[讀書會] 伊拉克二三事

Don’t Forget America’s Other War

Published Dec 19, 2009

From the NEWSWEEK magazine issue dated Jan 4, 2010

Remember Iraq? For months our attention has been focused on Afghanistan, and you can be sure that the surge will be covered exhaustively as it unfolds in 2010. But the coming year could be even more pivotal in Iraq. The country will hold elections in March to determine its political future. Months of parliamentary horse trading will likely ensue, which could provoke a return to violence. The United States still has 120,000 troops stationed in Iraq, and all combat forces are scheduled to leave by August, further testing the country's ability to handle its own security. How we draw down in Iraq is just as critical as how we ramp up in Afghanistan: If handled badly, this withdrawal could be a disaster. Handled well, it could leave behind a significant success.

(全文連結)

OUTLINE：

2010 could be a crucial year for Iraq

• The country will hold elections in March to determine its political future.
  － Giving Iraq’s leaders a chance to resolve their political differences.

• All 120,000 American troops are scheduled to leave by August.
  － Testing the country’s ability to handle its own security.

Political differences in Iraq

• Sunnis vs. Shias (They are fueling the civil war in the first place)

1. Sunnis：A majority that has traditionally been the country’s elites.
2. Shias：A relative minority that remains marginalized politically in Iraq.

• Kurds (They run an autonomous quasi state at north provinces.)

1. They ignore Iraq central government’s authority regarding oil contracts by negotiating on their own and, in the same time, block the flow of oil out of Kurdish region.
2. Disputes of drawing boundaries make situation more complex.

Challenge and Chance

• Iraq needs a stable power-sharing deal to keep all three groups invest in their new state.
• The U.S. should use their enormous political influences and leverage to help Iraq’s three parts reaching a compromise.
• Iraq could still become a remarkable model for Arab world.

Question:

1. What do you know about Iraq?
2. Should the America need to invade Iraq at the very beginning?Do we have the alternatives?

[電影] 嫁禍手段Crossing Over

The Story of Cap & Trade

這個廣為流傳的影片，用淺顯易懂的方式解釋碳交易以及它的缺失。

但我其實有點困惑。這影片來源是美國某非營利組織（The Story of Stuff Project），它宣傳的其實也正是美國在這次哥本哈根的立場。它影片中也提到美國自己通過了一套清潔能源法案，要以這 種各國實際規範的方式，來取代美國根本沒有加入的「京都議定書」框架下衍生出的碳交易，而歐盟等國家則希望再此框架下達成協議。

雖然他指出碳交易的一些缺失，可是對美國那套方法也沒講清楚。課徵碳稅引導產業走能源升級，將這些錢拿來補貼環境或發展中國家云云，是不是過分理想？更何 況自己國內對清潔能源法案內部也有不少雜音，要以此想法主導國際建置難度高，同時效率如何也不清楚。眼下「碳交易」好像還是比較實際的作法。

同場加映：

The Story of Stuff
http://www.storyofstuff.org/international/

從全球產品生產鏈探討對人們以及環境的影響。它在各環節提出的一些觀察，滿有說服力的。包括

1. 人們如何消耗資源，且不避諱的指出先進國家以其小部分的人口消耗大多數的資源
2. 廠商將生產成本外部化，剝削第三世界、剝削環境，使商品售價遠低於其實際成本
3. 消費社會創造出不斷消費的邏輯

當然，這些論點都以一種相對簡單化的方式告訴你。

於是，看著這兩則影片突然讓我想到蘋果的「動新聞」。我們對動新聞的期待（如果有的話），是不是可以透過這種媒介，讓人們「需要」知道的事件，以一種相對淺顯易懂的方式傳遞。比方說：美國牛的爭議，危險在哪裡？政府把關怎麼做？或是，ECFA簽署與否對台灣有何利弊？簽署的話內容會是什麼？

這類較需要比較的複雜議題，一則電視新聞的處理方式其實只能切出一個角度。但如果使用這類多媒體呈現，或是像動新聞那樣的模擬圖表場景，其實可以做的事有很多。

只是可能也要注意，簡單化的論述也許可以幫我們看出大致的輪廓，但沒有說出來的部分也許要自己去補起來。

[剪報] 哥本哈根會前觀察

全球注視哥本哈根 (氣候變遷會議始末懶人包)

2009-12-07 中國時報【陸以正專欄】

全世界報紙今天的頭條新聞，肯定聚焦在哥本哈根（Copenhagen）。因為聯合國主持下的全球氣候變化會議（UN Climate Change Conference）將在丹麥首都的貝拉會議中心（Bella Center）正式開幕。聯合國一百九十二個會員國，已知有九十二國將由總統或內閣總理親自出席，因而也可能是人數最多的高峰會。

會期號稱十二天，從十二月七日要開到十八日的這場會議，前十天都是專家和官員討價還價的閉門磋商。只有最後兩天，各國領袖雲集，才會知道有無結果。


哥本哈根氣候大會召開三大陣營開始角力

2009 / 12 / 07 鉅亨網新聞中心

哥本哈根聯合國氣候變化大會12月7日揭幕，三大陣營分歧主要集中在兩個核心問題上，包括減排目標、發達國家應為發展中國家提供多少援助，至於應否繼續堅持《京都議定書》，亦是另一要點。

全球三大氣候陣營——歐盟、以美國為首的傘形集團(包括加拿大、澳洲和日本等)、發展中國家(中國和77國集團)，仍然就關鍵議題爭論不休。表面上各國是就溫室氣體排放量討價還價，但實際上卻是全球能源創新和經濟發展空間的博弈，影響長遠國際權力轉移的問題。

分析：氣候峰會的「中美因素」

沈平 BBC中文網記者　發自哥本哈根

在政治舞台上，輿論已經開始普遍使用所謂的「G2」來形容中國和美國，認為這兩國將是影響世界的國家。在這次的氣候會議也是如此。

《聯合國氣候變化框架公約》執行秘書德布爾指出，美國和中國的溫室氣體排放量佔全球的40%，沒有這兩個國家的具體承諾，很難在哥本哈根會議上達成任何協議。

只爭觀察員？ 別再阿Q

【聯合報╱胡念祖／中山大學海洋政策研究中心主任】

舉世注目的聯合國氣候變化綱要公約（ＵＮＦＣＣＣ）大會及京都議定書締約方會議，今日在哥本哈根召開。台灣雖有多人前往，但在我國與會之身分與地位未能徹底改善之前，其意義實為有限。

我政府在設定政策目標時，必須先行釐清參與或加入之間的不同，以及參與或加入的標的為何，是參與制訂新規範的談判？是爭取未來平等參與ＵＮＦＣＣＣ體制下相關機制之機會？還是爭取正式加入新國際文件之可能？

哥本哈根會議 關鍵五議題

【經濟日報╱編譯陳家齊／綜合外電】

[剪報] 2009縣市長三合一選舉

賄選 台灣民主之瘤

2009-12-07 中國時報 【吳景欽】
　此次三合一選舉，法務部一再宣稱強力訴追賄選的決心，此決心也反應在查獲與羈押賄選者的案件數上，但此次賄選風氣似也未見降低，更諷刺的是，更有已遭羈押者在看守所宣布當選。賄選的無法更除，正深深的侵蝕著台灣的民主。


社論－朝野都要向前看 台灣才有生機

2009-12-07 工商時報 【本報訊】
　今年的三合一地方選舉已於5日順利落幕。在台灣幾乎年年有選舉的情況下，這一次的選舉由於只是地方縣市層級的選舉，而且五大都會區直轄市長選舉也未被納入，因此性質上只能算是一次單純、例行的地方性選舉，與政權是否輪替、國家大政走向並無關聯。不過，選舉結果出爐，從2004年以後屢戰屢敗，而且深陷前總統陳水扁涉嫌貪瀆風暴的民進黨，不僅能夠順利奪回具象徵意義的宜蘭縣長寶座，且在總得票率上也有顯著提升，拉近與國民黨的得票率至二％的微小差距，對於民進黨的再起自然是一大鼓舞。相形之下，去年三月才大贏對手取得總統寶座的國民黨，不過經歷一年半載，竟然出現慘勝以及被大幅拉近與民進黨得票差距的情境。是則，這一次的地方性選舉，所顯示的民意流動現象，的確是不能等閒視之了！


輸得正是時候

2009.12.07【經濟日報╱社論】
縣市長、縣市議員及鄉鎮長三合一選舉落幕。以縣市長席次而言，國民黨失了兩席不算多；但國民黨得票率跌破五成，只比民進黨多2個百分點，以兩黨消長而言，實可謂大輸。國民黨大輸，原因可以很複雜，經濟差、失業多、所得低、房價漲，甚至八八水災等，都是關鍵一擊；但也可以很簡單，就是對馬英九政府的不滿。不過，這次反映的是四成選民意向，也不必無限上綱，所有政策都據此而動。因此，敗選是個警訊，來得正是時候，它讓台灣有了「明天會更好」的機會。


聯合報社論：注意國家內部政治與國家外在情勢的剝離

台灣的外在情勢正在形成一個大風暴，此次地方選舉則具體而微地呈現出台灣內部政治的小風暴。兩個風暴共伴牽引，國人必須警覺，最後小風暴可能被大風暴所吸收吞沒。

台灣外在大風暴的內容是，中國崛起對台灣的政經壓力增加、美國的國際守望角色轉型，美日兩國與台灣的政治聯結趨弱；台灣內部政治所形成的小風暴， 表現於此次地方選舉中的卻只是無謂的亦沒有答案的嗆聲謾罵、派系、賄選、黑函、八卦，與內耗空轉。這一內一外一小一大的兩個風暴，層次、內涵、力道皆有天 壤之別；目前已可見到大風暴正漸漸吞沒小風暴，小風暴則兀自仍在茶壺裡翻騰不已。


什麼都假什麼都賭 寶島悲乎

2009.12.05【聯合新聞網╱李祖杰(邊邊角角棒球論壇成員)】
某年，地方選舉落幕後，一位住在北縣較偏遠地區的朋友來電，閒聊選戰結果，談到選風有多敗壞時，他說他們那邊兩位鎮長候選人都有買票，綠營比較窮，只出一千，藍營因有黨庫通國庫的新台幣連線撐腰，相對大方多了，加碼給個兩千。

How to feed the world

Agriculture，原由 thegreenpages 上載。

Robert Malthus once said that “[t]he power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio.” If this were true, the production of food will never be able to keep up with the growth of population.

However, thanks to the Green Revolution in agriculture, Malthus’s prediction did not come true. Technological improvement in crop planting has helped us produce food in a more efficient way. We can lower inputs into the production process, but at the same time double or triple production. New technologies have brought food production to record levels. In theory, the food we produce could feed everyone on earth. But for many complex reasons we face a bizarre situation: we live in a world both with hunger and obesity. According to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation) data, 1.02 billion people are undernourished worldwide in 2009, which means that out of every six people, one person is going hungry. Ironically, while some are starving to death, there are more than one billion people who are overweight. This is almost equal to the number of people who are facing hunger.

We have regarded the worldwide hunger as a problem of uneven distribution for a long time, because we do believe there is enough of food for everyone. Nevertheless, the food crisis during 2007-2008, right before the financial crisis broke out, revealed a new aspect to the problem. Because the oil price rose, food and commodities prices also rose. Suddenly, we did not have enough food. Making the situation worse, many crops were being used for biofuel rather than to feed people. The food problem today is not only the result of uneven distribution, but also the limited capacity of agriculture and the failure of the food market.

The outbreak of the financial crisis has driven people’s attention away. But even with economic recovery, the food crisis remains unresolved. By 2050 the world’s population will rise by a third, from 6.7 billion to almost 9 billion. The demand for agriculture goods will rise 70% and demand for meat will double. We will not be able to meet these increases without farmers clearing large amount of new land or using up lots more water. However, farmland is often transferred to more lucrative uses, while clean water supplies are so limited in some parts of the world that there is not even enough to drink. Moreover, farmers still have to fight global climate change and its attendant unpredictable rainfall and devastating natural disasters.

The Economist suggests we need to do two things to prevent the impending crisis. First of all, invest in the productive capacity of agriculture. Money invested in agriculture has declined since the Green Revolution took place. More investment will lead to more production. Investment in agriculture can be used to provide farmers with better seed and fertilizers or to develop genetically modified crops. Shocked into action by soaring food prices, governments and international organizations working in affected areas have doubled the amounts invested in food production.

Secondly, we need to improve the operation of the food market. Governments tend to favor self-reliance on food for security reasons. In other words, countries produce their own food even without a comparative advantage, so their agriculture relies on subsides from the government. This leads to market failure as protectionism blocks the free trade and free market.

To feed 9 billion people, farming needs to be as efficient a possible. That requires markets and trade, but also more investment.