Price of Rice Doubles on World Markets, Undermining Asian Stability

Rice is a basic food staple for nearly half the world's population. The world's two most populous nations, China and India, depend heavily on the grain for basic sustenance, and for economic stability. The price of rice has doulbed in the last 3 months, causing concern about potential for conflict along Asian border regions.

The Philippine president has ordered government agents to investigate potential "hoarders", seeking to either cash in on rising prices or protect themselves against the instability that could result from prolonged scarcity. The causes of this scarcity are complex, tied to environmental trends, rapidly expanding population, elevated living standards, poor water-use planning and the loss of arable land.

The New York Times is reporting that

Shortages and high prices for all kinds of food have caused tensions and even violence around the world in recent months. Since January, thousands of troops have been deployed in Pakistan to guard trucks carrying wheat and flour. Protests have erupted in Indonesia over soybean shortages, and China has put price controls on cooking oil, grain, meat, milk and eggs.

Food riots have erupted in recent months in Guinea, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Senegal, Uzbekistan and Yemen. But the moves by rice-exporting nations over the last two days — meant to ensure scarce supplies will meet domestic needs — drove prices on the world market even higher this week.

Even agricultural powerhouses like the United States may find themselves impacted by the price increase. The US is already facing down impending recession, and prices have been exploding in food, healthcare and transport, while the overall economy slows to zero growth.

But poor nations with chronic food scarcity will likely be hardest hit. Asia's major rice exporters are limiting or freezing exports, putting rice-poor importers at risk of severe scarcity. Many African nations are struggling with issues of agricultural productivity or economic instability, and cannot easily afford to replace vanishing imports with locally produced grains.

One potential stress on populous Asian nations, which also harbor some of the world's poorest communities, is the risk of mass migration. Failure to generate a sustainable flow of basic food, entire communities can be forced to flee their homes in search of survival. In any environment, this is a stress on local economies; when scarcity is a regional or even global problem, weak economies or political structures can collapse.

OneWorld reports that the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) has found, in its most recent report that "Due to absence of rural infrastructure, incomplete land reforms and limited alternative income generating activities, agriculture productivity has declined", and that an agricultural "revolution" is needed to reverse trends that have impoverished 218 million people.

• NY Times: "High Rice Cost Creating Fears of Asia Unrest"
• OneWorld: "UN report calls for agricultural 'revolution' in Asia-Pacific"
  

Nuclear Material Found in Andes Sign of Proliferation Threat

Reports out of Colombia cite government sources saying the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) acquired uranium on the black market. Colombian authorities claim to have recoverd 66 pounds of uranium. The radioactive material, which in some forms can fuel to a nuclear device, was said to have been recovered after information on 3 laptops seized led authorities to it.

Colombian officials had said previously that they suspected the FARC were trying to acquire nuclear material in order to make a radioactive "dirty bomb", but that has yet to be confirmed. According to reports about the actual find, the material may have been purchased for resale, as a means of generating revenue or aiding other militant groups.

The Seattle Times reports:

The two uranium chunks found Wednesday were described by Colombia's military chief as "impoverished." Only uranium enriched through processing - something most countries, including Colombia, are not equipped to do - can be used to make nuclear weapons or power reactors, scientists say.

While independent confirmation of the recovered material or its origin is not available, the meaning of loose nuclear material traveling through the Andean region on the black market, is a sign of the real risks of proliferation. It is not merely international conflict or state-funded arms races that promote nuclear proliferation; there is also the element tied to the financial interests of smaller players, some of whom may be involved in armed conflict with their nation's government.

This is a wildly different vision of the WMD threat from what was professed so voluminously in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2003. "Rogue states" seeking nuclear material from established market providers is a much lower threat, due to the level of oversight, international regulation and foreign management of the resources. The Andean material hints at a network of vendors not answering to governments or to regulatory regimes.

Whether or not this material was intended to be used in a "dirty bomb", or for resale to a shadowy entity seeking to do research, its being loose is itself a threat to public safety, and a sign of ineffectual international regulation. Whether or not Colombia will be able to determine the actual origin of the seized uranium, these reports raise the question as to what sort of diplomatic initiatives would best work to curb the spread of catalytic nuclear materials.

WISE Uranium reports that at least 4 different corporations are conducting new uranium mining exploration projects inside Colombia. So, Colombia itself is a possible source for the materials.

Policy approaches to such incidents must balance the temptation to forceful or coercive responses with a genuine examination of the root causes and the actual security flaws. Overreaching will only worsen the problem. At present, the FARC is reported to refute the authenticity of the laptops, saying they could not have survived Colombia's bombardment of their camp.

• Seattle Times: "Colombia Investigates Uranium Find"
• CSM: "FARC acquired uranium, says Colombia"
• World Information Service on Energy: "New Uranium Mining Projects - South/Central America"

Bhutto Assassination Signals Deep-running Political Rift that Could Destabilize Pakistan

Fmr. Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto, whose father was executed in the process of a military coup in the 1970s, and who has said she remained "broken" by what had happened to her during 5 years in military prison, was assassinated Thursday, while campaigning to restore free elections to her country. She had been the first woman elected PM in a Muslim country and had sworn she would combat radical fundamentalism and end the cycle of military takeovers.

Since her return to Pakistan in October, she has faced an attempt on her life that killed over 100 supporters, multiple incidents of house arrest, the suspension of the Constitution, martial law and the arbitrary replacement of several supreme court justices by then military leader Gen. Pervez Musharraf. While Pres. Musharraf himself claimed he had surrounded her home with more than 4,000 police and concrete barricades "for her own safety", Bhutto had accused several high-ranking members of Musharraf's security apparatus of ties to fundamentalist militia in the Northwest of the country.

Bhutto has said repeatedly that she returned to Pakistan knowing it would put her life at risk, but that she could not live comfortably in exile while she watched a major threat to her nation gather force and potentially destroy hopes for the restoration of democracy and the rule of law. She was considered the favorite to win the premiership in January elections, slated to be held after much wrangling, international pressure, Musharraf's resigning as military chief and the subsequent lifting of martial law.

Now, the entire global community must face the harsh reality that Benazir Bhutto's assassination poses a very serious threat to regional stability, and could plunge Pakistan into a confused multi-faceted power-struggle in which democracy is likely to lose out to authoritarian measures, which will be justified as an attempt to secuure Pakistan's nuclear weapons against radical Islamist militia groups.

In the US, condemnation of the assassination is near universal, and political and security analysts are warning of the dangers that could emerge either from "ignoring the threat" posed by radical groups that may have been responsible and by the Musharraf government's duplicity in both countering and collaborating with these insurgent elements, or by taking too aggressive a stance against any element internal to Pakistan's domestic political struggles.

Concern is widespread among governments that have backed Gen. Musharraf's regime that his transition to democracy has been slow and clumsy, or even halting and contrary, while his dealmaking with radical militia groups has contributed to their taking root and being emboldened across the poorly policed northwest border region.

In responsible political and diplomatic circles, pressure will be heavy on Pres. Musharraf to find and to subject to serious, open criminal prosecution those responsible, even should they be members of his top-level security establishment, as some Bhutto supporters allege.

That group is often viewed with suspicion both by democrats and by those radical insurgents most opposed to an open democratic state in Pakistan, and demonstrating the will to counter such elements could give the government the credibility it needs to work with opposition leaders and to effectively stabilize the remote border regions. Though at present, many fear the Musharraf government is too heavily reliant on the strong-arm support of rogue elements in the security establishment.

Liberty & Security Wrestle in Pakistan, as Elsewhere: What Does this Mean for 21st Century Democracy?

In many parts of the world, people are presently facing the question, on a societal scale, of whether or not free and open democracy can coexist with measures taken to protect against extremism. The question is an old one and goes to the root of whether it is possible, as a matter of natural law, to vote away one's rights or to vote against democracy.

To take a serious look at this question, we must first consider that: democracy is not an ideology and it is not a system; it is quite simply the idea that no form of government can be legitimate unless it is (regularly) chosen by a free and sovereign people. That can be implemented in a number of ways and need not be contrary to anyone's culture or faith.

But, a new problem has come into play in recent years, which has existed throughout modern times and essentially has always been part of the mix between populist rhetoric and authoritarian rule, from Hellenic city states to the Roman empire up through the 20th century: that is whether the need to be secure justifies overruling the protections that allow for a population of free individuals to choose its government.

Famously attributed to Ben Franklin, but possibly written by diplomat Richard Jackson is the tenet "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety". Clearly, one cannot secure one's liberty by stamping it out, just as one cannot save a village by burning it.

There are countless cases of dictators committing mass murder under the auspices of a prolonged security operation or state of emergency, so it should not be shocking that authoritarian rulers expect to persuade that mass detention, the suspension of civil liberties and attacks on opposition activists can be justified by security concerns, so long as no one is killed.

In Pakistan, we have seen a tragic loss of life —the authorship of which is still undetermined— when a bomb attack targeted Benazir Bhutto's celebratory convoy upon her return after years in exile. Now, we are seeing a general who has ruled as a quasi civilian leader for nearly a decade, targeting all the levers of a democratic state, and making the claim that security and extremism are his concerns.

Maybe. What if? But there is no way to trust in that justification, because as Ms. Bhutto quite rightly points out, extremists are being ignored by the 4,000 police surrounding her home, and the legal system has been dismantled by military decree, added to which we have the constnt problem of a general claiming he plans to save democracy by stamping it out.

There are clearly real security issues in Pakistan. As there were in 1864 when the United States was at war with itself, but still held national elections. As there are at all times in the Philippines, whose government confronts several rebel factions, or even in Spain, where Basque separatists continue to harass the democratic state.

In 2004, when the Spanish ruling party talked of suspending elections because there had been a terror attack, it was top ranking military and police who said they would not stand by and watch the constitution ignored by the government. When the US Dept. of Homeland Security, under Tom Ridge, contemplated suspending November elections, it was the president's own party that responded to public outrage and moved to bar such a move.

Security and liberty are not at odds. They are parallel streams whose tributaries often intersect, but they have their own course and should not be mixed for the political gain of any faction or ideology. This much we should be able to agree on. From there, we need to take a very serious look at what motivates a people to sign away its rights in the confusion of a dangerous moment.