Water Wars

Today, March 2, there is not one major Florida paper covering the water battle between Florida, Alabama and Georgia as their lead story. Every major Georgia paper had some mention of the water shortage on the front page. Yesterday, it was announced that talks between the three states have ceased and that the federal court will be taking it from here.

Georgia residents have had water restrictions imposed on them since last year. And, here is more on Georgia's woes.

South Florida has shown that through persistence and compromise that a solution can be reached. Tampa Bay Water has found solutions for regional water supplies in South Florida.

Another water battle is brewing between North and Central Florida over the St. John's River. There are still many unanswered questions and drama to unfold in this one.

These water battles are happening all over the world. Between communities, states, countries and corporations with no sign of relief.

Global Water Issues
America at War With Itself Over Water
Nestle sues Woolworths over water
Coca-cola and Water - An Unsustainable Relationship
Information by State
1991 Foreign Policy article, "Water Wars"

A new, provocative documentary about water shortages is being screened this year; FLOW: For the Love of Water

Wednesday's story from Democracy Now!, a daily independent radio and TV news program:

Maude Barlow is the head of the Council of Canadians, Canada’s largest public advocacy organization, and founder of the Blue Planet Project. Barlow is author of the new book Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water.

To read, listen to, or watch the whole story here.

Democracy Now! coverage of El Salvador water battle last year:


What can you do?

How much water do you use??
Keep up with the latest on water conservation and usage on the Water Crunch blog.
Stop drinking bottled water:
NRDC Report
5 Reasons Not to Drink Bottled Water
Purchase your own water bottle.

Penn and Teller spot on bottled water:

Kosovo Declares Independence

I have include several references because this is a very complicated situation. No matter what your views are on Kosovo's independence some of these articles provide a bit more information than you are going to get from watching CNN.

_______________________


Foreign Affairs Article:

"Summary: Given the atrocities they have suffered in the past and the autonomy they are enjoying now, Kosovo's Albanians will never accept continued Serbian sovereignty. The time has come to give them what they want -- independence."

The Independent

"The historic declaration of Kosovo's independence will be contained in a "We the People" speech delivered to the Serbian province's mainly ethnic Albanian majority who have yearned for this moment since the departure of Slobodan Milosevic's forces in 1999. The declaration could either lead to war or a peaceful route to future EU membership for both Kosovo and Serbia. And the question for Britain is: Will Kosovo prove to be a successful example of the Blair doctrine of humanitarian intervention?"

from Al Jazeera:
Kosovo and Independence (this article is Q&A)
Kosovo Serbs Protest

from Democracy Now!:
Kosovo's Independence: Genuine Indepence or a Front for US-NATO Expansion?

A Dynasty Isn’t a Democracy

A Dynasty Isn’t a Democracy
Another Bhutto for Pakistan doesn’t bode well for democracy; would another Clinton for the U.S.?
by Rosa Brooks

As the U.S. election season shifts creakily into higher gear, our leaders are enthusiastically lionizing slain Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto. The former prime minister “returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy,” noted Hillary Clinton. “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a tragic event … for democracy,” mourned Rudy Giuliani. Meanwhile, President Bush urged Pakistanis “to honor Benazir Bhutto’s memory by continuing with the democratic process for which she so bravely gave her life.”

Hold on! Bhutto was a courageous and compelling figure, but hardly a martyr to democracy. The daughter of a prime minister, Bhutto took over the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party from her mother, who herself inherited party leadership from Bhutto’s father. Bhutto’s own two terms as Pakistan’s prime minister were marred by corruption scandals and allegations of involvement in still darker activities, including the 1996 murder of her own brother, a party rival.

Her policies didn’t always further democracy either. Bhutto actively supported the Taliban’s military takeover of Afghanistan, for instance. She was willing to help empower the most extremist and repressive Islamic organization the world has so far seen in exchange for the imagined strategic advantage an entrenched Taliban government in Afghanistan would give Pakistan in its unending power struggle with India.

After disgrace and exile, Bhutto returned to Pakistan in the fall of 2007 on a self-styled mission to rescue Pakistan from chaos, and she loudly demanded the restoration of democracy. Pakistan could use some genuine democracy — but Bhutto, an eternally polarizing figure, was hardly the woman to usher in a new era of democratic stability, regardless of the Bush administration’s hopes.

Bhutto’s tragic death itself underlines the limits of her commitment to democracy. In her will, she named her 19-year-old son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as her successor as chair of the Pakistan People’s Party, appointing her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, as co-chair and quasi-regent until Bilawal comes of age. To Bhutto, political power was something one could inherit, something to be passed along from spouse to spouse and from parent to child, like grandmother’s pearls or grandfather’s favorite chair — or like the infamous Swiss bank accounts that led to corruption charges against her in several countries.

And who knows? Maybe Bilawal’s not such a bad choice for the Pakistan People’s Party. A history student at Oxford, he already has a constituency — at least on Facebook, where someone has established a new fan group called “Let’s not assassinate Bilawal Bhutto because he’s hot, OK?” Bilawal’s own Facebook profile is fairly modest: “I am not a politician or a great thinker. I’m merely a student. I do the things that students do like make mistakes, eat junk food … but most importantly of all … learn.” Still, “My time to lead will come.”

What’s weirdest about all this is that not very many people here in the U.S. seem to have noticed that this is all pretty weird. A champion of democracy passes along political leadership in her will, leaving it to her husband and son? That’s dynastic politics, not democratic politics.

Kings and queens pass along their political positions to their children. Paragons of democracy do not. But you won’t find even a hint of this in the reactions of the leading presidential contenders from either party, or from the White House, or from most leading U.S. media commentators.

There is, of course, an obvious and depressing explanation for why so few people in the U.S. seem to have registered this as jarring: We’re perilously close to becoming a dynastic state ourselves. Our current president, George W. Bush, is the son of our former president, George H.W. Bush. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is struggling today to hold on to her position as Democratic Party front-runner, is married to former President Clinton.

You can’t blame the heirs of political dynasties for their fortunes. Nineteen-year-old Bilawal is a pawn in a deadly game; so far, he hasn’t had much control over his life. Benazir Bhutto didn’t have much either: In September, she wrote, rather poignantly, “I didn’t choose this life. It chose me.” Similarly, George W. Bush didn’t choose his father, and it’s not Hillary Clinton’s fault that the young law professor she married later became president.

All the same, there’s something awfully creepy about the dynastic trend in American politics. If Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2008, by 2012 the U.S. presidency will have been controlled for 24 years by only two families. More families have divvied up the political spoils in Pakistan in the last 24 years.

The U.S. isn’t Pakistan, thank goodness. But as voters in Iowa’s caucuses kick off the 2008 presidential season, we’d do well to think about what makes the U.S. and Pakistan different — and about what values we Americans need to nurture if we’re going to remain a true democracy and not sink into our own brand of corrupt dynastic politics.

rbrooks@latimescolumnists.com

Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times

A Sad Day in Pakistan; Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

The death of Bhutto could send the nuclear-armed country into a civil war. This was at least the third, and final, attempt on her life since returning to Pakistan in October.

Let's hope for a peaceful Pakistan ahead of the January 8th elections.

Video:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/27/former_pakistani_prime_minister





News Reports:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/737B73AE-EE5D-4C41-8CA2-E04B356FBCBC.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701481.html

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bhutto39s-assasination-leaves-Pakistan-in.3623006.jp

Several Stories and Tributes are published here:
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/