Voting is underway in the Republic Caucuses in Iowa. With less than 1% of the count Ron Paul lead the pack. With 3% of the count Rick Santorum took lead position. With 6% counted Rick Santorum held 1st. place with 1,229 votes just 25 votes ahead of Ron Paul, but just now the count clicked over to 11% and Ron Paul takes the lead, followed by Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann.

Live results here.

UPDATE: Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum share dibs on first place, Ron Paul not far behind. Newt Gingrich in forth place closes the door on the Iowa circus leaving Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann alone in the dark.

Asylum seekers eventually become immigrants once processed-it is just the arrival and treatment while waiting for acceptance that is the cause for concern.

Just a few thoughts that are coloured by the fact that I, like many others, was born in a country that was occupied during WW2 and my father(in the resistance) was desperate to take us as far from Europe as possible.. With 4 children he only just scraped in by lying about his occupation as there was no demand for his skills. Once in NZ , the reality overwhelmed him at times but he could never return -lack of money, pride, children settled . While safe with a house and income , there was nevertheless huge grief at loss of family, language, culture, etc. hidden under pride and bravado. So even at the best of times, migration has a real downside.

At the time, Australian immigrants were sent direct into migrant camps whereas NZ allowed farmers to sponsor families directly, so there seems to be a history here of ‘grouping’, which, while supportive in many ways ,can also backfire when there are ill-feelings . By living separately in the community, we adopted the new country and language as our own much faster than my relatives who came here to Oz.

Have watched immigrants overseas in particular where they face discrimination and many spend much time looking over their shoulders, struggling with language often for a pittance not to mention the problems their children often face especially if their appearance is different. And resentment if they do too well. For every success there are many failures.

Criminals do slip through normal immigration channels anyway (Cosa Nostra, Chinese Triads, etc.) and the ‘political terrorist’ branding often depends on hue of government in power at the time (Habib now visiting Egypt is case in point) So I can’t understand why it takes so long to process residency applications other than it being used as a deterrent . ( Applies to UK, EU,etc. applicants as well .)

Unfortunately for Australia, too many want to come HERE- not anywhere else- and not just for refuge. Often those who really need to escape, can’t. Those on boats have paid agents often the last of their money ,as Jewish people did in the ’40s, and are not aware of the standard of boats they will be travelling on. I think children are often sent ahead as footholds, the same way the Chinese sent their kids here as students and then were able to immigrate under the family reunion scheme. I can’t blame people for wanting to improve their lives.

Immigration from Europe stopped once safety was re-established, living conditions improved and those who were unhappy in their new country spread the word of disappointment back home.

Now all these years later, while I can understand my father’s desperation and fear, I often wonder if he would have done it again, given a second chance. And he didn’t even risk life and limb on a leaky boat.

It would be interesting to know if any follow up has been done of those refugees who arrived in leaky boats and were eventually settled during the Howard years? Those women and children who were stuck behind razor wire, how are they now?

Legacy of a sad difficult problem, dangerously inflamed by one J.W. Howard.

Conventional Wisdom and assorted Solomons of Psephology like  Nate “NYT” Silver predict Dems will lose the Congress and hold The Senate by a whisker. Seems a fair call, but wouldn’t be surprised if the Dems get done in the Senate too. We’ve all had our two bob’s worth over the possible result and the reasons for it. In the next day, many of those quetions and points of conjecture will be answered.

Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard, backed by factional Labor Party warlords, has made a tilt at Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s leadership. Mr Rudd has told a press conference that earlier this evening Ms Gillard visited him to request a leadership ballot. Mr Rudd says the Labor caucus will vote on the party and Federal Government leadership tomorrow at 9:00am AEST.

Interesting times.

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea called on Friday for an end to “the hostile relationship” with the United States, issuing a New Year’s message that highlighted the reclusive country’s attempt to readjust the focus of six-party nuclear disarmament talks.

In the meantime, an interesting snippet from of the The Mainichi Daily News earlier today …

This year, the Obama administration will continue to take various actions on the nuclear issue. The U.S. and Russia are heading toward an agreement on strategic arms reduction. Meanwhile, the U.S. is working on renewing the country’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) for the first time in eight years, and is expected to incorporate anti-nuclear terrorism measures. The nuclear security summit this April will aim for an international agreement on enhanced protection of nuclear materials, and in May, a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — held every five years — will take place in New York.

I may be too hopeful, too optimistic, but I don’t care …
Our world *is* moving to a better place.

So if we project out into the future a couple of years from now – we will be seeing the emergence of data coming from out from major industry players. For any one of these players chances are we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential liabilities (with or without an ETS). Factor into this equation the emergence of an ETS irrespective of targets (because the target is partially academic if we look at the end-game). What is more important is the putting in place of the mechanisms – because once you have the reporting mechanisms in place then, and only then can you start playing policy with the economic configuration (a.k.a. tweaking taxation dials and whatnot). With those mechanisms in place (and I can’t emphasise enough that the establishment of those reporting mechanisms is what is really important here) you turn a page of the management equation – only then can you actually start to manage the problem – and only then can we start to be responsible – companies (even the big polluters) will start to understand and factor into day to day decisions the economic consequences of operational decisions.

The reduction target does not matter (at least today) – because today – today we are just grappling with the problem of capturing the information about what we are doing. Two years from now and the federal government will start to see numbers that are meaningful (as in the Australian Federal Government will have the initial numbers of the flows of energy and the emissions from individual companies and those constitutional corporations at a level of granularity that will make your head spin). But that time-point is important but it’s not what we need – what we actually need is trend lines. We need a few years to get to the point of understanding the picture of what is happening in Australia. It is from this perspective that I think that less is more – because what Australia does in emissions production is not the issue, what is much more important is what Australia does in establishing the regulatory framework from which we can demonstrate a national comprehension and from that – grounded and concrete actions – based on national facts that are linked to national corporate entities – that implicate national employees – that change union policies – that generate informed local opinion.

Australia is not a global leader on this issue – but the Australian Federal Government is working on fundamentals that are critical for a responsible solution. Targets and levies are just numbers and dials – what is more important is establishing the machinery capable of responding to adjustments, and the machinery capable of returning accurate and reliable feedback on changes.

We are heading in the right direction.

And take a deep breath – because we still have a way to go.

UPDATE: Saturday, 11:00 pm US East Coast – the House Bill passes 220-215.

While the occasional geopolitical manoeuvres in the dark make for a great Bond movie, we have an obligation to dig a little deeper. First step on our adventure is to zoom in on the Afghan/Pakistan border where that orange band in the middle (see illustration below) is Taliban territory.

Things get more interesting when we throw in details of the ethnic, cultural, family, history, loyalty thing – and in the following map we should be cognisant of the fact that geopolitical boundaries don’t take centre stage (after all – the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was nothing more than an arbitrary 19th century British colonial construct).

Just for reference – that big brown blob in the previous illustration is the Pashtun ethnic population. The following map drills down and identifies the principal regions at ground zero.

But lets zoom out again and factor into this equation that discussion about the relationship (and/or conflict) between Afghanistan and Pakistan that is of direct interest to their neighbour Iran (the big bugger over on the left). After all, Iran has many of the same tribal problems that face the fledgling Afghanistan administration (and an outbreak of secular testosterone in Afghanistan is a potential problem in the making for Iran). Let’s also take into account that big chunks of Afghanistan could be argued to be more properly part and parcel of Pakistan (which would go a long way towards explaining some of the accusations of Pakistan/Taliban loyalty). Equally, when we talk about Pakistan and India (the big bugger over on the right) there is the inevitable engagement of China (the really big bugger over on the far far right) as a player with more than a passing interest. And let’s not even get into the parallel universe of the Kashmir equation.

Thing is, a failed Afghanistan state creates stress for Pakistan and stress for Pakistan creates opportunity for India, an India/Pakistan conflict plays into the hands of China, and at the end of the day a bunch of nation states (US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Australia) just aren’t ready for that reality just yet. But what ties this all together is that none of the players want to see a united secular solution.

And for better or worse – what if this conflict may be our best hope for peace in our time? Why? Simply because an alignment of common interests between the principal players in this equation. That the simple thing of an alignment just may be a greater good than the atrocities that have and will be committed in the sustainment of this transient moment.

Recommended Reading

Agonizing over Afghanistan
David Shribman, 31 October, 2009

Pakistan is swiftly drifting towards an all out civil war
Abdus Sattar Ghazali, 28 October, 2009

There is the Iran Safeguards Agreement (entered into force 15 May 1974) which contains the following article:

DESIGN INFORMATION
General provisions
Article 42
Pursuant to Article 8, design information in respect of existing facilities shall be provided to the Agency during the discussion of the Subsidiary Arrangements. The time limits for the provision of design information in respect of the new facilities shall be specified in the Subsidiary Arrangements and such information shall be provided as early as possible before nuclear material is introduced into a new facility.

Clearly, this article is subject to the implementation details of the Subsidiary Arrangements. However, for the moment I have not been able to track down an on-line copy of that agreement. If you do some digging around the Internet you will come across references to Code 3.1 which exist in two forms, one from 1976, and a revision established in 1990. The following quote seems to be viral when digging into the subject:

The Subsidiary Arrangements specify when a state must report a new facility to the IAEA. “Code 3.1″ of the 1976 version of the Subsidiary Arrangements requires states to report on new facilities “normally no later than 180 days before the facility is scheduled to receive nuclear material for the first time.”

It became clear that this requirement did not provide the IAEA with sufficient time to plan and prepare for safeguards. So, in the early 1990s the IAEA modified Code 3.1. The new version requires states to report on a new facility as soon as the decision to construct it is taken.

From what I understand, Iran is and remains compliant with the 1976 version of the agreement, and that following the 1990 amendment, Iran undertook a number of reporting actions consistent with that amendment, although, IAEA minutes back to around 2003 claim Iran breaching 1990 criteria. Iran on the other-hand made the distinction between state authorisation (which they point out has never occured) as opposed to their voluntary supply of information consistent with both the 1976 and 1990 criteria. Iran claims that prior voluntary actions do not constitute state endorsement (and on this I’m tempted to side with Iran). According to James M. Acton the IAEA claim that amendments are not subject to unilateral modification.

In accordance with Article 39 of Iran’s Safeguards Agreement, agreed Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be modified unilaterally; nor is there a mechanism in the Safeguards Agreement for the suspension of provisions agreed to in Subsidiary Arrangements.

If the IAEA states that Subsidiary Arrangements cannot be modified unilaterally, how was it possible that the 1990 amendments came into force if not by a unilaterally decision of the IAEA? We should keep in mind that there may be a perfectly plausible legal basis supporting the right of the IAEA to undertake unilateral action, but for now, I have not found any supporting evidence, and frankly, I doubt it exists. It may also be the case the bilateral agreement was established but not formally ratified (a more probably scenario).

An interview on MSNBC with Scott Ritter, former Chief UN Weapons Inspector supports a growing scepticism forming in my mind. In fact I think that perhaps there are grounds to argue that IAEA processes dealing with formal adoption, resolution of amendments, and accountability provisions may not be everything we would hope them to be. But if we turn around and look towards IAEA as an improvement opportunity, one cannot ignore the Israeli issue as reported by Reuters just a few days ago (18 September 2009):

The UN nuclear assembly voted on Friday to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under UN inspections, in a surprise victory for Arab states.

The resolution, passed narrowly for the first time in nearly two decades, expresses concern about “Israeli nuclear capabilities” and calls on International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei to work on the issue.

One could argue that the IAEA frameworks and the geopolitical integrity of the UN (vis-a-vis Israel) are the things to watch as this process unfolds. Even more interesting in the short-term will be the approach Iran takes in the negotiations ahead.

/Cat.

Supplementary Information

Recommended Reading

Concrete Steps to Improve the Nonproliferation Regime
Pierre Goldschmidt, April 2009
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Nonproliferation Program

STATEMENTS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA, FRENCH PRESIDENT SARKOZY, AND BRITISH PRIME MINISTER BROWN ON IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITY

Pittsburgh Convention Center
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

8:43 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good morning. We are here to announce that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years.

Earlier this week, the Iranian government presented a letter to the IAEA that made reference to a new enrichment facility, years after they had started its construction. The existence of this facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions and IAEA requirements. We expect the IAEA to immediately investigate this disturbing information, and to report to the IAEA Board of Governors.

Now, Iran’s decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime. These rules are clear: All nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; those nations with nuclear weapons must move towards disarmament; those nations without nuclear weapons must forsake them. That compact has largely held for decades, keeping the world far safer and more secure. And that compact depends on all nations living up to their responsibilities.

This site deepens a growing concern that Iran is refusing to live up to those international responsibilities, including specifically revealing all nuclear-related activities. As the international community knows, this is not the first time that Iran has concealed information about its nuclear program. Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power that meets the energy needs of its people. But the size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow — endangering the global non-proliferation regime, denying its own people access to the opportunity they deserve, and threatening the stability and security of the region and the world

It is time for Iran to act immediately to restore the confidence of the international community by fulfilling its international obligations. We remain committed to serious, meaningful engagement with Iran to address the nuclear issue through the P5-plus-1 negotiations. Through this dialogue, we are committed to demonstrating that international law is not an empty promise; that obligations must be kept; and that treaties will be enforced.

And that’s why there’s a sense of urgency about the upcoming meeting on October 1st between Iran, the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, and Germany. At that meeting, Iran must be prepared to cooperate fully and comprehensively with the IAEA to take concrete steps to create confidence and transparency in its nuclear program and to demonstrate that it is committed to establishing its peaceful intentions through meaningful dialogue and concrete actions.

To put it simply: Iran must comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and make clear it is willing to meet its responsibilities as a member of the community of nations. We have offered Iran a clear path toward greater international integration if it lives up to its obligations, and that offer stands. But the Iranian government must now demonstrate through deeds its peaceful intentions or be held accountable to international standards and international law.

I should point out that although the United Kingdom, France, and the United States made the presentation to Vienna, that Germany, a member of the P5-plus-1, and Chancellor Merkel in particular, who could not be here this morning, wished to associate herself with these remarks.

I would now like to turn to President Sarkozy of France for a brief statement.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: (As translated.) Ladies and gentlemen, we have met yesterday for a meeting — a summit meeting of the Security Council on disarmament and nuclear disarmament. I repeated my conviction that Iran was taking the international community on a dangerous path. I have recalled all the attempts that we have made to offer a negotiated solution to the Iranian leaders without any success, which what has been revealed today is exceptional. Following the enriching plant of Natanz in 2002, it is now the Qom one which is revealed. It was designed and built over the past several years in direct violation of resolutions from the Security Council and from the IAEA. I am expecting from the IAEA an exhaustive, strict, and rigorous investigation, as President Obama just said.

We were already in a very severe confidence crisis. We are now faced with a challenge, a challenge made to the entire international communities. The six will meet with the Iranian representatives in Geneva. Everything — everything must be put on the table now.

We cannot let the Iranian leaders gain time while the motors are running. If by December there is not an in-depth change by the Iranian leaders, sanctions will have to be taken. This is for the peace and stability. Thank you.

PRIME MINISTER BROWN: America, the United Kingdom, and France are at one. Iran’s nuclear program is the most urgent proliferation challenge that the world faces today.

As President Obama and President Sarkozy have just said, the level of deception by the Iranian government, and the scale of what we believe is the breach of international commitments, will shock and anger the whole international community, and it will harden our resolve.

Confronted by the serial deception of many years, the international community has no choice today but to draw a line in the sand. On October the 1st, Iran must now engage with the international community and join the international community as a partner. If it does not do so, it will be further isolated.

And I say on behalf of the United Kingdom today, we will not let this matter rest. And we are prepared to implement further and more stringent sanctions.

Let the message that goes out to the world be absolutely clear: that Iran must abandon any military ambitions for its nuclear program. Thank you.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary