Editorial 2: US Ambivalence on BWs and AIDS; Asian Opposition to Alternative Energy

USA’s Weakened Stance
The United States has been barraged by the press corps about their stance on AIDS and biological weapons (BWs) issues. In siding with Ukraine and the United Kingdom on the issue of BWs, allowing dual standards in the inspections and maintenance of BW stocks, the United States has come under fire for its duality on the issue.

As a longstanding political and military ally with the United States, the United Kingdom has been steadfast in supporting the United States’ stance on this issue. They would like to promote the standards of “trustworthiness” in determining who gets to keep their weapons, and who has to disarm. The major questions are then:
• What are these standards of trustworthiness?
• Do they encompass the fact that some nations are ‘freedom fighters’, as which the UK claims themselves to be?
• In fact, one may further question: are those that set the standards themselves competent to uphold them?

The crux of the debate is simply whether BW development programs should be allowed for each country. For Norway, and for this reporter especially, the issue is quite simple: We do not want to see the proliferation of BWs around the world, for it poses a security threat to everybody around the world. For a country to present a dichotomy – that they can possess weapons while not allowing others to do so – is simply a hypocritical way to deal with the issue.

What we need, really, is a method similar to that of nuclear weapons, a treaty similar to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treat (NPT) and the IAEA. We need to have all countries to agree to decrease their stockpile of biological weapons and halt further development of biological weapons, rather than allow continual monitoring of the status quo. Disarmament is a major step to achieve the goals of world peace, and must be enforced. Thankfully, the second draft of the resolution printed includes this, and hopefully the resolution will be passed.

Additionally, the United States has been unclear on their stance for an abstinence clause within the final resolutions on AIDS. Within the UNDP, the United States says that an abstinence clause is absolutely necessary, yet within the WHO, the United States expressed absolute insistence on the clause before funding be available from the United States. This is another duality on the US’ part, and reflects their undecided stance on abstinence. Further confusion from the US’ delegation is seen when they refused to comment on the possibility of cultural reasons behind their motivation for proposing the abstinence clause.

Questions raised in my previous editorial addressed the cultural issues. This time round, through the interviews with other countries, other questions one must ask are:
• Even with the weight of funding that the United States can provide, are delegates absolutely sure that they need the United States’ funding in order to implement their programs?
• Will Norway, which opposes the abstinence clause, be able to strike a compromise between them and the United States on this issue, by perhaps allowing the abstinence clause in the final resolution, but by providing more focus on other methods of prevention of AIDS spread?
• Can the issue of migration and population mobility be effectively addressed by the delegations in the WHO and UNDP? Indeed, even though the Nordic countries do not severely face this problem, it is still a pertinent issue on our borders, and we would be willing to assist other nations on this.

We will have to see the final resolution before we can decide finally if the United Nations UNDP and WHO are going to be able to effective in its implementation of their action plans.

Alternative Energy’s Opposition
Saudi Arabia obviously does not have a major interest in seeing Africa develop alternative energy sources. Specifically, when speaking to the Saudi delegates, they mentioned that they would like to focus on their own economy, although they would also like to see the development of alternative energy and the trade of ideas and technology in this field. The Saudi focus on their own economy is telling – being an OPEC member, alternative energy would strip them of potential buyers of their oil. Saudi motivations are pretty obvious and are acting in self-interest rather than in the interest of the African nations.

China, on the other hand, is unclear in their stance too. They disregard the apparent dichotomy with which the West imposes on the issue of energy in Africa (according to them, the West distinguishes between fossil fuels and alternative energy). They believe that Africa must rely on their own sources of energy within their geographical region, much as China has done. By refusing to commit itself to alternative energies, though, China has seen an unwillingness to be constrained by moral obligations imposed by taking up this burden: they themselves would have to cut back on fuels and carbon emissions, which would then hinder their economic progress. Would the World Bank then be able to negotiate a deal with China, a new major player in the world, in getting their participation?

Evidently, there is still much to be seen from this conference.