Politics and the World

Dear Obama, Keep Trade.

2009-01-13T15:21:00.009-05:00

Clearly, Barack Obama and his team will face many serious challenges from the start. Accordingly, there's no shortage of advice coming from all corners of academia. An impressive volume of articles and books has been published recently, all written in hopes of nudging the new president in one direction or another. I had the honor of participating in the editing process for one such book due out in February entitled "International Trade: America's Destiny" by Dr. Patrick Mendis. The book explores America's founding and the importance of international trade in its development. Mendis suggests that trade is not only good for America, but for the world. This is not a new argument. What is new, however, is Mendis's multilayered approach. That America should maintain (if not increase) its free trade activity is suggested in the nation's architecture, its constitution, and in the founding fathers' vision for the new nation.

During his campaign, Obama hinted that he would pursue protectionist policies in order to keep jobs in America. Most foreign policy scholars, including Mendis, believe this would be a mistake. This book is a convincing reminder for Obama (and any student of government or economics) that international trade is written into the DNA of America - with good reason.

http://patrickmendis.blogspot.com/

The Problem With Lower Oil Prices

2008-11-11T17:21:00.003-05:00

There are several downers about high oil prices. Gas is more expensive and so are groceries. Geopolitically, oil-producing countries - some run by dictators - gain power through wealth acquisition. I can count on one finger the number of reasons why a U.S. president would personally visit Saudi Arabia with hat in hand: to request lower oil prices, as Bush did earlier this year.

Yet, there is a substantial benefit to uncomfortably high oil prices: people begin to change their habits. And now, just when Americans are using more public transportation, when biking suddenly makes sense... just when hybrid and low-emission vehicles are taking off and Detroit is "bolt"ing for electric vehicles - just when we were essentially becoming better stewards of the environment, gas has dropped from over $4 a gallon to about $2 in less than six months. Now, there is a side of me that really likes seeing lower gas prices. I call it the "I-didn't-buy-a-Yaris-to-still-be-paying-$40-to-fill-it-up" side. But lower gas prices inevitably means less desperation among consumers, and subsequently, less openness to alternatives.

Geopolitics aside, expensive oil is necessary if Americans are going to become sufficiently primed for alternative energy. Yes, businesses and entrepreneurs are innovating. A "green" movement has begun, but the general public must get on board. Having to pay more at the pump will push us to embrace these innovations more quickly, both as consumers and as voters. It will force us to make environmentally wise decisions, even if initially we're just trying to save some money.

Fortunately for our wallets, gas is down. Unfortunately for the environment, gas is down.

Back Down To Earth

2008-11-07T22:34:00.006-05:00

This week's election of Barack Obama for U.S. president has set off an impressive surge of patriotism and excitement across the country. Even many of his political opponents have acknowledged the immensity of this moment in U.S. history.

But while there is a time and a place for "Obamamania," we must not get carried away. He is, after all, human - and a politician at that. Supporters and critics alike must continue to hold his feet to the fire. Americans should be pragmatic, acknowledging a good decision, regardless of whether it comes from a Democrat or Republican, while at the same time recognizing and pointing out poor choices.

Obama has already made several mistakes in his first three days as president-elect. First, during his acceptance speech, Obama used language that is frighteningly reminiscent of Bush's "us vs. them" worldview that has isolated entire societies. "To those who would tear this world down," Obama said, "we will defeat you." Second, he chose Rahm Emanuel as his White House chief of staff. The Chicago politician is known to be intense and abrasive. This is unlikely to foster the bipartisanship that Obama has promised. Furthermore, Emanuel's overtly pro-Israel position could hinder an already elusive Middle East peace agreement. Finally, Obama made an insensitive remark about Nancy Reagan in his first press conference on Friday. He has since apologized.

As Obama sets out on what, in all fairness, will be an incredibly challenging first term, Americans should exercise mental discipline by maintaining a supportive, yet watchful attitude. If you are a fan of Obama, please know that he would welcome such an approach. In fact, throughout his campaign, Obama was the epitome of discipline. His critiques were typically fair. He remained focused on the big picture and he never got carried away. The result was success. If you voted against him, be fair and productive in your criticisms. Find some common ground while at the same time maintaining a watchdog posture. Republicans will have front-row seats for an important job over the next four years: Holding the Obama administration accountable.

But in fact, it's everyone's job - even those still chanting "Yes we did!"

A Fascinating Election... In the Maldives

2008-10-28T22:37:00.007-04:00

With all the media focus in the past months on the U.S. presidential election, one might not know that other countries have recently held elections, too. Canada, for example, re-elected Stephen Harper just weeks ago. And as of yesterday, the Maldives has elected a new president, Mohamed Nasheed.

This details of this election are fascinating. The tiny, rich South Asian country had been ruled by Maumoon Abdul Gayoom for thirty years, the longest such tenure in Asia. Only in recent years, following violent protests, has Gayoom slowly allowed democratic reforms, culminating with this year's election. Not only has the country successfully conducted the first national election in its history (it gained independence from Great Britain in 1965), but it has done so by collecting polling data from inhabitants of over 250 tiny islands.

The initial round of voting three weeks ago ended with Gayoom holding a 15 percent lead over Nasheed (40%-25%), his nearest of five competitors. However, as is the case in many countries (but not the U.S.), a winner is only declared when a candidate has over 50 percent of the vote. In the run-off, Nasheed was declared the winner with 54 percent. Clearly, in both rounds of voting, Maldives citizens expressed a desire for change.

In an interesting twist of justice, Gayoom was defeated by one of his former polital prisoners. Despite the history between the two, there has been no election-related violence since the results were released Tuesday. Democracy, as some define it, can only exist through a peaceful transfer of power. Though time will tell for sure, this tiny island nation seems to have met that important criteria.

What's in the Cabinet?

2008-10-23T19:54:00.006-04:00

In his new book, "Where Have All The Leaders Gone?" former auto executive Lee Iacocca recommends that presidential candidates reveal their cabinet choices prior to the election. His argument, and I agree, is that this would help voters gain significant insight into the candidates' leadership styles. Consider what we have learned about McCain and Obama since their vice-presidential choices. Americans have paid attention to these decisions, as reflected in the polls. But we need more to go on. We cannot tell how well the football team will perform based solely on the quarterback and his best wide-receiver.

Yes, the president is the ultimate "decider" in the executive branch, as George W. Bush has said, but he does not exist in a vaccuum. His advisers are appointed experts who influence domestic and foreign policies. They include, among others, the Secretaries of State, the Treasury, and Defense, as well as the Attorney General (and the National Security Adviser, who is not technically a "cabinet" member). These are extrememly powerful individuals, especially with a weak president, such as the current President Bush. Also, though less significant, the cabinet determines presidential succession.

When voters elect a president who has chosen his or her cabinet (at least to begin the term), they have a much clearer idea of what they are getting. Will it be merely a team of "yes men"? Or will it be a diverse group of qualified, free-thinking public servants. Sure, it might be awkward for those chosen by the eventual losing candidate, but that's politics. What's easily more important is that the voting public be as informed as possible about who - specifically who - will be leading their country.

A Solution No One Is Talking About

2008-10-08T18:33:00.012-04:00

In last night's presidential debate, the candidates were asked the following question: "What sacrifices will you ask every American to make to help restore the American dream and to get out of the economic morass that we're now in?" The responses from each candidate were ho-hum. McCain said Americans should "understand that there are some programs that we may have to eliminate," and that's about it. Obama, after criticizing Bush for failing to call upon Americans after 9/11, said something about saving energy and civil service. Neither response inspired me. How can a president ask the people to let go of something without stirring them to action? Give us something specific. Communicate the urgency. Convince us.

And by the way - try this one: Ask us to pay more taxes. Seriously.

Typically, advocating higher taxes would approach political suicide in the midst of a campaign. But honestly, how do we expect to pay for this $700b Wall Street bailout or the $600b Iraq War, or even pay off our $10 trillion national debt? Taxes. Sorry, but that's where we are. I'm not suggesting a sharp tax increase. But it's ridiculous for candidates to promise tax breaks at a time like this! Look, few people actually enjoy paying taxes. But isn't it a necessary patriotic duty? How else would we pay for our public welfare: education, defense and research?

Taxation: it's the best solution no one is talking about.

Pointing fingers about who's to blame for the economic hole we are in does little to solve our current problem. We need to collectively dig ourselves out. Let's get to work. To do this, we need our next president, whoever it may be, to inspire Americans to step up - not unlike FDR did in his fireside chats during the Depression. We need our leadership to help us shed our hubris, convince us that our sacrifice is patriotic, and reassure us that our government will honor our sacrifice with fiscal stewardship. What sacrifices is this generation of Americans capable of? Who knows? No one has asked us yet.

Bolivia: Morales' Prerogative

2008-09-27T18:21:00.000-04:00

The United States has spent a reported $125 million dollars to back a secessionist movement in the eastern provinces of democratic Bolivia. The U.S. has an ugly history of meddling in the affairs of Central and South American countries (though typically through covert CIA operations). So, given this history, Morales is justified in expelling Ambassador Goldberg as part of his plan to unite the country - especially if he believes Goldberg is instigating separatism. The situation is tense. While the wealthy, white eastern Bolivians seek autonomy - and exclusive rights to the natural gas revenues - Morales is advocating for a united Bolivia with wealth redistribution to lift up the poor indigenous population in the west. If those in the east were seeking to secede out of oppression, that would be one thing. But they are merely attempting to hoard their natural gas at the expense of their countrymen - and with the help of the U.S. But Morales will have none of it - nor should he.

Current: Iran

2008-08-09T19:27:00.003-04:00

This week and next, I am participating in the Osgood Center's Foreign Policy Symposium in Washington. Numerous experts and diplomats have shared their insight and analysis with us on current international events and, not surprisingly, we are hearing a lot about Iran. Its alleged nuclear weapons program had some Washington observers talking of a potential strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, either by Israel or the United States, though such talk has diminished recently. Still, an Israeli official told us on Friday that Iran, not Palestine, is the number one issue for Israel right now. What strikes me is that the United States has played a key role in enabling the ascent of Iran both by defeating some of its key regional adversaries and refusing to negotiate with its leaders.

In late 2001, Iranian support for the Northern Alliance was central in bringing down the Taliban in Afghanistan. But instead of working together to secure Afghanistan and pursue al-Qaeda, Washington renounced Iran in January 2002 by including it in its "Axis of Evil." Then in 2003, the U.S. toppled Saddam Hussein's government, a long-time Iranian adversary. In less than three years, the U.S. had eliminated the top two threats to Iran: the Taliban and Iraq's baathist government. It then rejected Iran's 2003 proposal now referred to as the Grand Bargain, in which Iran offered nuclear transparency, support in the war on terror and favorable pressure on Palestinians and Hizbollah in exchange for removal from the "Axis of Evil" and a little respect - essentially a "peace treaty." On paper, it was a bargain indeed. Unfortunately, we will never know how serious Iran was about the Khatami proposal was because it was flatly dismissed by the White House, which was riding high after invading Iraq and felt it could more easily force a desirable Tehran regime change.

But it was not to be. In the last five years, Iran has emerged as an imposing regional power trying to make it, according to Iranian expert Trita Parsi, as costly as possible for the U.S. not to negotiate. Washington's policy toward Iran has failed in almost every sense, which includes its efforts to bring about democratic and human rights changes. The current situation, as conveyed by several of the Osgood panelists this week, is dire: Iran seems poised to develop nuclear weapons and will not be swayed.

But some would argue, and I agree, that it is highly unlikely that Iran would use a nuclear weapon in a first-strike attack against Israel. To do so would ensure its own destruction. Though it may come across as irrational at times, it is not: the Iranian leadership is not a suicidal regime. Possessing a nuclear weapon would boost Iran's hard power, but it would never use it - even to "wipe Israel off the map." In fact, Parsi believes Iran does not intend to bring its program to completion, for doing so would set off a regional nuclear arms race in which a large country like Iran would have the most to lose. Possession of nuclear weapons is a great equalizer. Why would Iran encourage smaller countries in the region to pursue nuclear weapons when it already has a natural advantage?

While the Iranian nuclear possibility does not frighten me as much as it does some, nuclear proliferation of any kind is still dangerous. And it is painful to look back at how the Bush Administration closed the door on an opportunity with Iran that could have enabled cooperation and eased tensions at best, and opened the lines of communication with Tehran at worst.

A Nation Without a State

2008-08-08T21:35:00.002-04:00

Aside from the Kurds, the Palestinians are the largest people group in the world without an official state. Israel says it favors the creation of Palestine (the "two-state solution"), but it continues building what the World Court claims are illegal settlements around Jerusalem. Today, the European Union has criticized the continuing construction.

I asked an Israeli official about this today while visiting the embassy in Washington with a group from the Osgood Center for International Studies. He denied the new settlements and took the opportunity to criticize Palestinian looting of donated greenhouses almost two years ago. Typical maneuvering by a diplomat and illustrative of the accusatory rhetoric that has so far hindered a final Middle East agreement.

A New Level of Energy

2008-07-30T17:54:00.005-04:00

Okay, now we're talking.

There are millions like me who believe in the development and use of clean energy, but there are very few who combine a can-do attitude with the necessary resources for immediate action like T. Boone Pickens. The multi-billionaire and former oil magnate is pushing the Pickens Plan, a "blueprint to reduce foreign oil dependence by harnessing domestic energy alternatives" including a proposal for the world's largest wind farm. The Midwest, he says, is to wind what Saudi Arabia is to oil - and he has the maps to prove it. According to the Plan, the electricity produced through increased wind energy would free up natural gas for powering compressed natural gas vehicles (CNG), which are already available at competitive prices. The gas itself costs considerably less than gasoline. The ultimate goal: less dependence on foreign oil. Pickens presented his plan to Congress last week, and hopes to build popular support through town hall-style meetings and media appearances. It seems to be working. Even the Sierra Club's Carl Pope, who is far from Pickens on the political spectrum, has advocated the Pickens Plan. Regardless of the success of this specific strategy, Pickens has managed to infuse a new level of energy into the movement, not only for energy independence, but also for environmental stewardship. Not bad for an 80-year old oil tycoon.

Is This Really News?

2008-07-22T12:36:00.003-04:00

Shame on CNN, Reuters, Yahoo, ABC News and any other media outlets that made the decision to tell us that John McCain's New York Times opinion article was "rejected." This is not only not news, it is irresponsible journalism. First, the primary source, The New York Times itself, has avoided making it a big deal. No where on its opening web page does it mention the "story." Furthermore, the paper has made it clear that it is "standard procedure... to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission." How does CNN see "standard procedure" as news? Worse yet, CNN claims in its headline that McCain's article was "rejected." This is misleading. One of the verb's meanings denotes "refuse to accept," which is technically correct. The paper did refuse to accept that particular version of McCain's article. But the word "reject" connotes something much more final. Upon scanning the headline, the reader will conclude that the essay submission process is finished and that McCain's opinion will not be published. This is simply not true. The Times will likely publish McCain's article (as it has with seven of his previous Op-Ed pieces) only when the process has been completed. CNN has failed in this case to convey news that is true - especially with its exaggerated headline choice. Unfortunately, shallow stories and misleading titles at CNN are all too common. So, is it time to "reject" CNN?

...And One to Go

2008-07-21T22:13:00.002-04:00

After eluding capture for more than ten years, Bosnian Serb war criminal Radovan Karadžić is finally in custody. He is at least partly responsible for one of the most horrifying events of the 1992-1995 Bosnian War when he organized the massacre of nearly 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica, then designated a UN safe area. Now in custody, Karadžić has already gone before the Belgrade War Crimes Court and will soon be extradicted to the ad-hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague where he will face charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. While this is clearly big news for families of the victims, it also helps Serbia's chances of admittance to the European Union. More broadly, as ICTY prosecutor Serge Brammertz said, Karadžić's arrest "demonstrates that nobody is beyond the reach of the law and that sooner or later all fugitives will be brought to justice." The next fugitive in line: Ratko Mladić, also indicted by the ICTY for genocide.

Ready for Departure?

2008-07-13T20:29:00.005-04:00

A few weeks ago, a friend forwarded me an article about a $300 million passenger rail project underway that is designed to relieve traffic congestion, ease the impact of high oil prices and provide thousands of jobs. Guess where. If you said China or India, no cigarro. (If you said the United States, minus five cigarros.) Nope, it's Jamaica, a country with a per capita GDP (PPP) of just $7,700. The government is set to build new tracks, along with 18 new train stations across the country over the course of three years (with help from China, btw). Though the end product in Jamaica will not approach the size or efficiency of the high-speed rail systems of Europe or Japan, the project demonstrates a degree of foresight and initiative regarding modern transportation that has been discouragingly absent in the United States. Our current answer to the French TGV is Amtrak's Acela Express from D.C. to Boston, which completes the 700-kilometer trip in over 6.5 hours. Yawn. The TGV can go over 1,000 kilometers in just 3.5 hours. Not only is rail speed much faster in Europe, but prices and availability are better as well. Only by traveling by rail in Europe can one truly understand what we are missing out on here. Eisenhower set up the interstate highway system over 50 years ago, so we know a large-scale transportation overhaul is possible. A U.S. rail upgrade is long overdue. Fortunately, the government is showing some interest. The House recently passed HR6003, which would allocate nearly $15 billion for "Amtrak capital and operating grants, state intercity passenger grants, and high-speed rail over the next five years." This is a positive step, but its implementation is still a long way even from the Jamaican project, which is set to begin construction by the end of the year. And it is light years from the European high-speed standard, which has been operating for decades. It will be interesting to see how long it takes for the U.S. high-speed train to leave the station.

What China and Russia Were Thinking

2008-07-11T23:59:00.002-04:00

China and Russia vetoed a proposal in the UN Security Council today that would have imposed long-overdue sanctions against Zimbabwe's corrupt government. It seems absurd: denying justice to a well-deserving tyrant. Yet go beyond the headline, and the whole picture begins to emerge.

China's foreign policy fundamentally differs from the Western approach in that it generally does not believe in meddling in the domestic affairs of other countries. This Confucian-based philosophy is as deeply ingrained in the Chinese as the Western evangelistic nature of spreading ideals like democracy. For example, China sees its struggle with Taiwan as internal, and therefore off limits to others. Likewise, its economic ties with Sudan, however controversial, are no one's business but theirs. In the case of Zimbabwe, Chinese UN Ambassador Wang Guangya defended China's veto by saying that the situation "has not exceeded the context of domestic affairs."

Similarly, Russia's decision to veto sanctions hinges on the fact that the crisis in Zimbabwe has (arguably) not spread throughout the region. It is not an international threat, say the Russians. Sure enough, Article 39 of the UN Charter says "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace... and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken... to maintain or restore international peace and security."

While some are sure to interpret the actions of Russia and China as condoning Mugabe, the reality is different. China's is mostly a veto based on principle and Russia's is based on interpretation. Want to place blame? Try the UN's outdated Security Council with absolute veto power granted to the four post-World War II powers (Russia, France, Great Britain and the U.S.) plus China - hardly representative of today's global dynamic. Or the UN's Charter, which apparently could use some clarification.

A Journalism Legend

2008-06-13T17:29:00.004-04:00

I include myself as one of millions who tuned in each week to watch Tim Russert. He was one of the most well-respected, influential political journalist of his time. Described at once as tough and objective, kind and personable, Russert epitomized journalistic integrity throughout his career, which includes 17 years as host of "Meet the Press." Russert was a man of faith, devoted to his family and his profession. He was also a patriot. And one of the highest compliments to Russert is that he was determined in seeking accountability from public officials - a great service to his country. Tim Russert will be sorely missed.

Couldn't We See This Coming?

2008-06-04T21:14:00.002-04:00

Zimbabwe is a sovereign state. There, I said it. That was hard to say because the government of Robert Mugabe seems to have done its best to pursue illegitimacy. On Wednesday, Mugabe's political opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, was arrested at a roadblock by the Zimbabwean police (read: Mugabe's henchmen). Tsvangirai had been in self-imposed exile for fear of assassination following the March elections in which he narrowly defeated Mugabe. He recently reemerged to build support and momentum for the runoff election scheduled for June 27th. However, Mugabe is making it clear he has no intention of leaving office, and that he will not be deterred by the international community of concerned, yet powerless NGOs and disaffected Western governments. As long as there is an illusion of democracy in Zimbabwe, an enabler in Thabo Mbeki and little interest from Western states, Mugabe will continue his cowardly and shameful dictatorship - and Zimbabweans will continue to suffer.

A Multidimensional Perspective of History

2008-05-30T19:15:00.005-04:00

World War II occupies a special place in American history. Yet the American perspective on World War II differs from those of other countries. Becoming familiar with the Russian narrative, for example, will give us a more complete (and accurate) picture of the war. The Soviets lost 23 million soldiers and civilians, while the United States lost 418,000. The eastern front was the principal theater in the war, not the western front with which we are more familiar: (Normandy, Sicily and the Battle of the Bulge). Seventy-five percent of German forces fought in the east against the Soviets. The largest battle in history occurred at Kursk in 1943, where 1.5 million Germans and Soviets fought for over a month and a half. The eastern front was the main stage. The western front, as Fareed Zakaria suggests, was a "in many ways a sideshow."

One would be a fool to argue that the United States did not help turn the tide in World War II. But our narrative - our take on world history and events - when diluted with national pride, creates a distorted lens through which objective history becomes blurred. Our perspective of the war is biased. So, too, is Russia's. Somewhere in between exists the truth.

Ideally, of course, a historian would isolate an event like World War II and attempt to see it through the narratives of Indians, Germans, Chinese, Australians - all nations in fact, to achieve a more accurate and well-rounded perspective. Impractical? Perhaps. But historians should accept no substitutes for the truth - or at least as close as they can get.

A Tragic Legacy

2008-05-29T18:46:00.004-04:00

In 1997, the International Organization to Ban Landmines was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for leading the effort to negotiate a multilateral treaty prohibiting "the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines." Thousands of civilians are injured or killed by landmines each year; many are children. According to Human Rights Watch, 141 countries have ratified the treaty. Among those who have not: Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Myanmar, China, Russia and Syria. Not exactly the Norways of the world. But what is troubling is that the United States has not ratified the treaty either. In what should have been a no-brainer, the U.S. decided to not to put limits (even ethical limits) on its comparatively gargantuan military arsenal.

Therefore, it should come as little surprise that the U.S. opted out of a similar treaty on Wednesday to ban cluster bombs - small bombs that disperse over a large area when fired, but that frequently do not detonate upon impact. The unintended (and understood) result is similar to that of landmines - innocent civilians are maimed when they pick them up or step on them. (The dangerous effects from Israel's widespread use of cluster bombs in southern Lebanon in 2006 will remain for years.) But given the opportunity to participate in the cluster bomb ban treaty, the United States is again asserting its prerogative to do as it pleases, feeling no obligation to join the 111 countries (including our closest ally, Great Britain) who signed the agreement.

The use of landmines and cluster bombs creates a tragic legacy that lingers long after a conflict has passed. Most countries recognize this and have organized themselves to prohibit their use. They have done so without the leadership or participation of the United States. This would have been an irrelevant fact ten years ago, but as power slowly shifts and developing countries emerge, the U.S. may again find itself in a compromising mood. And that won't be a bad thing.

Obama: Avoiding the 'Yes' Men

2008-05-25T15:48:00.003-04:00

Last week in Florida, Barack Obama suggested that if elected president, he would build a team of advisers the same way Abraham Lincoln did: by including his political opponents. Lincoln, as historian Doris Kearns Goodwin points out in "Team of Rivals," was a strong, confident president who united his adversaries and, indeed, the country through his "political genius." Instead of surrounding himself with "yes" men, he welcomed internal debate among his opponents that ultimately refined and strengthened his strategies. In the outgoing administration, we have seen the dangers that result when the president's counsel comes from a like-minded group: ineptitude, failing policies and poor accountability.

If elected, Obama would be wise to follow his hero's model. It is easy to lead when political opposition comes from an unseen, distant constituency; it is more difficult to lead when the challenge comes from your own strategists. However, as in economics, competition leads to product improvement. And in the case of the White House, the product is policy.

Being the Church

2008-05-19T17:58:00.002-04:00

For almost 30 years, Robert Mugabe has led Zimbabwe as only a dictator can: his loyal military and police live well while everyone else suffers. The devastating economic free fall under his careless leadership has destroyed the nation: inflation has been so astronomical lately (200,000%) that the newly minted Zimbabwean 500 million dollar bill could be used to buy little more than a loaf of bread. Mugabe's stranglehold on politics is evident by the fact that he lost the election a month ago and still maintains power. His political opponents fear for their lives. Thomas Friedman argues that "there is no more disgusting leader in the world today than Mugabe." As a result of the worsening political and economic conditions, nearly 3 million Zimbabweans have fled to South Africa - many fearing persecution or death for their anti-Mugabe political views. Adding to the tragedy, some South Africans have not exactly opened their arms to these desperate refugees: anti-immigration violence in Johannesburg killed 22 people on Monday alone.

In the midst of this regional inhospitality, some Zimbabweans have found refuge at the Central Methodist Church in Johannesburg. In fact, 700 people stay at the church each night, huddled together in tight quarters. Bishop Paul Verryn, a white South African, has opened his church specifically to those who have fled the extreme poverty and instability of Zimbabwe. The church accommodates everyone from women and their newborns to college students seeking to create future opportunities for themselves (Bishop Verryn even pays the tuition for some).

This is what "being the church" is all about.

Disaster Explained

2008-05-17T22:01:00.002-04:00

It has been the most downloaded podcast on iTunes for months, if not years, and now I know why. This American Life with Ira Glass is an exceptional, well-produced hour-long program that is, by its own admission, difficult to describe. Last Sunday, I listened to the program for the first time as it brilliantly explained the current mortgage situation. The humorous and down-to-earth storytelling style draws the listener in. The next thing I knew, I had come to understand the housing crisis. I highly recommend This American Life, usually heard Sundays on public radio.

Turning a Corner?

2008-04-01T22:42:00.002-04:00

A new BBC World Service poll reveals an improving overall opinion of the United States since last year. This comes exactly one day after I used a 2007 Pew survey to illustrate an increasingly negative world opinion of the United States. What has changed? Polling director Steven Kull suggests, "[i]t may be that as the US approaches a new presidential election, views of the US are being mitigated by hope that a new administration will move away from the foreign policies that have been so unpopular in the world." By the way, among the 13 countries (plus the EU) rated in the poll, Iran and Israel were viewed most negatively. See the complete report here (pdf).

Part of the Whole

2008-03-31T22:36:00.004-04:00

I've been seeing more and more being written about the changing U.S. role in the world in recent decades. As the only superpower in the post-Cold War system, the United States has enjoyed the ability to act in its own self-interest without much cost. But decades of manipulation and meddling in other countries' affairs, along with its more recent antisocial behavior (rejecting Kyoto and the ICC) has stained its international image. In her book, The Idea that is America, Anne-Marie Slaughter points out that the world has certainly noticed our arrogance. The attitude of American exceptionalism has managed to squander much of the international empathy we received following the 2001 terrorist attacks. A 2007 Pew Research Center survey of global opinions revealed an “increasing disapproval of the cornerstones of U.S. foreign policy.” With a new administration entering the White House in less than a year, some are anxiously anticipating how this will affect America's foreign policy. Chances are, says The Economist, there will not be much of a change in our self-reliant approach. But the U.S. would be wise to reconsider its stewardship of power in anticipation of long-term global developments. Fareed Zakaria writes in his upcoming book, The Post-American World, that emerging powers such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) will ultimately force the U.S. to adapt its foreign policies amid unfamiliar economic, social and political dynamics. So why not begin now? Doing so will ultimately benefit the U.S. as well as the rest of the world. For there is much at stake (climate change, free markets, spreading democracy), and cooperation – rather than unilateralism - is crucial. It is time for the United States to once again function as part of the whole.