Romney, let's not quickly indict Ahmadinejad

4
inShare

Reality Check: Nuclear Iran

(CNN) -- In Monday night's final presidential debate, Mitt Romney made the unusual suggestion that the international criminal justice system be used to ratchet up diplomatic pressure on Iran. Specifically, he vowed that if he were elected, "I'd make sure that (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation."

It was a fleeting talking point, perhaps reflecting Romney's continuing shift to the center in the campaign's closing weeks. But his implicit embrace of the International Criminal Court, which is where Ahmadinejad would have to be tried, has the hallmarks of a candidate who has impetuously seized a debate prep briefing book memo as a means to differentiate his policy from that of President Barack Obama, without actually having thought through a policy that is at once legally challenging and diplomatically wrongheaded.

William Burke-White

Republicans have disparaged the ICC since well before it was established in 2002. President George W. Bush tried to kill it by "unsigning" the treaty President Bill Clinton and more than 100 other world leaders signed. When Obama was supportive of referring Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to the ICC for prosecution, John Bolton, Bush's former U.N. ambassador and a Romney foreign policy adviser, dismissed the court as "one of the world's most illegitimate multilateral institutions," adding that the president's stance was an "abdication of responsibility."

Opinion: Muslims must engage politically, look outside themselves

Still, Romney's reference to prosecuting Ahmadinejad could be viewed as a welcome change of heart about the efficacy of international criminal justice -- that is, if this proposal were not so ill thought out.

Become a fan of CNNOpinion

Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

The idea makes little sense, which is why the Obama administration has previously considered and rejected it. There are at least four difficulties.

First, Iran is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This means that Ahmadinejad cannot be prosecuted unless the U.N. Security Council refers the case to the ICC, which is a long shot since Russia and China will likely veto the move.

Talking tough on Iran

The debate over Iran, horses & bayonets

Second, even if Ahmadinejad were indicted, the chance of his being arrested is nil. After all, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who has been indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity, is doing fine in his country. The United States and its allies risk a similar spectacle with Ahmadinejad running around Iran flaunting international justice, which almost makes a bad situation worse.

Third, incitement of genocide is one of the hardest crimes in the world to prove. Prosecutors must show that someone has an intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, and that their words were meant to cause others to do so.

That has happened exactly once, in a case against three Rwandans who had used the radio to incite the killing of Rwandan Tutsis. While convicted of a number of crimes, their conviction was overturned in part on appeal because the tribunal found many of their broadcasts lacking sufficiently direct connection to the genocide in Rwanda.

It is entirely possible that should Ahmadinejad actually be tried, he would be acquitted on the grounds that his "hate speech" -- while horrific -- did not meet the legal threshold for incitement to genocide. An innocent verdict would give Ahmadinejad a dangerous free hand.

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, Romney's idea runs the risk of undermining the U.S. diplomatic efforts. Our current strategy is to exert as much pressure as possible, while offering Iran a pathway back into the international community if it ends its nuclear program.

If Ahmadinejad were indicted, negotiations may well break down.

Opinion: Cool Obama, square Romney

Recall the challenges of dealing with Slobodan Milosevic in the late 1990s after he was indicated by the tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The United States and its allies cannot halt an ICC indictment, which becomes legally binding and is not easily susceptible to political or diplomatic influence. That's one of the great virtues of the international criminal justice system. But in this case, it would be a liability. The danger is that such an indictment becomes all stick and no carrot in our efforts to push Iran to relinquish its nuclear program.

Kudos to Romney for embracing international criminal justice. The idea of indicting Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide must have struck him as a smart new way to appear muscular while not being hawkish on the debate stage. But it would be a bad idea to pursue.

Obama has been extraordinarily effective in applying pressure on Iran, which Romney endorsed as the right thing to do on Monday night. But the United States must maintain flexibility in the way that pressure is deployed. Once Ahmadinejad is out of power, he should face the hand of justice. Until then, America and its allies must rely on tough diplomacy.

Read more »

Sununu's comment insults black Americans

Hear Sununu's controversial race remark

(CNN) -- When was the last time you heard someone say it's important to hire a qualified white person for a job? No, seriously, I really want you to think about that question.

Whenever there is a discussion about diversity, inclusion or affirmative action, we always hear folks say, "We do a great job of trying to find qualified minorities."

That always tickles me, because when it comes to hiring whites, the assumption is that all are qualified, so there's no need for the qualifier "qualified."

Roland Martin

That was the first thing that came to mind when former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu gave his opinion on "Piers Morgan Tonight" on Thursday regarding Gen. Colin Powell's endorsement of President Barack Obama.

Booker: Sununu's comment was 'unfortunate'

"Frankly, when you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or whether he's got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama," Sununu said.

When Morgan asked him what that reason is, Sununu said, "Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him."

Oh, John, you're such a charmer to say you applaud Colin Powell for being a righteous brother and supporting his brother from another mother.

All I could do was laugh at how incredibly stupid and asinine Sununu's remark was.

Become a fan of CNNOpinion

Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

But Sununu isn't alone. He's like the many idiots who have e-mailed and tweeted me over the years, suggesting that comments perceived as favorable to Obama boil down to our skin color. Accomplishments? Oh, no. Intellect? Forget about it. It's always a black thing.

News: Obama and the white vote

See, I'm not one of these black folks who are quick to deny that anyone voted for Obama because he's black. Actor Samuel L. Jackson has made it clear that he backs Obama because he's black, and he doesn't give a damn what any white person thinks.

But it really is Sam's responsibility to tell us exactly why he supports the president. It's not our job to automatically assume that skin color is the reason during this season.

Colin Powell backs Obama for president

Powell: Romney will get over his gaffes

Powell on Obama's foreign policy

For instance, in 2004, the Rev. Al Sharpton ran for president of the United States. Now, we know he's black, but a ton of black folks didn't even think of supporting him during his run or send him a dime. I recall betting a black New York media executive a big steak dinner that Sharpton would not win the primary in South Carolina, where nearly half of the voters are black. He was adamant it would happen, citing the Rev. Jesse Jackson's win there in 1988. Sharpton didn't win.

During that same primary, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun also ran for the Democratic nomination. Her campaign was about as ineffectual as Sharpton's, and few people, even black folks, backed her.

Opinion: Why isn't Colin Powell a Democrat?

Amazing. Two black folks running for president -- one a prominent civil rights activist and the other a former U.S. senator -- and black America as a whole didn't even give their candidacies a thought.

So if in Sununu's mind a Powell endorsement comes down to race, how does he explain the many times a black candidate runs for office, and black support isn't guaranteed? What about all of the years black folks voted for white candidates? Was one whiter than the other?

Since Sununu thinks it's about race, I need him to explain to me how Mitt Romney's whiteness has been the deciding factor behind his being a major surrogate for the Romney campaign.

Please tell us, John, why you think Romney is the Great White Hope who will take down Soul Brother No. 1 at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Turnabout is fair play, right? If Powell is backing Obama because he's black, I need all of Romney's white supporters who are backing him because of the color of his skin to step forward. Please, don't hold back.

Powell is an American hero. He has served as national security adviser, head of the U.S. Army Forces Command, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, secretary of state.

Opinion: Both parties have a huge race problem

As a distinguished military man who has worked for four U.S. presidents, he has witnessed up close and personal what it takes to be president of the United States and commander in chief. It is ridiculous to assume Powell would be so shallow as to think race is the only determinant for him. The suggestion is beneath him.

So, why did Sununu say it? Because it's easy to dismiss an accomplished black man who just praised another accomplished black man. By boiling it down to race, it's easy for others who think such a thing to say, "Oh, that's it!"

Unfortunately, we see this type of thinking in America all of the time.

I crack up when someone white e-mails me, saying I owe my job to affirmative action. Their bigotry and racial animus is obvious, and I e-mail them back saying, I'm laughing at them. Why? Because it must hurt more to have a black man they can't stand laugh at them.

My accomplishments are clear and many. I owe no one an explanation for my success, and Powell owes Sununu and no one else an explanation other that what he said on CBS's morning show, citing Romney's confusing foreign policy views and Obama's steady leadership.

"When he took over, the country was in very, very difficult straits. We were in one of the worst recessions we had seen in recent times, close to a depression," Powell said. "We were in real trouble.

"I saw over the next several years stabilization come back in the financial community. Housing is now starting to pick up after four years. It's starting to pick up. Consumer confidence is rising. So I think generally, we've come out of the dive, and we're starting to gain altitude. It doesn't mean we are problem solved. There are lots of problems still out there. The unemployment rate is too high. People are still hurting in housing. But I see that we are starting to rise up."

Ain't nothing like a critically thinking brother, right, John?

This issue will not get a rise out of President Obama or Gen. Colin Powell. They won't even dignify Sununu and others who think like them. They'll just keep laughing all the way up the ladder to the next successful step, marveling at the childishness of some whites to reduce black support of another African-American to just the color of their skin and not the content of their character.

Read more »

Why isn't Colin Powell a Democrat?

Colin Powell backs Obama for president

(CNN) -- This week, Colin Powell, a retired four-star U.S. Army general perhaps best known for having served as Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, endorsed Barack Obama's bid for re-election during an interview with "CBS This Morning."

Given that Powell had enthusiastically endorsed Obama in 2008, his decision to back him yet again shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. Yet Powell's endorsement of a Democratic candidate is seen as significant because he describes himself as "a Republican of a more moderate mold," who laments that GOP moderates are "something of a dying breed."

Powell expressed discontent with the Republican stance on climate change, immigration and education, and he seemed more comfortable with Obama's approach to achieving fiscal balance than Mitt Romney's. Powell is also, among other things, a defender of racial preferences in college admissions and abortion rights.

Reihan Salam

While it is certainly true that Powell's views were not uncommon among moderate and liberal Republicans of an earlier era, it is not entirely clear why he chooses not to identify as a Democrat or as a liberal-leaning independent. One assumes that Powell has some residual loyalty to the party of Nelson Rockefeller and Gerald Ford, which is, of course, fair enough.

But would American democracy be better and healthier if we had more Republicans such as Powell and more Democrats such as, say, former U.S. Sen. Zell Miller, the Georgia Democrat who famously endorsed President George W. Bush at the 2004 Republican National Convention?

LZ Granderson: Both parties have a race problem

Some believe that blurring the boundaries of the two major political parties would be a very good thing as it would make legislative compromise more likely. Historically, it is certainly true that avowedly centrist legislators, such as the Southern congressional Democrats who worked closely with Republican presidents such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, have played an important role in shaping policy.

Become a fan of CNNOpinion

Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

There is, however, a significant downside to this blurring of boundaries.

Political scientists Richard Lau, David Anderson and David Redlawsk have argued that while we tend to focus on voter turnout as an important aspect of democratic citizenship, we should also pay attention to whether citizens are voting correctly.

To vote correctly, in the view of Lau and company, is to vote in accordance with your fully informed preferences. And one of the surest ways to increase correct voting is to give voters races in which candidates are reasonably ideologically distinct.

Sununu: Why Powell picked Obama

Booker: Sununu remark 'unfortunate'

Is Ohio must-win for Romney?

Powell: The art of being a good leader

If, like Colin Powell, you strongly believe that we need more regulation of carbon emissions, an approach to deficit reduction that involves substantial increases in federal taxes as well as spending cuts, an immigration policy that gives unauthorized immigrants the opportunity to become lawful permanent residents without first requiring that they return to their country of origin, and an education policy that emphasizes higher levels of public spending over competition among educational providers, it wouldn't just be unusual to back Mitt Romney over Barack Obama -- it would actually be, in the sense articulated by Lau and his co-authors, incorrect.

In light of the first-past-the-post nature of our electoral system, and the dominance of the two major political parties, candidates do tend to try to blur distinctions as general elections approach, thus raising the risk of incorrect voting. But as Democrats and Republicans have grown more ideologically coherent, as liberals have joined the Democrats and as conservatives have joined the Republicans, this risk has decreased considerably.

One might still object to partisan polarization on the grounds that it makes compromise extremely difficult. Oddly enough, the best solution to this problem might not be weaker political parties, in which individual officeholders are less likely to toe the party line and more likely to cross the aisle, but rather stronger political parties.

In "Better Parties, Better Government," Joel Gora and Peter Wallison argue that successive legislative efforts to reform campaign finance have left the United States with a candidate-centered rather than a party-centered political system.

Specifically, restrictions on the extent to which candidates can coordinate fundraising and campaigning efforts with party organizations have essentially left candidates to fend for themselves. While this might sound more attractive than a system with powerful party bosses, a candidate-centered system leads to a situation in which candidates have to spend enormous amounts of time and effort raising money, particularly if they are challenging incumbents.

This in turn makes candidates dependent on donors, whether they are wealthy individuals or special interest groups. One result of a candidate-centered system is that many people who would make excellent public servants are effectively shut out of the political process.

In a party-centered system, in contrast, candidates rely on the party for financial and organizational support. This gives the central party organization considerable leverage over candidates, which they can use to enforce some measure of party discipline.

Parties would also be more resistant to capture by special interests than individual legislators, as they would be in a position to balance the needs of a much broader array of interests.

So how would stronger parties improve the quality of governance?

Whereas individual candidates are primarily interested in their own short-term survival, party organizations have a longer-term perspective.

Stronger party organizations would, for example, have a strong incentive to develop a coherent legislative program, as doing so would help build the party brand. If the White House and Congress were controlled by the same party, this coherent legislative program could be implemented more easily under a party-centered system, in which legislators know what they've been put into office to accomplish, than under a candidate-centered system, in which its every legislator for herself or himself.

Consider Obama's first two years, in which large numbers of congressional Democrats from marginal seats kept frustrating the party's agenda.

These rebellious Democrats feared that sticking with the White House would cause them to lose their seats, but their efforts made Obama look weak, which in turn contributed to the GOP takeover of the House. Had these congressional Democrats been subject to stronger party discipline, the party as a whole might have been much better off.

A party-centered system also works better in a divided government, as opposition parties wouldn't be solely dedicated to frustrating the president's agenda. Rather, they'd dedicate themselves to achieving their longer-term legislative objectives, which would often entail working with the other side.

A stronger Republican party organization might have exerted more pressure on newly elected congressional Republicans to compromise on the debt limit, as the perception of GOP extremism may have damaged the party's brand in potentially winnable suburban districts outside of the South.

Rather than blur partisan boundaries, what American democracy needs is a healthy dose of responsible partisanship.

Read more »

Are voters still picking leader of free world?

U.S. President Barack Obama delivers remarks during a campaign rally at Elm Street Middle School in Nashua, New Hampshire on Saturday, October 27. With 10 days to go before the presidential election, Obama and his opponent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, are criss-crossing the country from one swing state to the next in an attempt to sway voters.

No one today would, or should, use that musty old expression, which dates back to the Cold War. For one thing, it's not even clear precisely what the free world is. Still, it's worth pondering whether if in the next election, American voters will crown the most powerful man in the world, the man who will lead the world's democracies and inspire those who aspire to freedom. In short: Does America, and the American president, still matter that much to the rest of the planet?

Frida Ghitis

I spent much of the time leading up to the last two presidential elections traveling overseas. Back then, conversations with non-Americans revealed anxiety about the elections, which would result in consecutive terms for George W. Bush. More than once I heard the comment that the whole world should be allowed to vote in the U.S. election, because the outcome would affect people's lives everywhere.

For many decades, the security of Europe depended on Washington's protection, and the world economy rose and fell on the fate of America's economic growth.

A world view of the presidential debate

Piecing together a presidential win

Colin Powell backs Obama for president

Today, America seems little more than a bystander on many of the top global issues. The European economic crisis does not hinge on U.S. actions. Developing economies worry more about Chinese than American growth. Those who believed peace between Arabs and Israelis depends on the United States are no longer so convinced. The Arab uprisings, revolutions and civil wars have seen some U.S. involvement -- most notably in Libya -- but they have largely unfolded on their own stage, with America sitting in the audience, at times cheering, criticizing or just offering an opinion.

Opinion: What matters to women in the election

Become a fan of CNNOpinion

Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

It would be easy to conclude that America's presidential election this time around is a matter of concern only to Americans. But that would be wrong.

The world remains enthralled with American politics. No other election on the planet receives a similar amount of attention. Not even close.

I have just returned from another couple of rounds abroad and still I see enormous interest in U.S. politics. Headlines everywhere follow the minutiae of the protracted U.S. presidential election. From Latin America to Asia, people heard about Republican candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. They are intrigued that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and they have heard about issues of U.S. health care and American troops in Afghanistan.

Still, the sense that the U.S. election will have a direct and immediate impact on everyone's life seems to have receded compared to the days of the Iraq war.

Opinion: Romney's absurd idea on indicting Ahmadinejad

People with Internet connections for the first time had the opportunity to watch the presidential debates. According to YouTube, millions watched live, at all hours of the day and night, in 215 countries and territories.

One poll, conducted by Gallup in 30 countries, interviewing 26,000 people, found 42% say they wish they could vote in the U.S. election. The number is even greater for young people, which shows it's not just Cold War nostalgia at work in the emotional connection to the United States.

Nearly two-thirds of those asked said a U.S. president has a great impact on life in their own countries.

Over the years, many people have resented American influence and power. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the competition between the two superpowers left only one standing, the French, in particular, derided America as the "Hyperpower."

Resentment of U.S. power will never die in some quarters, but the polls show a majority of Europeans consider American leadership in world affairs "desirable."

When the president of France started pushing for Western intervention to prevent civilian massacres in Libya, it took American power to make it happen. With tragic symmetry, the massacres have continued in Syria as Washington decided not to intervene.

Bergen: Romney endorses Obama's national security policy

The world watches America's top politicians. It gets to know them, and everyone has an opinion.

A number of polls show Barack Obama is the overwhelming favorite to win this election; that's among non-Americans. The Gallup Global Poll found Obama ahead by 81% to 19%. Another poll commissioned by the BBC and conducted in 21 countries showed Obama ahead 50% to 21%. The president was ahead everywhere except in Pakistan, where Romney edged ahead, but neither candidate was liked by even 20% of those questioned.

Obama was enormously popular in Europe, Australia, Canada, Nigeria, Kenya, Panama, Brazil and other countries.

It's also not as if the world started paying attention only as the elections approached. Pollsters have been taking the temperature of global opinion all along. Obama came to office with enormous support at home and abroad. As his popularity numbers started coming down to earth in the United States, they did the same in other countries.

Early this year, the international consensus was against Obama. Just 46% wanted him re-elected, according to Gallup's March poll. His approval rating collapsed, particularly in Arab countries, scraping the bottom in Egypt at just 19%.

As the alternative emerged, views changed. Now that they see it's Obama or Romney, the world says give us Obama. I'll leave the explanation of that reaction for another day.

The United States has undoubtedly lost a great deal of the influence it once had. It doesn't always have the ability or the inclination to shape events. Power is more widely divided, but still today nobody has more of it. And that power is not just measured in money or guns. It is still measured in ideas and values. That's why polls show so many people still look to the United States and say they want America to hold on to its position of global leadership.

The entire world is paying attention to the American election, because the president of the United States, whoever he (yes, still he) is, remains the most powerful and influential human being on Earth.

Read more »

Malala is face of global attacks on schools

Malala a symbol for girls' rights (CNN) -- The gruesome gunning-down of 15-year-old Malala Yousufzai spotlighted the fate of children in Pakistan, one of the world's most dangerous places to go to school. But in war zones around the world, from Afghanistan to Yemen, students, teachers and schools are regularly coming under attack. These are the world's unrecognized Malalas.

In southern Thailand, I visited a school that was still smoldering from an arson attack a few days earlier. Separatist insurgents had doused the classrooms with gasoline and dragged books from the library and mattresses from the kindergarten to fuel the flames. The insurgents view schools as places where the Buddhist Thai government indoctrinates the local Muslim Malay population.

Gordon Brown: Millions of children face Malala's fight for an education

Bede Sheppard

The school's teachers were distraught but worried that if they fled the area, the children would be left with no one to teach them. These teachers' bravery is astounding: This month, three bullets to the head felled Komsan Chomyong. He was the 152nd teacher to be assassinated since violence erupted in southern Thailand in 2004.

In the past five years, armed forces and armed groups have attacked or taken over schools in at least 25 countries, endangering children's lives, education and future. Armed groups target schools and teachers as symbols of the state. They oppose what is being taught, and to whom. These attacks are not a matter of collateral damage; they are part of deliberate, despicable strategies.

Opinion: Candidates, answer the Malala question

Become a fan of CNNOpinion

Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

This year in eastern Yemen, I met a 14-year-old boy who explained how al Qaeda-linked extremists had replaced the teachers and curriculum at his school. Pointing to a card I brought displaying pictures of various weapons, he identified five that his new "teachers" had taught him and his classmates to use.

I met another 14-year-old in Yemen's capital, Sanaa, who told me how frightened he had been when the principal led students into the basement to escape gunfire aimed at the militia that had established a base on the school's top floor. "You couldn't recognize that this was a school because of the military barracks here," one teacher told me.

In central India, I sifted through the shrapnel and splintered desks in a school that had been bombed by Maoist guerrillas. "This school has been badly damaged," lamented a 16-year-old student showing me around. "Everything is in ruins." In India, the Maoists attack schools because the isolated pink buildings make easy targets in rural areas otherwise devoid of government structures. But in doing so, the Maoists harm the country's most marginalized and needy: the very children for whom they claim to be fighting.

Safe schools offer essential protection for children in wartime. They can provide lifesaving information about things like avoiding land mines and preventing HIV. They can also shield children from trafficking and recruitment by armed groups. In the long term, a good education promotes peace and post-conflict reconstruction, and helps young people develop the skills to build lives for themselves and prosperity for their communities. Perhaps most important, access to a safe space to study and learn provides students with a sense of normality, routine and calm amid the chaos of war.

Suspect identified in Malala attack

Malala's story

Opinion: A year later, can Libya tame militias?

Ending attacks on students, teachers and schools requires action at both the national and international levels. We need a shared recognition that such attacks can amount to war crimes and need global attention. Where attacks occur, the United Nations should be allowed access to negotiate with armed groups to end grave violations against children. (Thailand recently denied the U.N. access to verify the crimes being committed against children in the south.)

We also need better preventive measures and a more timely response. Destroyed schools should be quickly rebuilt, not left as piles of rubble like so many in Pakistan.

Militaries should commit to refraining from converting schools into military bases and barracks, to prevent turning schools into targets. In Syria right now, school buildings are being bombed as both sides target each other's bases set up inside classrooms.

The cause for which Malala Yousufzai risked her life -- ensuring that children, no matter where they live, can enjoy an education in safety and security -- has received new attention since her bloody attack. Let us work to ensure that it does not take more Malalas for the world to react and give attacks on schools the attention it deserves.

Read more »

Saving the magnificent blue whale

Saving Sri Lanka's blue whale

(CNN) -- It's a beautiful day to be on the water a few kilometers off the southern coast of Sri Lanka.

Within view of shore the spinner dolphins twist and turn energetically, flying fish launch out of the water and cruise for what seems like ages, and a manta ray gracefully glides under my boat. In the safety of my 20-foot research boat. I am the biggest thing on the water.

Suddenly, a blue whale emerges close by, and as it breaks the surface, it exhales. This creature is so immense that the vertical tower of mist that escapes from its blowholes is taller than my boat is long. As it calmly swims, it teases me by revealing just parts of its huge self. It is hard to fathom just how large this creature truly is. I am mesmerized by the scene, impressed at how the buoyancy of the ocean has aided this giant to achieve near maximum size.

Asha de Vos

My moment is disrupted when I become aware of the fleet of container ships close by. Each carries thousands of containers, which are on average twice the length of my boat. Welcome to one of the busiest shipping highways in the world.

What I see is no different from what I hear when I drop my hydrophone (underwater microphone) in the water. The cacophony of the ships' propellers drowns out all other sounds in the ocean before, during and often even after we have lost view of them in the distance. These ocean-going monsters are at the beck and call of human needs and their increasing numbers are a reflection of the escalating wants of an ever-growing global population.

This morning's lesson has been about perspective but I soon realize there are many more lessons to be learned.

Become a fan of CNNOpinion

Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.

Moments like these concretize my desire to scientifically understand these whales in order to protect them. Moments like these drive me to work harder.

Over the years, my research has shown that these whales are different, unorthodox even. Science has often described baleen whales (the group that blue whales belong to) as creatures of habit. They travel to the poles to feed and then migrate to the lower latitudes to mate and calve. But we find that quite incredibly, those within the Northern Indian Ocean choose to remain in tropical waters year-round.

These blue whales grow up to 24 meters (78.7 feet) and have incredible energetic requirements so it makes sense for them to exploit the most productive areas of the ocean to ensure their survival. But these waters are often considered less productive than their temperate or polar counterparts, and this anomalous behavior leads me to question why? How? The Northern Indian Ocean clearly holds many secrets that we have yet to unravel.

What excites me most is that the waters around Sri Lanka, slap-bang in the heart of the Indian Ocean, are home to a resident group of Northern Indian Ocean blues. My research is just beginning to shed light on what sustains this group of the largest animals to ever roam the oceans throughout the year. But besides fulfilling their nutritional needs, Sri Lankan waters provide a safe haven for mothers and calves and have given me the opportunity to observe mesmerizing portrayals of the persistence of males and the pickiness of females engaged in courtship rituals.

The Northern Indian Ocean is as unorthodox as the blue whales that live within it. It is the only ocean that is not connected from the North Pole right through to the South Pole. The effects of this geographic isolation are profound, and the differences these blue whales display may be driven in part by this.

Unfortunately, this isolation and their dependence on a restricted area for their most fundamental needs -- feeding, breeding and calving makes these blue whales increasingly vulnerable to threats. Very little is known about the causes of natural mortality for blue whales. They are after all, very large. However, human-induced threats abound. Not least, off the south coast of Sri Lanka.

Sadly, the overlap between prime blue whale habitat and extremely busy shipping lanes increases the risk of mortality by ship strike. Blue whales do not belong wrapped on the bow of a container ship. They belong swimming freely in the ocean.

Available data tells us that commercial shipping densities off the southern coast of Sri Lanka are double those in California's Santa Barbara Channel where measures are already being taken to mitigate the risk of collisions with blue whales.

My mission is to decrease whale mortality by ship strike in the waters off Sri Lanka with the support of a strong network of scientists from around the world. But to achieve this mission, I realize I have to be an unorthodox scientist. I have to ensure that people, not just scientists know of the problems faced by this population. I believe that the more we know, the more we care and the more we feel responsible and subsequently, the greater our chance of success.

My dream is to work to protect these whales as best I can to ensure that the immense blue whale skeleton hanging from the ceiling of the Colombo National Museum since 1894 is not the only option for seeing blue whales in the future.

Read more »

Clark’s speech gives B.C. Liberals a reason to believe

For any political party, the final convention before an election campaign is all about firing up the troops. And the job for B.C. Liberal Premier Christy Clark in her keynote speech at her party’s annual convention Saturday was to do just that.
But Ms. Clark’s task was more complicated than simply psychologically arming the thousand delegates in attendance for next spring’s campaign. She first had to convince them that they had a fighting chance – despite the doomsday polls and the steady drumbeat of dreary predictions by the B.C. commentariat.
If the B.C. Liberal Party is in its death throes someone forget to tell the delegates who attended convention here. There was a defiant tone in the air, one that was set on the opening day by the Premier herself when she urged her followers to focus on the days ahead and the increasingly bright future her government’s job agenda has created.
As expected, there was lots of talk about recent job-creation numbers that ranked B.C. first in the country. Ms. Clark has been hammering hard on the notion that the province is on the precipice of an economic roll that will make it the envy of the country. She has effectively staked her future, and the future of the Liberal Party, on the belief that when British Columbians step into the voting booth next May, jobs and the economy will be the number one factor on their minds.
For the Liberals to win, it will take a turnaround of historic proportions. The party is anywhere from 14 to 29 points behind the opposition New Democrats depending on the poll to which you subscribe. Ms. Clark’s primary mission at this convention was to convince delegates that gaps between political parties, even ones as large as the fissure that has opened up between the Liberals and NDP, can be overcome.
And as I say, I think her keynote address and her cameo appearances throughout the convention likely went a long way towards accomplishing that goal.
Ms. Clark’s speech, while certainly devoid of any news, was optimistic and upbeat. Her strongest moments, however, came when she talked about issues closest to her heart; bullying and the death of Amanda Todd, how she coped with the slow death of her mother from a brain tumour.
That is when Ms. Clark summoned all of the consummate communication skills honed as a radio talk-show host. There were times during the speech when it was so quiet you could hear ants chattering. And when the Premier abandoned her sensitive side to launch into a fiery attack on the New Democrats you could barely hear anything above the piercing yowls of approval from the crowd.
Of course, there are always lines in political speeches that produce some eye-rolling. When Ms. Clark attacked the NDP for its ever-evolving stand on the Northern Gateway pipeline, one couldn’t help but recall that the Premier’s own position has gone through a few iterations itself.
If you listened closely, however, you could hear the general outline of a campaign stump speech, one that chastises the NDP for its modest vision for the future compared to the bolder dream for the province that she is mapping out. One that holds that her party believes in creating jobs, while the NDP believes in destroying them.
Ms. Clark’s speech was interrupted on more than a few occasions by standing ovations. She left her prepared text several times to ad-lib her way her way through the nearly 40-minute address. The Premier needed one of her strongest podium appearances ever and she delivered.

Read more »

Obama, Romney reverse roles as election looms

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama insists he's ahead but is running like the underdog, adopting a street-fighting posture and campaigning himself hoarse across the country. Republican challenger Mitt Romney seeks to make his election seem inevitable and calls Obama's campaign desperate.

A role reversal by the candidates that occurred over the course of the three presidential debates is continuing in the final stage of the race, portending frenzied politicking until voters deliver the verdict on November 6.

For Obama, that means more campaign swings like the two-day trip to eight states this week -- including his "all-nighter" on Air Force One, as well as events targeting younger audiences. He has appeared on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and planned an MTV interview on Friday.

It also means increasingly caustic attacks on Romney, including his reference to the former Massachusetts governor as a "bullshitter" in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine to be published after the election.

Romney, meanwhile, tries to exude the air of a president-to-be, continuing his campaign's constant assault on Obama's presidency but presenting himself as above the fray of political mudslinging.

Rolling Stone: Obama calls Romney ...

Obama opens up to Rolling Stone

Candidates court undecided voters

Ohio's 'nightmare scenario'

In a new twist to his standard stump speech, Romney has co-opted Obama's campaign theme of 2008 by declaring himself the candidate of change in contrast to the status quo of what he called four more years of failed policies under the president.

"Four years ago, candidate Obama spoke to the scale of the times," Romney said Friday in Iowa, one of the handful of swing states that will decide the election. "Today, he shrinks from it, trying instead to distract our attention from the biggest issues to the smallest -- from characters on Sesame Street and silly word games to misdirected personal attacks he knows are false. The president's campaign falls far short of the magnitude of these times."

Battlegrounds: 'It's all about northern Virginia'

He referred to attack lines in the Obama stump speech that target Romney's shifting positions on issues as "Romnesia" and characterize the GOP contender's proposed cuts in government funding for public television as an assault on "Big Bird."

To Darrell West, the vice president and director of governance studies at the Brookings Institution, both candidates now devote their campaign efforts to motivating core supporters to get out and vote, rather than trying to persuade a shrinking number of uncommitted voters.

"I think each side is focusing more on their base than on the undecided," West told CNN, noting that after months of the campaign deluge, "it's so hard to know what at this point is going to persuade people to make up their minds."

In addition, Obama "has shifted to underdog status and Romney is playing the role of frontrunner," West added, citing the dynamic of the debates for the change in campaign postures.

Micro-targeting offers clues to early vote leads

Obama's lackluster performance against an aggressive Romney in the first debate in Denver on October 3 gave the challenger a validating boost that has brought him even or in some cases ahead of the president in the polls.

After the initial drubbing, Obama came out aggressively in the second and third debates to win both in the eyes of analysts and public opinion, and he has subsequently maintained the combative posture.

"I think it is a reaction to the tightening surveys after the first debate," West said. "Obama clearly lost his political advantage, so he's had to recast himself as the underdog."

Romney, meanwhile, is "trying to create a sense of inevitability about his campaign," according to West.

"When you're the challenger, you run as a candidate of change," noted CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger. "President Obama last time ran as a candidate of change. There was no incumbent, but he was all about change. This time, Mitt Romney is all about change, promising big change on the campaign trail."

Tiny New Hampshire taking big role

Romney is benefiting from his "great" first debate and strong fundraising and poll numbers it spawned, Borger said, adding: "He had a good October."

In response, Obama has sharpened his criticism of Romney's proposals as backward and outdated to exploit his advantage among women, African-American, Latino and gay voters.

"You can choose to turn back the clock 50 years for women and immigrants and gays, or in this election, you can stand up for that basic principle enshrined in our founding documents that all of us are created equal, all of us endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator; that it doesn't matter whether you're black or white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, young or old, rich or poor, gay or straight, abled or disabled -- we all have a place in America," the raw-voiced president shouted Thursday night in Cleveland, eliciting cheers and chants.

Romney pledges 'big change' but offers few specifics

Obama also regularly ridicules Romney's foreign policy stances as wrong and misguided, and he points out what he calls his opponent's constantly shifting positions for political gain.

"We joke about Romnesia, but it's not funny because it speaks to something serious," Obama said Thursday. "It has to do with trust."

In the Rolling Stone interview, Obama commented on how young children who tend to support him are hard to fool, adding: "They look at the other guy and say, well, that's a bullshitter. I can tell."

The Romney campaign immediately fired back, saying: "President Obama is rattled and on the defensive. He's running on empty and has nothing left but attacks and insults. It's unfortunate he has to close the final days of his campaign this way."

Obama video compares voting to losing virginity

Romney, meanwhile, has sounded like Obama of four years ago on the campaign trail in describing the choice facing voters.

Blaming Obama for continuing high unemployment and sluggish economic growth, Romney made a point Friday of challenging the president's contention that his policies prevented a depression and have pulled the nation out of recession he inherited.

"The problem with the Obama economy is not what he inherited; it is with the misguided policies that slowed the recovery, and caused millions of Americans to endure lengthy unemployment and poverty," Romney said.

He called the election "a choice between the status quo -- going forward with the same policies of the last four years -- or instead, choosing real change, change that offers promise, promise that the future will be better than the past."

West said Obama can benefit from a more aggressive approach in messaging and campaigning of running as the underdog, but he warned that Romney would take a risk by relying on perceived or claimed momentum.

"I think the riskiest position in a close race is to try sit on a lead and make an argument about momentum," West said. "Momentum is very nebulous. Romney has done well over the last few weeks in the polls, but that can change fast."

Read more »

Government plans independent review of how F-35 purchase program was handled

The government is looking for an independent firm to review how the program to buy new stealth fighters was handled.
Public Works has issued a request for proposal for a company to study how things worked up to last June, when the government put the brakes on and set up a new body to handle the program.

The department says the review will look at whether the problems with the acquisition process uncovered by the auditor general last spring have been addressed.
It will also look at whether the process followed government rules and policies and recommend any needed changes to the process. The review will focus only on the acquisition process and won’t duplicate the work of KPMG, which has been commissioned to study the cost of the F-35 program.
Public Works expects to award a contract by December.
“This is one of several activities that need to be completed before conclusions about replacing the CF-18 will be presented to the government,” Public Works said in a statement.
Last spring, the auditor general tore a strip off the government, accusing National Defence of hiding $10 billion in continuing costs for the fighter and Public Works of not doing enough homework to justify the purchase. In the wake of that report, the government produced a seven-point plan that took responsibility for the plane away from National Defence, giving it to a secretariat at Public Works.
The sophisticated F-35 aircraft is proposed as a replacement for the aging fleet of CF-18 fighter-bombers, but has been dogged by teething problems and rising costs.

Read more »

B.C.’s Clark rallies Liberal faithful around a stay-the-course message

Standing in his food shack under posters of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in a Caracas slum, 70-year-old Miguel Bigello relays his backhanded support for Barack Obama.

"For all the deaths he's caused, he's not touched Latin America," he said. "The other guy [Mitt Romney] is too radical. He will fight here for the oil."

The elderly man is an avid supporter of Chavez, his "Comandante," and in the small wooden hut sits a carving of the face of Che Guevara as well as a poster depicting Latin American independence hero Símon Bolívar.

Girish Gupta

Postcard: Why 'Obamagic' has worn off in Nigeria

Bigello shares the view of his president. "If I was from the U.S., I'd vote for Obama," Chavez said buoyantly on state television just a week before he won his third six-year term two weeks ago, potentially extending his tenure to two decades. "Obama is a good guy."

Venezuela is still hungover from its own presidential election and in this fervently political country — mostly thanks to Chavez's ubiquity, strength of personality and polarizing policies — the U.S. election campaign offers some light relief after a trying few months.

Map: The world weighs in on the U.S. election

The contest between Chavez and Henrique Capriles, the Venezuelan opposition's first real hope in 14 years, made the Romney-Obama matchup look like child's play. Chavez welcomed his opponent to the ring in February by calling him a "low-life pig" who would be "pulverized." There were no debates here as Chavez felt Capriles was below him. "The eagle does not chase flies," said a defiant Chavez.

Postcard: Why Berliners, U.S. are kindred spirits

The self-styled socialist leader's supporters see Obama taking a leaf out of Chavez's book. "Obama is working for the people just like Chavez," said Gomez Darwin, 42, stood under a huge Che Guevara mural in a primarily Chavez-supporting Caracas barrio.

However, it is the contenders' world views which really matter here. Gloria Torres helped organize prayer vigils for Chavez as he suffered cancer last year. "Obama's policies towards Latin America haven't been aggressive," she said, offering her support for the U.S. incumbent before adding: "The other guy doesn't seem to have any friendly intentions towards us!"

Venezuela has come up a number of times in Republican rhetoric during the U.S. race. Mitt Romney branded the Venezuelan government a "threat to national security" earlier this year, adding that Chavez had spread "dictatorships and tyranny throughout Latin America."

Postcard: Obama's 'hope' a mirage for hostile Pakistanis

Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, added: "In a Mitt Romney administration, we will not keep practicing this policy of appeasement ... We will be tough on [Cuban President Raúl] Castro, tough on Chavez. It's because we know that's the right policy for our country."

This antagonism from the Romney camp towards Chavez — compared to Obama's softer approach — has attracted some of Venezuela's more wealthy hard-line opposition.

"Romney named Chavez in his manifesto; Obama didn't," said Aixa Armas, eating breakfast at one of Caracas' high-end hotels. "Obama has closed his eyes to the problem, a regional problem, and he is too friendly with Chavez."

Postcard: War-scarred Baghdad has little faith in election

The lubricant between Caracas and Washington is the world's highest oil reserves on which Chavez sits. It is that wealth that has kept Venezuela's economy from collapsing -- despite epic mismanagement which has led to the region's highest inflation rate and a severe shortage of U.S. dollars. America is Venezuela's biggest oil market and the Latin American country is among the top five exporters to the U.S..

"The U.S. remains the only actual customer paying cash and at full-price," said Russ Dallen, head trader at Caracas' BBO Financial Services. "Romney may want to use that leverage to stop subsidizing a thorn in America's side."

Dallen adds that Venezuela, or at least the Chavez government, needs oil prices to stay high, and Obama may be a safer bet for that. "Obama is more willing to tolerate high gasoline prices because gas at $4 a gallon makes people more willing to invest in alternative technologies and for those technologies to be more cost effective."

Postcard: Obama, Romney ignore Afghans at own peril

Chavez is unlikely to be thinking in such depth. His support for Obama recently marks the apex of the 58-year-old strongman's relations with Washington since coming to power in 1999. The infamous nadir came in 2006 when Chavez stood at the United Nations lectern, theatrically sniffing the air. "The devil came here yesterday," he said, a day after former President George W Bush's speech. "It smells of sulfur still." He then went onto describe Bush's "domination, exploitation, and pillage of the peoples of the world."

Chavez quipped two weeks ago that Obama would support him too, had he been born in Venezuela's slums. After some shaky relations, Chavez is prepared to start again. "With the likely triumph of Obama, and the extreme right defeated both here and there [in the U.S.], I hope we can start a new period of normal relations."

Read more »