Originally, i planned to write on the differences between Men and Women. However, after much thought, I realized that my knowledge of such a subject is limited, to the point of me writing a academic essay on such an essay would be silly. Such a subject is the type of question that many people never answer or are able to understand in a lifetime, and to accurately explore their differences i would need a much larger supply of experience and writing room to give such a topic a fair evaluation. So, instead i decided to write about something i do know a bit about with regard to economics.
At the beginning of the 21th century, the most quickly developing field was most likely computers. This has carried on into current times, with computer processing power doubling about every year, allowing for unexpected ways to purchase content and radically differing forms of media have expanded rapidly, especially considering they were non-existent a decade beforehand. This includes Media stores like Itunes, or stores that sell physical goods like Amazon or Ebay. Along with this processing improvement, 4G data towers and fiber optic networks are beginning to replace the already competent DSL and cable lines used today. So, what does this have to do with economics?
While retail stores will remain for the foreseeable future, As these systems begin to expand the necessity of consumers to travel to stores will continue to drop.
For example, grocery purchases can be ordered online and then delivered to a house, rather than acquired at the store, resulting in increased time for the shopper. And for other more generic purchases, the multitude of easily comparable stores results in much more easily comparable prices. And as data connections increase in speed, digital content delivery such as Itunes, Steam and Netflix will become more popular and practical, eventually replacing dedicated television lines over Cable or Satelite. As for the advantages for the seller, Elimination of physical storefronts could save quite a bit of money. And because the purchases are made through websites, much of this usage data is tracked and recorded, for use in generating revenue through ads, targeted product recommendations, or other even more creative ways to make money. Considering the amount of information people are already willing to share on social networking sites such as facebook, such a leap for commercial data-especially considering saving money being put into the fray.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Current events 7
Source - BBC news (bbc.co.uk) news>Americas
Date - 5/2/2010
Who is involved
New York City Police Department, New York and other US citizens, Taliban, President Barrack Obama, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Duane Jackson (spotted smoke)
Summary
A bomb was planted in Times Square today, hidden inside of a black SUV. The bomb was described amateurish, consisting of propane tanks, gas and a clock. The bomb failed to detonate, and was spotted by Duane Jackson, a Vietnam War veteran, who saw smoke emanating from the parked vehicle while he sold handbags nearby. After this the fireworks inside the car began detonating, and people began fleeing the area.
Evidence as to the identify of the suspect has emerged, as were many security cameras (82) running at the time of the incident, one one which shows a while male guessed to be around 40 nearby the vehicle.
Significance
While several people have been charged with an attempt to bomb or otherwise attack New York City fairly recently, none have gotten as far as this recent individual. This article could effect security regulation going forward, and there could be a huge amount of backlash if the culprit is found against any sort of group he is a part of.
Opinion
While it's too early to do anything but guess, i doubt the attacks have a connection to the Taliban just based on how the bomb didn't go off, and seems to have had little chance of doing so. Also, the use of a analog clock to set the thing off just seems a little cartoon-ey.
article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8657161.stm
Date - 5/2/2010
Who is involved
New York City Police Department, New York and other US citizens, Taliban, President Barrack Obama, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Duane Jackson (spotted smoke)
Summary
A bomb was planted in Times Square today, hidden inside of a black SUV. The bomb was described amateurish, consisting of propane tanks, gas and a clock. The bomb failed to detonate, and was spotted by Duane Jackson, a Vietnam War veteran, who saw smoke emanating from the parked vehicle while he sold handbags nearby. After this the fireworks inside the car began detonating, and people began fleeing the area.
Evidence as to the identify of the suspect has emerged, as were many security cameras (82) running at the time of the incident, one one which shows a while male guessed to be around 40 nearby the vehicle.
Significance
While several people have been charged with an attempt to bomb or otherwise attack New York City fairly recently, none have gotten as far as this recent individual. This article could effect security regulation going forward, and there could be a huge amount of backlash if the culprit is found against any sort of group he is a part of.
Opinion
While it's too early to do anything but guess, i doubt the attacks have a connection to the Taliban just based on how the bomb didn't go off, and seems to have had little chance of doing so. Also, the use of a analog clock to set the thing off just seems a little cartoon-ey.
article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8657161.stm
Sunday, April 18, 2010
current events 6
Source- BBC news, Americas section
date- 16/4/2010
who is involved
Toyota, all other Japanese car manufacturers, consumer reports, US consumers, US congress
Summary
In addition to previous recalls, Toyota is now recalling 600,000 Sienna minivans.
The problem effects vehicles from 1998 to present day, and entails the carrier cable which keeps the spare tire attached onto the car, due to prolong expose to road salt.
Additionally, the GX 460, a rear wheel drive SUV, had to be recalled due to a "safety risk" reported by consumer reports, prompting the testing of other Toyota SUVs and the Rav4.
This brings the recall total up to 8 million cars.
Significance
With the further recall of Toyota cars, the dominance of Toyota and Japanese car manufacturers as a whole is cast further in doubt.
Additionally, this article and the many others like it show how much more likely a problem is to gain attention once it catches the public eye. While there have been unnaturally high recalls for Toyota cars over the past couple months, other manufactures such as Honda have had recalls as well over the same time period, however these have not gained nearly as much attention.
Opinion
Personally, i find the GX 460 suspension sorta silly. The problem is that, as a rear wheel drive, top heavy car, when turned extremely sharply, drifts rather awesomely.
This seems more like a the sort of thing any rear wheel drive car would do when it goes into a corner too fast.
I could see the car not being designed to under-steer being a problem for most of the people who are going to end up driving it, but by the same logic a Farrari should be recalled for doing the exact same thing.
Article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8626668.stm
date- 16/4/2010
who is involved
Toyota, all other Japanese car manufacturers, consumer reports, US consumers, US congress
Summary
In addition to previous recalls, Toyota is now recalling 600,000 Sienna minivans.
The problem effects vehicles from 1998 to present day, and entails the carrier cable which keeps the spare tire attached onto the car, due to prolong expose to road salt.
Additionally, the GX 460, a rear wheel drive SUV, had to be recalled due to a "safety risk" reported by consumer reports, prompting the testing of other Toyota SUVs and the Rav4.
This brings the recall total up to 8 million cars.
Significance
With the further recall of Toyota cars, the dominance of Toyota and Japanese car manufacturers as a whole is cast further in doubt.
Additionally, this article and the many others like it show how much more likely a problem is to gain attention once it catches the public eye. While there have been unnaturally high recalls for Toyota cars over the past couple months, other manufactures such as Honda have had recalls as well over the same time period, however these have not gained nearly as much attention.
Opinion
Personally, i find the GX 460 suspension sorta silly. The problem is that, as a rear wheel drive, top heavy car, when turned extremely sharply, drifts rather awesomely.
This seems more like a the sort of thing any rear wheel drive car would do when it goes into a corner too fast.
I could see the car not being designed to under-steer being a problem for most of the people who are going to end up driving it, but by the same logic a Farrari should be recalled for doing the exact same thing.
Article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8626668.stm
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Current events 5
Source - yahoo news (associated press)
Date - 3/28/10
Who is involved-US president Barack Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, US troop, Taliban, and al-Qaida.
Summary
US President Barack Obama visited US troops under secrecy on Sunday, with a message of commitment to continuing the fight against al-Qaida.
The trip lasted six hours during the night, and was previously unannounced.
The trip was aimed to justify and support both the continuation of the war and the increased deployment of troops, for both troops deployed and civilians at home.
Additionally, the President invited Afghan President Hamid Karzai to the US for talks. This additionally builds on momentum from the success of both the healthcare bill and the nuclear arms treaty with Moscow.
Significance
The article is a good demonstration of how timing can greatly enhance a specific visit. Thanks to the administrations recent successes, the Afghan war can now be framed in a slightly more positive way, and momentum will hopefully be built.
Comparing this to the previous President's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and the importance of timing in speeches is instantly understandable.
Opinion
I think this sort of thing is almost always a good thing, though i was a bit surprised to find out the President hasn't had a chance to visit Afghanistan during his term in office, though he has had quite a bit to do.
Either way though, i think the overall message of the speech was good, both politically and truthfully.
Article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_obama_afghanistan;_ylt=ArPo2QWccLFU0xvFwnNcpXes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrOGp2c2hpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI5L2FzX29iYW1hX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFzbGlwc2lu
Date - 3/28/10
Who is involved-US president Barack Obama, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, US troop, Taliban, and al-Qaida.
Summary
US President Barack Obama visited US troops under secrecy on Sunday, with a message of commitment to continuing the fight against al-Qaida.
The trip lasted six hours during the night, and was previously unannounced.
The trip was aimed to justify and support both the continuation of the war and the increased deployment of troops, for both troops deployed and civilians at home.
Additionally, the President invited Afghan President Hamid Karzai to the US for talks. This additionally builds on momentum from the success of both the healthcare bill and the nuclear arms treaty with Moscow.
Significance
The article is a good demonstration of how timing can greatly enhance a specific visit. Thanks to the administrations recent successes, the Afghan war can now be framed in a slightly more positive way, and momentum will hopefully be built.
Comparing this to the previous President's "Mission Accomplished" speech, and the importance of timing in speeches is instantly understandable.
Opinion
I think this sort of thing is almost always a good thing, though i was a bit surprised to find out the President hasn't had a chance to visit Afghanistan during his term in office, though he has had quite a bit to do.
Either way though, i think the overall message of the speech was good, both politically and truthfully.
Article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_obama_afghanistan;_ylt=ArPo2QWccLFU0xvFwnNcpXes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNrOGp2c2hpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI5L2FzX29iYW1hX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuBGNjb2RlA21vc3Rwb3B1bGFyBGNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRwdANob21lX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFzbGlwc2lu
Sunday, March 21, 2010
fatherhood
Nicolas McGarrahan Meaning of Fatherhood 3/21/10
Many of you have Fathers, and if not, you most likely have some sort of father figure in your life. In fact, some of you might even have children of your own to tend to.
It's likely that in some sense of the word, you have had a father son relationship with someone, or at least something comparable to it.
For most people, this kind of relationship means quite a bit, as it begins at your birth and usually ends at either of your deaths.
It's the sort of interaction that has been the subject of countless books and other forms of media, such as Cormack McCarhey's "the road" which you have recently read.
So, what does fatherhood mean to you?
Like i said, you've probably known your father for your whole life. Likely, you've known him as long if not longer than anyone else in your live, and have therefore had quite a bit of him "rub off" on you. For better or worse, many of your opinions have been based on what those around you think, and as the time spent around them increases, so does the influence they have held for you for facets of your personality such as your morals or political views.
Of course, there are other more tangible roles involved with a father, though of course like all things this can vary. Common examples of fatherly activity could include traditional games like playing catch, or the more outdoorsy realm of parental activity, such as camping. in addition to general parental stuff.
Much of this stems from a Father's role as a father figure, as someone for the child to look up to as a role model in their life.
This ties back into the shaping of one's overall personality.
Many of you have Fathers, and if not, you most likely have some sort of father figure in your life. In fact, some of you might even have children of your own to tend to.
It's likely that in some sense of the word, you have had a father son relationship with someone, or at least something comparable to it.
For most people, this kind of relationship means quite a bit, as it begins at your birth and usually ends at either of your deaths.
It's the sort of interaction that has been the subject of countless books and other forms of media, such as Cormack McCarhey's "the road" which you have recently read.
So, what does fatherhood mean to you?
Like i said, you've probably known your father for your whole life. Likely, you've known him as long if not longer than anyone else in your live, and have therefore had quite a bit of him "rub off" on you. For better or worse, many of your opinions have been based on what those around you think, and as the time spent around them increases, so does the influence they have held for you for facets of your personality such as your morals or political views.
Of course, there are other more tangible roles involved with a father, though of course like all things this can vary. Common examples of fatherly activity could include traditional games like playing catch, or the more outdoorsy realm of parental activity, such as camping. in addition to general parental stuff.
Much of this stems from a Father's role as a father figure, as someone for the child to look up to as a role model in their life.
This ties back into the shaping of one's overall personality.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
CE 3/13/10
Source- BBC news
Date- 3/12/10
Section - Americas
Who is involved- Israel, US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, People living in West Bank.
Summary
Hillary Clinton has criticized the Israeli decision to build more homes on the Eastern front of Jerusalem, calling it "deeply negative" for relations between the US and Israel. Due to this, the Palestinians have said negotiations will not resume until the decision is overturned. The secretary of state went on to state they were committed to peace not just through words but actions as well, given the large investment the US has in Israel's security. Ironically, the announcement of the home development occurred during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden, intended to help restart peace talks. Peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders have been staled for more than a year, and with the new announcement peace talks look much less likely on top of the already unfortunate circumstances.
The announcement consists of 1,600 new housing developments, many of which are illegal under international law.
Significance
This article is a great example of the sometimes unpleasant role the secretary of state has, in going around attempting to set up talks between two unwilling parties.
As for the significance to the country, nothing good can come of further entanglement's in the Middle East for the US or it's allies, especially given concern over Iran's nuclear program.
Opinion
Overall, the entire situation seems plain old FUBAR. We're not the first one's to try to patch the region up, and Israel isn't exactly playing it cool.
Also, it seems like Hillary Clinton has been in the news a lot more recently, and im fairly convinced that does not bode well for the country.
article
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sharply rebuked Israel over its recent decision to build new settlements in East Jerusalem.
She told Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu by telephone that the move was "deeply negative" for US-Israeli relations.
The BBC's Washington correspondent, Kim Ghattas, says it was a rare and sharp rebuke from Washington.
Israel's announcement overshadowed a visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden aimed at restarting peace talks.
Since then the Palestinians have indicated they will not return to the negotiating table unless the Israeli decision is revoked.
Apology
America's top diplomat delivered her rebuke during a 43-minute telephone conversation with Mr Netanyahu, the US state department said.
US state department spokesman PJ Crowley said Mrs Clinton called "to make clear that the United States considered the announcement to be a deeply negative signal about Israel's approach to the bilateral relationship and contrary to the spirit of the vice-president's trip".
Hillary Clinton (file image)
Hillary Clinton called on Israel to show commitment to the peace process
"The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States's strong commitment to Israel's security," he added.
"She made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."
The Quartet of Middle East peace mediators - the US, Russia, the EU and the UN - also condemned the Israeli housing announcement and said it would review the situation at its ministerial meeting scheduled for 19 March in Moscow.
Mr Netanyahu earlier apologised for the timing of the settlement announcement, which was made as Mr Biden was holding a day of talks in Jerusalem.
He said he had summoned Interior Minister Eli Yishai to reprimand him.
Israeli and Palestinian leaders had agreed to hold indirect, "proximity talks" in a bid to restart the peace process, which has been stalled for more than a year.
But after the announcement, the Palestinian Authority said talks would be "very difficult" if the plans for the homes were not rescinded.
Close to 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.
The latest announcement by the Jerusalem municipality approves 1,600 new housing units in the East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo.
POINTS OF TENSION IN JERUSALEM
1 Gilo: 850 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Nov 2009
2 Pisgat Zeev: 600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Jan 2010
3 Sheikh Jarrah: Several Palestinian families evicted in past 18 months to make way for Jewish settlers after court ruled in ownership dispute
4 Ramat Shlomo: 1,600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Mar 2010
5 Silwan: Demolition orders on 88 Palestinian homes built without difficult-to-get permits - Israel planning controversial renewal project
6. West Bank barrier: Making Palestinian movement between West Bank and Jerusalem harder - Israel says it's for security
Date- 3/12/10
Section - Americas
Who is involved- Israel, US, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, People living in West Bank.
Summary
Hillary Clinton has criticized the Israeli decision to build more homes on the Eastern front of Jerusalem, calling it "deeply negative" for relations between the US and Israel. Due to this, the Palestinians have said negotiations will not resume until the decision is overturned. The secretary of state went on to state they were committed to peace not just through words but actions as well, given the large investment the US has in Israel's security. Ironically, the announcement of the home development occurred during a visit by Vice President Joe Biden, intended to help restart peace talks. Peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders have been staled for more than a year, and with the new announcement peace talks look much less likely on top of the already unfortunate circumstances.
The announcement consists of 1,600 new housing developments, many of which are illegal under international law.
Significance
This article is a great example of the sometimes unpleasant role the secretary of state has, in going around attempting to set up talks between two unwilling parties.
As for the significance to the country, nothing good can come of further entanglement's in the Middle East for the US or it's allies, especially given concern over Iran's nuclear program.
Opinion
Overall, the entire situation seems plain old FUBAR. We're not the first one's to try to patch the region up, and Israel isn't exactly playing it cool.
Also, it seems like Hillary Clinton has been in the news a lot more recently, and im fairly convinced that does not bode well for the country.
article
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has sharply rebuked Israel over its recent decision to build new settlements in East Jerusalem.
She told Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu by telephone that the move was "deeply negative" for US-Israeli relations.
The BBC's Washington correspondent, Kim Ghattas, says it was a rare and sharp rebuke from Washington.
Israel's announcement overshadowed a visit by US Vice-President Joe Biden aimed at restarting peace talks.
Since then the Palestinians have indicated they will not return to the negotiating table unless the Israeli decision is revoked.
Apology
America's top diplomat delivered her rebuke during a 43-minute telephone conversation with Mr Netanyahu, the US state department said.
US state department spokesman PJ Crowley said Mrs Clinton called "to make clear that the United States considered the announcement to be a deeply negative signal about Israel's approach to the bilateral relationship and contrary to the spirit of the vice-president's trip".
Hillary Clinton (file image)
Hillary Clinton called on Israel to show commitment to the peace process
"The secretary said she could not understand how this happened, particularly in light of the United States's strong commitment to Israel's security," he added.
"She made clear that the Israeli government needed to demonstrate not just through words but through specific actions that they are committed to this relationship and to the peace process."
The Quartet of Middle East peace mediators - the US, Russia, the EU and the UN - also condemned the Israeli housing announcement and said it would review the situation at its ministerial meeting scheduled for 19 March in Moscow.
Mr Netanyahu earlier apologised for the timing of the settlement announcement, which was made as Mr Biden was holding a day of talks in Jerusalem.
He said he had summoned Interior Minister Eli Yishai to reprimand him.
Israeli and Palestinian leaders had agreed to hold indirect, "proximity talks" in a bid to restart the peace process, which has been stalled for more than a year.
But after the announcement, the Palestinian Authority said talks would be "very difficult" if the plans for the homes were not rescinded.
Close to 500,000 Jews live in more than 100 settlements built since Israel's 1967 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They are illegal under international law, although Israel disputes this.
The latest announcement by the Jerusalem municipality approves 1,600 new housing units in the East Jerusalem settlement of Ramat Shlomo.
POINTS OF TENSION IN JERUSALEM
1 Gilo: 850 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Nov 2009
2 Pisgat Zeev: 600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Jan 2010
3 Sheikh Jarrah: Several Palestinian families evicted in past 18 months to make way for Jewish settlers after court ruled in ownership dispute
4 Ramat Shlomo: 1,600 homes approved for publication and planning objections in Mar 2010
5 Silwan: Demolition orders on 88 Palestinian homes built without difficult-to-get permits - Israel planning controversial renewal project
6. West Bank barrier: Making Palestinian movement between West Bank and Jerusalem harder - Israel says it's for security
Thursday, March 4, 2010
CE 3/4
Source - BBC news
Date 3/3/2010
section- Americas
Who is involved- Brazil, United States, Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Summary
Brazil has told the U.S. it will not support sanctions on Iran with regard to the Iranian nuclear program. Brazil has requested the U.S. negotiate more on the issue with Iran before sanctions, while our government believes sections are necessary to ensure Iran will "negotiate in good faith".
A large part of the disagreement between the two countries is if Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons, a concern that Brazil is not quite sold on.
Part of the reason sanctions supported by Brazil against Iran would be so important is due to the good relationships between the two countries.
The U.S. is looking for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran over it's continued enrichment of uranium, which is claimed to be for use in future nuclear power reactors.
Significance
This article ties into the complexities of international law, such as that in the U.N. It demonstrates the difficulty in dealing with a country that has ties to a "problem" country, while still accomplishing your own goals at the same time.
As for the significance to the U.S, this shows how tricky it may be to get countries to enforce sanctions on others they have good relations with, despite relative international consensus that they are necessary.
Personal opinion
I think Brazil's unwillingness to support sanctions has more to do with the benefits of continuing their ties with Iran and less to do with what is morally right, or whether or not a nuclear program actually exists.
article
Celso Amorim told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Brazil wanted to see further negotiations on the issue before it would support sanctions.
Mrs Clinton said that sanctions had to be passed first in order to persuade Iran to "negotiate in good faith".
The US fears Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.
At a news conference with Mrs Clinton in the Brazilian capital, Brasilia, Mr Amorim said: "We will not simply bow down to an evolving consensus if we do not agree.
"We have to think by ourselves and with our values and principles," he said.
'Door open'
Washington wants Brazil, which enjoys good ties with Iran, to support its push for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium - a possible step to building atomic weapons.
Tehran says the uranium is being enriched to provide fuel for nuclear power reactors it envisages building.
Brazil is currently a member of the UN Security Council.
"I think it's only after we pass sanctions in the Security Council that Iran will negotiate in good faith," Mrs Clinton said.
"The door is open for negotiations. We never slammed it shut," she said. "But we don't see anybody, even in the far-off distance, walking toward it."
Even before talks with Mrs Clinton began, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva repeated his stance that isolating Iran's leaders is counter-productive.
"It is not prudent to push Iran against a wall. The prudent thing is to establish negotiations," he said.
"I want for Iran the same thing as I wish for Brazil: To use the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. If Iran is in agreement with that, Iran will have Brazil's support."
President Lula said he did not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons and would raise the issue in a visit to Tehran in May.
Mrs Clinton is visiting South America at a time when there is a sense in the region that President Barack Obama's administration, distracted by so many other issues, has not lived up to expectations, says the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo.
The US state department has said if Brazil uses its relationship with Iran to press the country to fulfil its international obligations then that would be an important step, but if it did not do that, Washington would be "disappointed".
Date 3/3/2010
section- Americas
Who is involved- Brazil, United States, Iran, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Summary
Brazil has told the U.S. it will not support sanctions on Iran with regard to the Iranian nuclear program. Brazil has requested the U.S. negotiate more on the issue with Iran before sanctions, while our government believes sections are necessary to ensure Iran will "negotiate in good faith".
A large part of the disagreement between the two countries is if Iran is actually developing nuclear weapons, a concern that Brazil is not quite sold on.
Part of the reason sanctions supported by Brazil against Iran would be so important is due to the good relationships between the two countries.
The U.S. is looking for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran over it's continued enrichment of uranium, which is claimed to be for use in future nuclear power reactors.
Significance
This article ties into the complexities of international law, such as that in the U.N. It demonstrates the difficulty in dealing with a country that has ties to a "problem" country, while still accomplishing your own goals at the same time.
As for the significance to the U.S, this shows how tricky it may be to get countries to enforce sanctions on others they have good relations with, despite relative international consensus that they are necessary.
Personal opinion
I think Brazil's unwillingness to support sanctions has more to do with the benefits of continuing their ties with Iran and less to do with what is morally right, or whether or not a nuclear program actually exists.
article
Celso Amorim told US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Brazil wanted to see further negotiations on the issue before it would support sanctions.
Mrs Clinton said that sanctions had to be passed first in order to persuade Iran to "negotiate in good faith".
The US fears Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a charge Tehran denies.
At a news conference with Mrs Clinton in the Brazilian capital, Brasilia, Mr Amorim said: "We will not simply bow down to an evolving consensus if we do not agree.
"We have to think by ourselves and with our values and principles," he said.
'Door open'
Washington wants Brazil, which enjoys good ties with Iran, to support its push for a fourth round of UN sanctions against Tehran over its refusal to stop enriching uranium - a possible step to building atomic weapons.
Tehran says the uranium is being enriched to provide fuel for nuclear power reactors it envisages building.
Brazil is currently a member of the UN Security Council.
"I think it's only after we pass sanctions in the Security Council that Iran will negotiate in good faith," Mrs Clinton said.
"The door is open for negotiations. We never slammed it shut," she said. "But we don't see anybody, even in the far-off distance, walking toward it."
Even before talks with Mrs Clinton began, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva repeated his stance that isolating Iran's leaders is counter-productive.
"It is not prudent to push Iran against a wall. The prudent thing is to establish negotiations," he said.
"I want for Iran the same thing as I wish for Brazil: To use the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. If Iran is in agreement with that, Iran will have Brazil's support."
President Lula said he did not want Iran to develop nuclear weapons and would raise the issue in a visit to Tehran in May.
Mrs Clinton is visiting South America at a time when there is a sense in the region that President Barack Obama's administration, distracted by so many other issues, has not lived up to expectations, says the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo.
The US state department has said if Brazil uses its relationship with Iran to press the country to fulfil its international obligations then that would be an important step, but if it did not do that, Washington would be "disappointed".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
