent for the ending of several other south american opressing regimes. He also, not long ago, began to order an inquiry into war crimes commited during the spanish civil war.

And now, decades after the arrest and criminal case, and perhaps as payback for the inquiries now being made, right wing extremists have gotten themselves a lawyer and a judge willing to cooperate in this madness of a case. He is being judged by illegal wiretaping back in the Pinochet case. And, Spain’s Supreme Court on Thursday convicted him and ordered him to be suspended from the courts for 11 years. Without possible appeal.

In my opinion, this is purely ridiculous, first of all even if he overstepped his authority in wiretapping it was to arrest a man responsible for thousands of deaths and for opressing the lives of millions of people by leading a fascist regime. And secondly, what good does it do to convict him? Just so they show other judges that they can't overstep their authority? That won't be the only effect, after this, I'm sure that no judge in Spain, or anywhere else, will have the courage to step up against cases like this, in fright of the same happening to him. Instead of pretending like they're "making justice" against an honorable judge, they should let him, and encourage others do actually do it. Instead, they side with fascists who have no valid ground in their arguments, at least in comparison with the positive consequences that the so called "overstepping of authority" had.

Meanwhile, all across Spain, thousands of people gather in support for the Crusading Judge.

Egypt Defies U.S. by Setting Trial for 19 Americans on Criminal Charges

"CAIRO — Egypt’s military-led government said Sunday that it would put 19 Americans and two dozen others on trial in a politically charged criminal investigation into the foreign financing of nonprofit groups that has shaken the 30-year alliance between the United States and Egypt." [Source: New York Times]

Ok, this is a bit concerning, at least for me. What is happening in Egypt? First we have that football game a few days ago, that clearly demonstrated that the population isn't glad about the government's regime yet, and also the inefficiency of the security forces in mantaining order.

Right after the "revolution" itself, one of the first things that the Military "temporary" government did, was open that Suez Channel to Iranian ships, onto the Mediterranean sea. The question is, should the US be concerned, that radical islamic parties, will urge to power in the next egyptian elections, because if such would happen the consequences would be enormous. Apart from an enormous stepback in terms of modernism on one of the most "western culture" arabic countries, this would have enormous political and possibly military consequences. The alliance with the US would most likely be broken, and a new one formed with Iran. The peace treaty with Israel would be disolved, and war would once again reach out to the already destroyed middle-east.

U.S. Plans Shift to Elite Units as It Winds Down in Afghanistan

"The United States’ plan to wind down its combat role in Afghanistan a year earlier than expected relies on shifting responsibility to Special Operations forces that hunt insurgent leaders and train local troops, according to senior Pentagon officials and military officers. These forces could remain in the country well after the NATO mission ends in late 2014." Source: NYT

Apparently the US really want to get out of Afeghanistan, at least the majority of their troops will be leaving. I personally find this a good thing, and a good decision to leave the SOP (special operation forces) behind for a little longer. The US do have an important role in the world, but they have to get out of their mind, this idea that they're the "world's police". Just because they were essential in WW1 and WW2, because the war wouldn't have been won without them, it doesn't mean that you have to interfere with every single conflict taking place in the world. In my opinion, the US need to get completely out of Irac, and Afeghanistan, altough, to fix the mess they made when they invaded (Irac at least) they should, as they are doing partially, support the local security forces, in the mantaining of peace.

So I think Obama's doing the right choice leaving these SOP for a little longer.

Blackout.

Completing the post I just released a few minutes ago.

After Arab league's mediators have left Syria, the country is back under a media blackout.

Read more here

The Facts about Syria and the UN's security council

So I believe yesterday, or the day before yesterday, I made a post about Russia and China having Veto'd the UN's security council decision against Syria. (you can scroll down to check that out), but anyway I thought maybe you'd like to learn some of the facts about this whole thing.
So I checked out Aljazeera and I got to learn myself, some of the facts, here they are:


Syria and the Security Council facts:

• On Saturday, 13 countries voted for the resolution proposed by European and Arab nations. Russia and China vetoed it.
• The demand for the Syrian president to resign had been dropped from the draft
• Vitaly Churkin, the Russian ambassador to the UN, said the Western nations behind the resolution were "calling for regime change, pushing the opposition towards power"
• Earlier on Saturday, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, said that "measures must be taken to influence not only the government ... but also the armed groups, because unless you do it both ways, you are taking sides in a civil war"
• Moscow and Damascus have been strategic partners for decades
• Moscow is a major arms supplier to Damascus
• Activists said more than 200 people had been killed in the city of Homs on Friday. That number has since been revised to 179
• There are conflicting reports of how the attack on Homs started, but it is thought to be the deadliest since the uprising began 11 months ago
• The reports of violence in Homs prompted demonstrators to storm Syrian embassies in Europe and the Middle East

Exposing Wall Street

"People get naked as part of a performance art piece about Wall Street transparency."

Apparently, as an act of protest, a group of people joined up at Wall Street, NY, and as they cleaned the streets, they began to undress themselves until they were completely naked.
Now, personally, I find this wrong. Not the protesting against Wall Street, that I agree, needs to be more transparent and certainly less controlled by speculation and rating agencies, but I think it's a bit too much, getting naked outside. Maybe a "radical" action is necessary to get their attention, but I think anything that involves getting naked in public is just too much.