Japan and other disasters

In my first blog entry this year, I talked about a number of negative developments occurring in several parts of the world. More recently, I talked about the mostly positive developments in the Arab world. Unfortunately, things are looking less rosy now, both in the Arab world and elsewhere.

The big disaster on everyone's minds now is the one in Japan. First there was the big earthquake and the huge tsunami it caused, which between them killed several thousand people and caused untold damage. This has been followed by the ongoing disaster at the nuclear power plants in the area, which already is the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl. I'm not sure what most of us can do to help the victims of the earthquake, though of course donations to the various organizations helping out certainly won't hurt. One might think that a country like Japan wouldn't need much in terms of monetary donations, but international organizations that are providing assistance like Doctors Without Borders can always use more funds, especially if they enable them to transport more supplies and qualified people to the region. Unfortunately, in disasters like this, all the money in the world doesn't do any good without the logistical capability to get help to where it is needed. Though speaking of disaster-hit countries in need of aid, I hope that in addition to helping out Japan, those with the means to donate substantial amounts don't forget places like Haiti, which still needs help more than a year after its own earthquake. This is an advantage in simply donating to one of the better international aid organizations, which can then direct its resources wherever they are needed.

The nuclear disaster is causing a great deal of concern, some of it warranted, some of it less so. Though there is reason to suspect that the Japanese may be understating the seriousness of the situation, it seems that at this point, radiation levels are not at dangerous levels except within a range of under 100 kilometers from the damaged plants. Though this is a large area, places like Tokyo are still reasonably safe. Radiation levels there are said to be as much as 10 times higher than normal, but that's still not very high. Though I don't have the numbers in front of me (and I don't want to take time to look them up now), I would suspect that people on long-distance airplane flights receive considerably more radiation exposure than they would get from spending an equivalent amount of time outside in Tokyo now. Of course if the situation gets worse, that may change. Even so, I would think that even a worst case scenario would not present a serious danger to people outside of Japan. Unlike Chernobyl, the Japanese plants has containment domes (though apparently the pools containing the spent fuel rods are not covered by the containment domes, so they have potential to release more radiation into the environment), so it is not likely to be more deadly than that, and even exactly how many deaths can be attributed to Chernobyl is highly controversial, though a conservative estimate is several thousand.

I point this out because it doesn't seem useful to panic over the dangers of radiation from the disaster at this point, though people who live in the region surrounding the plants have good reason for concern. However, I agree with those who think that this disaster should encourage everyone to rethink the use of nuclear power (or at least fission power; if fusion power becomes practical, I am definitely in favor of it) to solve our energy problems. I have always had doubts about the wisdom of relying on nuclear power; even aside from the danger of accidents like this, the problem of nuclear waste has never been adequately solved. I think the focus should remain on alternative energy like solar and a general reduction in energy use, especially in societies like the US that waste it profligately. While some use of fission power is probably unavoidable in the short term, I don't think countries should be increasing their reliance on it, and certainly greater attention to safety in plants that are already operating is warranted.

Moving on from Japan, the situation in the Arab world is looking worse as well. The rebels in Libya are losing ground to Gaddafi, which is not something anyone sensible wants to see. While Gaddafi may have tried to make nice with the West in the past few years, if he overcomes the rebellion, he will no doubt do as he has indicated and stick to dealing with tyrant-friendly countries like China and Russia. It's also worth remembering that aside from oppressing his own people, Gaddafi has no qualms against using innocent foreigners as pawns, such as when he held several Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor on false charges of infecting Libyan children with AIDS, or when he detained two Swiss citizens in revenge for Switzerland's arrest of his son, even though the charges were dropped. But if Gaddafi does survive, the international community, including the US, has to take a large share of the blame for its slowness to act, particularly in the setting up of a no-fly zone to neutralize Gaddafi's air force.

One of the reasons for hesitation was the lack of a mandate from the UN Security Council, but this may never come, given the likelihood that China and Russia would veto any resolution authorizing any military action. In a case like this, I could see going ahead if such a resolution just gets a majority vote, even if the tyrant-friendly permanent members veto it. This may seem to contradict my view on the US invasion of Iraq, which I thought was wrong in part because it didn't have UN support. But there were a number of differences in that case. For one thing, Bush couldn't even get the support of a majority of the council (the administration ended up withdrawing its resolution rather than suffer the spectacle of having a majority vote against it). But more importantly, this is an urgent matter. There was no urgency in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, as he was not at the time actively assaulting his populace with military force (he had done so after the first Gulf War, but no one did anything to stop him then). In this case, a delay of a week has already cost the rebellion dearly, and another week may be fatal. While full support from the UN Security Council would be ideal, this frequently proves impossible to get when it really matters, largely because of the veto power wielded by the five permanent members. I would like to see this eliminated or at least heavily watered down, as no one nation (including the US) should be able to obstruct action that most other countries agree on.

Of course I don't think the US should act unilaterally to establish a no-fly zone. Even though we aren't talking about an actual invasion, I don't want to see more unilateral military action by the US in that part of the world. But if a coalition of neighboring states, particularly the members of the Arab League (which has already called for a no-fly zone), will actively support it, the US can establish one with the help of France and Britain, which are both pressing for action. But whatever they are going to do, they should do it quickly, before Qaddafi succeeds in crushing the rebellion.

[Update: It seems I was too pessimistic about the chances of a no-fly zone being approved by the UN Security Council, as a resolution including one was passed (though of course China and Russia were among the 5 council members who abstained). It no doubt helped that the US finally decided to strongly support this step. What remains to be seen is whether it is too late to reverse the momentum. If a no-fly zone had been put into place a week ago when momentum was on the side of the rebellion, it's quite possible Gaddafi would have fallen quickly. But now the result may be a stalemate.]

The situation in Bahrain has also deteriorated. The government has cracked down on the protesters again, this time with help from Saudi troops. Though the government had made some concessions, it hadn't gone far enough in meeting the protesters' demands, and now it is trying to end the protests by force. Secretary Clinton apparently condemned the crackdown, but I hope her words are being backed by strong behind-the-scenes pressure, not tacit behind-the-scenes support. Again, we'll have to see how things play out, but it may yet turn out that the 2011 revolutions in the Arab world are like those in 1848 in Europe, most of which failed in their immediate goals of overthrowing the authoritarian regimes of the time, though their repercussions are sure to be felt long afterward, just as was the case with the 1848 revolutions.