International Policy Digest Volume I Issue VI

By Conn M. Hallinan

by Rashad Aliyev

by Cpt. Kent Eiler

by Richard Javad Heydarian

Volume I Issue VI

Copyright 2012 by International Policy Digest

The content found within this PDF a reproduction of articles written for International Policy Digest.

The views and opinions expressed on International Policy Digest and in this publication are the author's own.

International Policy Digest supports legitimate use of and reproduction of its articles.

Articles and material found on IPD, not originally written by one of our many contributors or editorial staff, have been made available to IPD either through a Creative Commons license or through the express

wishes of those website's managing editors or staff.

GOP and Putin Find Common Ground: The Cold War by John K Yi 3

What Marwan Barghouti Really Means to Palestinians by Ramzy Baroud 4

Why Europe is �ot Yet ‘A Culture of Peace’ by Richard Falk 5

Hungary’s Sovereignty Struggle by Daniel Donovan 10

The Tailor of Chongquing?: A Political Thriller Fit for Hollywood by Tristan McInnis 1 3

The Promise of Colombia by Michael W Edghill 14

The Logic of Unintended Consequences: The 'Mess in Mali' by Ramzy Baroud 17

Risk with Great Reward in South America by William Eger 20

What’s Left? by Deepak Tripathi 21

Photo Citations 35

Immigration Anxiety and Ruminations on Thought Police by Gibson Bateman 23

Reinvention �onalignment by Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi 24

China: The Frog and theScorpion

by Conn M Hallinan 8

Russia Unlikely to See ReformsPost-Medvedevby Rashad Aliyev 11

Lessons Hidden in Afghanistanby Cpt. Kent Eiler 15

Why Iran Will Compromise This Timeby Richard Javad Heydarian 18

Conference Report: 'Humanity and Humanitarianism in Crisis by Claire McCurdy 25

Peace Corps Diary: Part 10 by Richard Lyman 28

�uclear Weapons are �ot Instruments of Peace! by Richard Falk 29

Somali’s Compete for Foreign Domination by Mohamud Uluse 31

Drug Policy in the Western Hemisphere by Taylor Dibbert 32

Social Business and the Environment by Jahangir Alam Sarker 33

International Policy Digest Volume I Issue VI

March 15th - 31 st

International Policy Digest (IPD) is currently accepting online submissions.

If you are a seasoned professional or a recent college graduate or just entering college for the first time, and

would enjoy writing for an online journal then International Policy Digest welcomes your submissions.

If you wish to contribute to International Policy Digest, send us an email with “Submission” in the header and

submit the manuscript to [email protected]

International Policy Digest is seeking fact-based analysis with either anecdotal evidence or direct citations to

back up any opinions and analysis within your articles.

Any attached articles should be in Word and single-spaced with any hyperlinks either already included or below

the main body of your work. While one of our editors will undoubtedly proofread your work prior to publication

please take care to do so yourself.

Importantly, documents should be saved in Word 97-2004 Document (.doc) format.

Please include bio about yourself. This can include your academic background, previous scholarly work and with

whom you are professionally affiliated.

Write for International Policy Digest

To advertise on International Policy Digest, please contact:

John Lyman

Editor-in-Chief

International Policy Digest

434 Prince Street

P.O. Box 21 1

Tappahannock, VA 22560

Tel: 804.269.6748

e-mail: [email protected]

In addition to online advertisement opportunities, you can also contact John Lyman about advertising on IPD’s

print edition issue available in PDF format and downloadable from the website.

Advertise with International Policy Digest

Republican Presidential primary

front-runner Mitt Romney declared

Russia, “without question, [is] our

number one geopolitical foe”. This state-

ment accompanied a larger criticism

lobbied against President Obama and his

‘hot mic’ slip, last week, with Russian

President Dimitry Medvedev at the Seoul

Nuclear Summit.

During a press conference, Obama

was overheard asking Medvedev, the

soon-to-be Prime Minister, for more time

and space regarding the U.S. missile

defense system in Europe, stating that he

would “have more flexibility” after the

November elections.

The days that followed have been a

pile on by the Republican Party, who

have been long-time critics of the

President’s “Reset” diplomacy with

Russia. Many on the right have called the

incident in Seoul as further evidence of

the President’s weakness on security and

over willingness to compromise on U.S.

interests and her allies.

Furthermore, the ever-elongating Re-

publican primary dogfight has only made

Obama’s gaffe fodder for political

conservative punditry. And even after two

decades have passed since the fall of the

Soviet Union and the end of the Cold

War, rhetoric of Moscow as once again

an untrustworthy partner that should be

held at an arms length and with a wary

eye has resurfaced.

3

GOP and Putin Find Common Ground: The Cold WarBy John K. Yi

03 April 2012

of the “administration’s apparent willingness to make unilateral concessions to Russia that

undermine our missile defense capabilities”, and citing Iran, Syria, and �orth Korea as

examples ofMoscow’s “reckless ambitions.”

Even Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, once presidential candidate and always a

reliable source of fringe right-wing opinions, called Russia a member of a “new axis of

evil” during an interview in November of last year.

And despite American public opinion, which says that a meager 2% consider Russia as

America’s top enemy (compared to 93% in 1983), the rally against a country that served as

the iconic American enemy for nearly half a century appears to be a popular strategy to woo

voters.

The Republicans are not alone during this year’s campaign season in reviving Cold War

fears. During Putin’s presidential campaign, the Kremlin and the candidate himself have

delivered a number of remarks laden with anti-American language, conjuring up caricature

portraits of the U.S. as an imperial and subversive force in world politics.

When Michael McFaul became the U.S. ambassador to Russia in January, the Kremlin

was quick to accuse the embassy and the Gosdep, the Russian word for the State

Department, as the deep-pocketed supporters of the mass protests in Moscow, whose

crowds numbered in the hundreds of thousands.

Furthermore, state-run television stations ran programs haranguing the ambassador as a

non-Russia specialist but instead a specialist on “promoting democracy,” or otherwise

known as Western interference in Russia’s domestic affairs.

After Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the 201 1 December Duma elections

neither honest nor fair, Putin fought back telling his supporters at his campaign kick off

rally that she has “set the tone for some actors in our country and gave them a signal… they

heard the signal and with the support ofthe U.S. State Department began active work”.

And in January, in a speech to his supporters in the Siberian city of Tomsk, Putin

sharpened his tone saying that the United States wanted to control everything and that

“sometimes I get the impression the U.S. doesn’t need allies, it needs vassals.”

And so both sides are culpable when it comes to reviving Cold War fears in modern day

elections. Still, as biting, derisive, and unproductive as such language may be, perhaps it is

just a symptom of desperate campaigns. After all, the GOP’s sharp criticism of Obama and

Russia comes at a time when the party is still hobbling towards a nomination eight months

away from a general election. As for Putin, his anti-American campaign speeches were

Both sides are culpablewhen it comes to revivingColdWar fears in modern

day elections

Runner-up Republican Presidential

candidate Rick Santorum’s campaign also

jumped at the opportunity to jab at

Obama. On the campaign trail in

Wisconsin, the former Senator likened

any compromise with Russia over the

missile defense system as letting them

“have their run of the table because

America’s no longer in the business of

protecting ourselves and our allies”.

Republican house majority leader

Congressman John Boehner sent an open

letter to the President expressing concern


geared towards exciting his core supporters; meanwhile the largest

popular opposition movement since the 1990s was taking to the

streets of Moscow. The two had more in common than they

thought.

But like most elections, once the candidate becomes the

elected, the fiery speeches and promises during the campaign

season rarely translate into policy and instead move towards the

center. Russia’s recently increase in pressure on the Assad regime,

coercing it to accept former UN Secretary General Annan’s peace

plan, is a clear example of the Kremlin’s adoption of a more

moderate position after the election.

As for the GOP, the general election campaign has barely

started and there is still plenty of time for the right to take more

swings against President Obama’s “Reset” diplomacy and make

further allusions to the Cold War. What impact this will have in

the meantime for U.S.-Russia relations remains uncertain.

However, it may explain what the President meant in Seoul

when he asked Medvedev to hold off on pressure until after the

elections: campaigns are all just talk. ■

class that has ruled Palestinians for many years, and is now merely

managing and profiting from the occupation. “Stop marketing the

illusion that there is a possibility of ending the occupation and

achieving a state through negotiations after this vision has failed

miserably,” he said. “It is the Palestinian people’s right to oppose

the occupation in all means, and the resistance must be focused on

the 1967 territories”.

4

What Marwan Barghouti Really Means toPalestiniansBy Ramzy Baroud

04 April 2012

Last week, Marwan Barghouti, the prominent Palestinian

political prisoner and Fatah leader, called on Palestinians to launch

a “large-scale popular resistance” which would “serve the cause

ofour people.”

The message was widely disseminated as it coincided with

Land Day, an event that has unified Palestinians since March

1976. Its meaning has morphed through the years to represent the

collective grievances shared by most Palestinians, including

dispossession from their land as a result of Israeli occupation.

Barghouti is also a unifying figure among Palestinians. Even

at the height of the Hamas-Fatah clashes in 2007, he insisted on

unity and shunned factionalism. It is no secret that Barghouti is

still a very popular figure in Fatah, to the displeasure of various

Fatah leaders, not least Mahmoud Abbas, who heads both the

Palestinian Authority and Fatah..

Throughout its indirect prisoners exchange talks with Israel,

Hamas insisted on Barghouti’s release. Israel, which had officially

charged and imprisoned Barghouti in 2004 for five alleged counts

of murder – but more likely because of his leading role in the

Second Palestinian Intifada – insisted otherwise.

Israel held onto Barghouti largely because of his broad appeal

among Palestinians. In late 2009, he told Milan-based Corriere

Della Sera that “the main issue topping his agenda currently is

achieving unity between rival Palestinian factions”.

More, he claimed that following a unity deal he would be

ready to submit candidacy for Palestinian presidency. Barghouti,

is, of course, still in prison. Although a unity deal has been signed,

it is yet to be actualized.

Barghouti’s latest statement is clearly targeting the political

It’s not his political savvy that made himpopular among Palestinians, but the fact

that he stands as the antithesis oftraditionalFatah and PA leadership

Last December, Jospeh Dana wrote: “Barghouti is a figure of

towering reverence among Palestinians and even some Israelis,

regardless ofpolitical persuasion”.

However, he did not earn his legitimacy among Palestinians

through his prophetic political views or negotiation skills. In fact,

he was among the Fatah leaders who hopelessly, although

genuinely, pursued peace through the ‘peace process’ , which

proved costly, if not lethal, to the Palestinian national movement.

Dana wrote: “Barghouti’s pragmatic approach to peace during

the 1990s demonstrated his overarching desire to end Israeli

occupation at all costs”.

Although his latest message has articulated a conclusion that

became obvious to most Palestinians – for example, that “it must

be understood that there is no partner for peace in Israel when the

settlements have doubled” – Barghouti’s call delineates a level of

political maturity that is unlikely to go down well, whether in

Ramallah or Tel Aviv.

So it’s not his political savvy, per se, that made him popular

among Palestinians, but the fact that he stands as the antithesis of

traditional Fatah and PA leadership.

Starting his political career at the age of 15, before being

imprisoned and deported to Jordan in his early 20s, Barghouti was

viewed among Fatah youth – the Shabibah – as the desired new

face of the movement. When he realized that the ‘peace process’

was a sham, intended to win time for Israeli land confiscation and

settlements and reward a few accommodating Palestinians,

Barghouti broke away from the Fatah echelons. Predictably, it was

also then, in 2001 , that Israel tried to assassinate him.

Marwan Barghouti still has some support in Israel itself,

specifically among the politically sensible who understand that

April 1 st - 1 5th

Netanyahu’s right-wing government cannot reach a peaceful

resolution, and that the so-called two-state solution is all but dead.

In a Haaretz editorial entitled ‘Listen to Marwan Barghouti,’

the authors discussed how “back when he was a peace-loving,

popular leader who had not yet turned to violence, Barghouti

made the rounds of Israeli politicians, opinion-makers and the

central committees of the Zionist parties and urged them to reach

an agreement with the Palestinians”. The authors recommended

that ‘Jerusalem’ listen to Barghouti because he “is the most

authentic leader Fatah has produced and he can lead his people to

an agreement”.

In his article entitled ‘The New Mandela’ , Uri Avnery wrote

that Barghouti “is one of the very few personalities around whom

all Palestinians, Fatah as well as Hamas, can unite”. However, it

is essential that a conscious separation is made between how

Barghouti is interpreted by the Palestinians themselves and Israelis

(even those in the left). Among the latter, Barghouti is presented as

a figure who might have been involved in the “murderous terror”

of the second Intifada (Haaretz), and who can also “lead his

people to an agreement” – as if Palestinians are reckless

multitudes desperate for their own Mandela, who is capable,

through his natural leadership skills, of uniting them into signing

another document.

For years, but especially after the Oslo peace process,

successive Israeli governments and officials have insisted that

there was “no one to talk to on the Palestinian side.”

The tired assertion was meant to justify Israel’s uni-lateral

policies, including settlement construction.

However, Barghouti is a treasured leader in the eyes of many

Palestinians not because he is the man that Israel can talk to or

because of any stereotypical undertones of him being a ‘strong

man’ who can lead the unruly Arabs. Nor can his popularity be

attributed to his political savvy or the prominence of his family.

Throughout the years, hundreds of Palestinians have been

targeted in extrajudicial assassinations; hundreds were deported

and thousands continue to be imprisoned.

Marwan Barghouti is a representation of all of them and more, and

it iss because of this legacy that his message matters, and greatly

so.

In his latest message, Barghouti said that the Palestinian

Authority should immediately halt “all co-ordination with Israel –

economic and security – and work towards Palestinian

reconciliation,” rather than another peace agreement.

Most Palestinians already agree. ■

It is undoubtedly true that the greatest unacknowledgedachievement of the European Union (EU) is to establish ‘a culture

of peace’ within its regional enclosure, for the 68 years since 1944.

This has meant not only the absence ofwar in Europe, but also the

absence of ‘war talk,’ threats, crises, and sanctions – the single

important exception of the NATO War of 1999 that was part of the

fallout from the breakup of former Yugoslavia.

This was undertaken by the American-led alliance; both to

accomplish the de facto independence of Kosovo from Serbian

rule, to ensure the post-Cold War viability of NATO, to reinforce

the lesson of the GulfWar (1991 ) that the West could win wars at

low costs due to their military superiority, and to rescue Albanian

Kosovars from a possible humanitarian catastrophe at the hands of

their Serb oppressors.

The contrast with the first half of the 20th century is stark

when Europe seemed definitely the global cockpit of the war

system in the East-West struggle for global supremacy. Millions of

soldiers and civilians died in response to the two German attempts

by force of arms to gain a bigger role within this European core of

West-centric geopolitics. Germany challenged the established

order not only by recourse to massive aggressive wars in the form

of World War I and II, but also by establishing a diabolical

political infrastructure that gave rise, in the 1930s, to the violently

genocidal ideologies ofNazism and fascism.

Even during the Cold War decades, Europe was not really at

peace, but always at the edge of yet another devastating war. For

the four decades of the Cold War, there existed a constant threat of

a war fought with nuclear weapons; a conflict that could have

produced totally devastating warfare at any point resulting from

either provocative American-led deployments of nuclear weapons

or inflammatory Soviet interventions in Eastern Europe, or from

the periodically tense relations in the divided city of Berlin. Also,

to some extent the Soviet Union, with its totalitarian variant of

state socialism, was as much European as it was Asian, and, thus,

to a degree the Cold War was being fought within Europe,

although its violent dimensions were prudently limited to the

global periphery.

Despite the current plans to surround Russia with defensive

missile systems – supposedly to construct a shield to stop Iranian

5

Why Europe is Not Yet ‘A Culture of Peace’By Richard Falk

05 April 2012


missiles – there seems little threat of any war being fought within

European space, and even a diplomatic confrontation seems

improbable at this point. In many respects, the EU culture of

peace, although partial and precarious, has been transformative for

Europeans even if this most daring post-Westphalia experiment in

regional integration and sovereignty has been wrongly assessed;

almost exclusively from an economistic perspective, trade and

investment statistics measure the strength of the Euro and the rate

of economic growth.

The deep financial crises afflicting its Mediterranean members

captures the public’s imagination without any appreciation of this

European contribution to peaceful regional governance.

Many foreign policy experts tend to discount this claim of an

internally peaceful Europe. Firstly, because it had the benefit of an

external Soviet adversary that made a political consensus among

European elites appear to be a condition of physical and

ideological survival. Secondly, because it could count on the

American military presence, hegemonically instrumentalized via

NATO, to protect Europe and to soften the edges of any intra-

European disagreements. This latter role helps us understand the

deployment in Europe of American forces so long after the

fighting stopped, even if gradually reduced from troop levels of

over 300,000 to the present 50,000.

Even this smaller military presence is maintained at high cost to

the United States, but it is widely seen in Washington as both a

guarantor of peace in Europe, and as an expression of America’s

global engagement and permanent repudiation of its earlier

geopolitical stance toward Europe of what was called

‘ isolationism.’

Such a stance was never truly descriptive of American foreign

policy, which almost from its time of independence was

expansionist and disposed toward intervention in hemispheric

affairs.

While I would with some qualifications affirm the European

experience with regionalism as a step forward from the perspective

of global governance, there are some darker features of European

behavior that need to be taken into account. The colonial powers

did not give up their empires without a fight. While the EU was

emerging from the wreckage of World War II, European powers

fought some dirty wars in futile efforts to hold onto their overseas

empires in such countries as Malaya, Indonesia, Indochina, and

Algeria.

In a sense, the European culture of violence toward non-

Europeans was taken over by the United States in its almost

continuous engagement in counterinsurgency warfare against the

peoples and nations of the South; a mode of one-sided warfare that

reached its climax during the Cold War in Vietnam and has risen

to alarming levels of destructiveness in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There are also some broader matters of global policy involved.

After the end of the Cold War, Western security priorities shifted

from the defense of Europe against a Soviet threat to an ongoing

campaign led by the United States to control the geopolitics of

energy. This refocusing shifted the fulcrum of world conflict from

Europe to the Middle East; a process strongly reinforced by

Washington’s willingness to follow Israel’s lead on most matters

of regional security.

In such settings external to the territorial domain of the EU,

the approach adopted under American leadership has been

premised on discretionary recourse to violence under NATO

banners, as in Afghanistan and Libya, especially following the

American resecuritization of world politics along liberal

internationalist lines since the NATO War in Kosovo, and even

more so after the 9/1 1 attacks.

6

The doctrinal masks oflaw and a U�mandate obscure the realities ofaggressivewar making, but should not be allowed todeceive those genuinely dedicated to a

peaceful and just world

The recent buildup toward war against Iran, allegedly because

it is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, is a further

demonstration of the contrast between the EU, as a European

regional arrangement based on the rejection of war as a foreign

policy option, and NATO, as a Western hierarchal alliance that

performs as a discretionary mechanism of military intervention in

the non-Western world, especially in the energy-rich countries of

the Muslim Middle East.

Iran is the poster child of such separation of Europe as a zone

of peace and the Islamic world as a zone of war. It is notable that

the threats to attack Iran in the coming months and the imposition

of four stages of crippling sanctions are premised on the

unacceptability of Iran’s nuclear program, which is allegedly

moving close to the threshold of nuclear weaponry. It could

certainly be doubted whether Iran was intent on acquiring nuclear

weapons, and thereby violating its pledge under the Nuclear

Nonproliferation Treaty, which would be grounds for recourse to

force.

If the issue were to be more reasonably contextualized it

would make us more aware of the relevance of Israel’s stealth

acquisition and development of nuclear weapons, accumulating an

arsenal estimated to exceed 300 warheads.

The exclusions of geopolitical discourse, facilitated by a

compliant media, allow Israel to lead the charge against Iran’s

supposed quest for nuclear weapons without even an

acknowledgement that in light of the overall realities the most

April 1 st - 1 5th

prudent and equitable approach would be for all states in the

region to unconditionally renounce their intention to acquire or

possess this infernal weaponry ofmass destruction.

But the situation is even more distressing than this shocking

embrace of double standards. The available evidence makes it

doubtful that Iran is even trying to become a nuclear weapons

state. This conclusion is supported by an apparent agreement of all

1 6 American intelligence agencies that share the view that a high

probability exists that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program

in 2003, and has not resumed it. This intelligence consensus

corresponds with the Iranian contention that it is not seeking to

acquire nuclear weapons.

The moves toward war against Iran have been amplified by

repeated threats of attack in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN

Charter, as well as by deliberately imposing punitive sanctions of

intensifying severity and by engaging in provocative destabilizing

intrusions on Iranian sovereignty taking the form of targeted

killings of nuclear scientists and the encouragement of anti-regime

violence.

Europe is a willing junior partner of the United States in this

post-colonial reassertion ofWestern interests in the oil-rich Middle

East, and thus complements its imperfect regional culture of peace

with a dangerous global culture ofwar and hegemony.

As might be expected, this kind of European role external to

Europe has sparked a variety of anti-European acts of violent

opposition. In turn, Europe has turned in an Islamophobic

direction, giving rise to anti-immigrant reactionary politics that are

mainly directed against Islamic minorities living within its midst,

to a reluctance to move down the road leading to Turkish

accession to EU membership, and to various restrictions of

religious freedom associated with the practice of religious Islamic

women such as wearing a headscarf or burka.

What is striking here is the dedication by the West to sustain

by relying on its military superiority the colonial hierarchy of

North/South relations in the post-colonial world order. The state

system has been universalized since 1945, but the countries of the

North, under American leadership, have continuously intervened

to promote Western interests at the cost ofmillions of lives, first as

an aspect of worldwide anti-Soviet and anti-Chinese geopolitics,

and more recently, to secure oil reserves and to counter Islamic

political moves to control national governance structures, as in

Afghanistan. The West no longer seeks to fly its flag over the

governmental buildings of non-Western countries, but is hungry as

ever for their resources, as well as to ensure receptivity to Western

foreign investment and trade interests.

Whether to slay the dragons of Communism or Islam, or to

satisfy the bloodthirsty appetites of liberal internationalists that

champion ‘humanitarian interventions,’ the dogs of war are still

howling in the West. The doctrinal masks of law and a UN

mandate obscure the realities of aggressive war making, but should

not be allowed to deceive those genuinely dedicated to a peaceful

and just world. For one thing, we should not be fooled by

belligerent governments relying on legitimizing imprimatur of the

Responsibility to Protect—R2P—norm, as in Libya or Syria, to

mount their military operations, while at the same time adhering to

a non-interventionary ethos when it comes to Gaza, Kashmir,

Chechnya, Kurdistan, Tibet).

Of course, consistency is not the whole story, but it does

penetrate the thick haze of geopolitical hypocrisy. More basic is

the renunciation of violent geopolitics and reliance for social and

political change on the dynamics of self-determination. Let us

appreciate that the biggest successes took place in the Arab Spring

where the uprisings were essentially non-violent and there was

minimal external interference, and the most dubious outcomes

have occurred where the anti-regime movement was violent and

received decisive military assistance from without.

Unfortunately, despite the complexities involved we cannot

count on the United Nations partly because the veto creates a

possibility to preclude appropriate responses (as in relation to

Israeli abuses of Palestinians) or its failure to be used due to

geopolitical pressures authorizes essentially unlawful warfare (as

in relation to the Libyan intervention where opponents abstained

rather than block military action). True, the UN can sometimes

withhold its certification for aggression, as it did in 2003 when it

rejected the American appeal for a mandate to invade and occupy

Iraq, but even then it stood aside when the aggression took place,

and even entered Iraq to take part in consolidating the outcome of

the unlawful attacks.

The UN can be useful in certain peacemaking and peace-

keeping settings, but when it comes to war prevention it has lost

credibility because it is tied too closely to the lingering dominance

ofWestern geopolitics.

These critical assessments highlight the need of persons

seeking peace and justice to work within and beyond the

established channels of institutional governance. And more

specifically, to take note of what Europe has achieved, and might

yet achieve, without overlooking past and present colonial and

colonialist wrongdoing. In this respect, we need both a UN that

becomes as detached as possible from its geopolitical minders and

a robust global Occupy Movement that works to provide the

peoples of the world with a democratic public order that protects

our lives and is respectful of nature’s limits. ■

7


China: The Frog and the ScorpionBy Conn M. Hallinan

05 April 2012

8

B ehind the political crisis that saw the recent fall of powerful

Communist Party leader Bo Xiali is an internal battle over how to

handle China’s slowing economy and growing income disparity,

while shifting from a cheap labor export driven model to one built

around internal consumption. Since China is the second largest

economy on the planet — and likely to become the first in the next

20 to 30 years — getting it wrong could have serious conse-

quences, from Beij ing to Brasilia, and from Washington to

Mumbai.

China’s current major economic challenges include a danger-

ous housing bubble, indebted local governments, and a widening

wealth gap; problems replicated in most of the major economies in

the world. Worldwide capitalism — despite China’s self-

description as “socialism with Chinese characteristics” — is in the

most severe crisis since the great crash of the 1930s.

The question is: can any country make a system with serious

built-in flaws function for all its people? While capitalism was the

first economic system to effectively harness the productive

capacity of humanity, it is also characterized by periodic crises,

vast inequities, and a self-destructive profit motive that lays waste

to everything from culture to the environment.

Can capitalism be made to work without smashing up the

landscape? China has already made enormous strides in using its

version of the system to lift hundreds of millions of people out of

poverty and create the most dynamic economy on the planet; no

small accomplishment in an enormous country with more than a

billion people. Over the past 30 years, China has gone from a poor,

largely rural nation to an economic juggernaut that has tripled

urban income and increased life expectancy by six years.

But trying to make a system like capitalism work for all is a

little like playing whack-a-mole.

For instance, China’s overbuilding has produced tens of

millions of empty apartments. “Ifwe blindly develop the housing

market [a] bubble will emerge in the sector. When it bursts more

than just the housing market will be affected, it will weigh on the

Chinese economy,” said China’s Premier, Wen Jiabao. And,

indeed, by controlling the banks — and thus credit and financing

— real estate prices have recently fallen in most mainland cities.

But since 1 3 percent of China’s Gross Domestic Product is

residential construction, a sharp drop in building will produce

unemployment at the very time that a new five-year plan (201 1 -

2015) projects down-shifting the economy from a 9 percent

growth rate to 7.5 percent.

What worries China’s leaders is that one of capitalism’s

engines of self-destruction — economic injustice and inequality —

is increasing. According to Li Shu, an economist at Beij ing

Normal University, from 1988 to 2007, the average income of the

top 12 percent went from 10 times the bottom 10 percent, to 23

April 1 st - 1 5th

times the bottom 10 percent. According to the Financial Times, it

is estimated that China’s richest 1 percent control 40 to 60 percent

of total household wealth.

Wealth disparity and economic injustice have fueled

“incidents,” ranging from industrial strikes to riots by farmers over

inadequate compensation for confiscated land. Endemic local

corruption feeds much of the anger.

The government is trying to address this issue by raising taxes

on the wealthy, lowering them on the poor, and including more

“poor” in a category that makes them eligible for subsidies. Wen

said last year that China aims to “basically eradicate poverty by

2020”. According to the United Nations, some 245 million

Chinese still live in extreme poverty.

be lost,” and that “such a historical tragedy as the Cultural

Revolution may happen again.”

Changing course in a country like China is akin to turning an

aircraft carrier: start a long time in advance and give yourself

plenty of sea room. If China is to shift its economy in the direction

of its potentially huge home market, it will have to improve the

lives of its citizens. Wages have gone up between 15 and 20

percent over the past two years and are scheduled to rise another

15 percent.

But social services will also have to be improved. Health

care, once free, has become a major burden for many Chinese, a

problem the government will have to address.

There are some in the Chinese government whose definition

of “reform” is ending government involvement in the economy

and shifting to a wide-open free market system. It is not clear that

the bulk of China’s people would support such a move. All they

have to do is look around them to the see the wreckage such an

economic model inflicts in other parts of the world.

Can capitalism work without all the collateral damage? Karl

Marx, the system’s great critic, thought it could not. Can China

figure out a way to overcome its system’s flaws, or is this the tale

of the frog and the scorpion?

The scorpion asked the frog to ferry it across a river, but the

frog feared the scorpion would sting him. The scorpion protested:

“If I sting you, than I die as well.” So the frog put the scorpion on

his back and began to swim. When he reached mid-stream, the

scorpion stung him. The dying frog asked “Why?” and the

scorpion replied, “Because it is my nature.”

Can China swim the scorpion across the river and avoid the

sting? Stay tuned. ■

9

Tiananmen has considerable relevance inthe current situation, since the main

demands ofthe demonstrators were notdemocracy but an end to corruption and

high food prices

Beij ing has also reined in the sale of land by local

municipalities. But since the major way that cities and provinces

generate money is through land sales, this has made it difficult for

local areas to pay off their debts, maintain their infrastructures, and

provide services.

Whack one mole, up pops another.

There is a growing willingness by the average Chinese citizen

to confront problems like pollution, corruption, and even nuclear

power. Part of the current debate in the Communist Party

leadership is over how to respond to such increased political

activity. Bo had a reputation as a “populist” and campaigned

against economic injustice and corruption. But he was also

opposed to revisiting the issue of Tiananmen Square, where, in

1989, the People’s Liberation Army fired on demonstrators.

Tiananmen has considerable relevance in the current situation,

since the main demands of the demonstrators were not democracy

but an end to corruption and high food prices. It is no accident that

when food prices began rising two years ago the government

moved to cut inflation from 6.5 percent to 3.2 percent this past

February.

While the government generally responds to demonstrations

with crackdowns the policy has somewhat moderated over the past

year. When farmers ran local leaders and Communist Party

officials out of the town ofWutan, the provincial government sent

in negotiators, not police. Anti-pollution protests forced authorities

to shut down several factories. At the same time, the government

has tightened its grip on the Internet, still arrests people at will,

and is not shy about resorting to force.

It is clear the possibility of major political upheaval worries

the current leadership and explains why Premier Wen recently

called up the furies of the past. The current economic growth is

“unbalanced and unsustainable” he said. “Without successful

political structural reform, it is impossible for us to fully institute

economic structural reform and the gain we made in this area may


When the Hungarian Communist

regime fell in 1989, the transition

occurred rather smoothly. The transition

to democracy had been encouraged by

political parties such as the Christian

Nationalist Party and the Hungarian

Democratic Forum.

Hungary did not witness the same

amount of violence that has followed

dramatic shifts in governance like in

Romania, at the time, or Iraq, in the early

part of the last decade, or in Libya, this

decade. A gradual transformation to full

democracy was planned and executed.

The main proponent supporting the

move to a social democracy was Viktor

Orbán. Orbán, then only 26, who

demanded that Soviet troops withdraw

and free and fair elections be held. Flash

forward to April 2010 when Orbán’s

conservative party, Fidesz, won a

supermajority, commandeering two-thirds

of the parliamentary seats, as well as

making Orbán Prime Minister.

Since that time the fears of a return to

an authoritarian rule have risen under the

watch ofOrbán’s government.

Recently, Orbán has led an effort to

change Hungary’s constitution and

institute curbs on free speech and the

media. There is also a lurking suspicion

among many that Orbán’s agenda

includes staying on as prime minister.

Hugo Chavez as the most authoritarian-styled elected leader in the 27-nation European

Union.”

“Most visible was his media law, which places all Hungarian broadcasters and

newspapers under the thumb of a watchdog panel ofFidesz supporters with the power to

police newspapers’ pages for ‘balance’ and fine them…That law led to furious

denunciations in the European Parliament last week, and worries that Hungary was

leading a Central European turn to authoritarianism.”

This has created a dispute with the European Union and the International Monetary

Fund, not to mention condemnation from the United States.

Orbán’s efforts to role back freedom of the press and free speech, as well as curtailing

civil liberties, has some wondering whether Hungary, under the stewardship of Viktor

Orbán, is becoming an authoritarian state along the lines of Russia under soon to be

president, Vladimir Putin, or Belarus under Alexander Lukashenko.

While objecting, the European Union, the International Monetary Fund and the United

States must work on a unified solution that will not provoke Viktor Orbán’s government

into non-cooperation. The EU and others must walk a very fine line in order to avoid

forcing Orbán into a corner.

In early 201 1 , Orban, then acting president of the EU, defended Hungary’s media law.

The media law essentially placed broadcasters and print media under the supervision of an

oversight panel run by Fidesz supporters and will, if newspapers or media outlets are found

errant of the law, fine them accordingly and they could possibly find their licenses revoked.

“His (Orbán’s) parliament passed a set oflaws governing the media…A new, state-run

media council, composed entirely ofFidesz appointees, now has the right to impose fines of

up to $1 million for journalism it considers ‘unbalanced,” Anne Applebaum writes in the

Washington Post.

The media law was quickly followed by Orbán’s continued defiance of EU’s member-

ship laws, when he appointed a third-central bank vice-governor and allowed his Monetary

Council to set interest rates. The new law also states that the central bank can merge with

the state financial regulator and demote the central-bank governor at his discretion.

This amounts simply to the complete takeover of the state by the banking sector. On

top of all of this, adjustments were made in the judicial system that excludes checks and

balances on the system and a new-flat tax law also came into effect. All of these changes

created an atmosphere where all three branches and the banking sector are under the control

10

Hungary’s Sovereignty StruggleBy Daniel Donovan

06 April 2012

All ofthese changescreated an atmospherewhere all three branchesand the banking sector areunder the control ofoneparty and subsequently, oneman, Viktor Orbán

The Globe and Mail’s Doug Saunders

writes: “Across Europe, leaders have

been reacting with alarm to a man who

has used this huge surge of popularity to

impose an assertive, intensely

nationalistic style ofpolitics. It marks the

latest stage in his startling journey –

long-haired, anti-communist libertine in

the 1980s; democracy-movement hero in

1989; increasingly conservative leader in

the 1990s; and today, a figure likened to

Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Venezuela’s

April 1 st - 1 5th

of one party and subsequently, one man, Viktor Orbán.

When these regulations were enacted into law, the threat from

the European Commission and the IMF were clear: reform or lose

financial assistance.

Recently, Orbán, knowing that Hungary’s reeling economy

desperately needed further funding, told the European Commission

and IMF officials that he would discuss amending the laws in

order to remain in compliance with any EU regulations.

However, anywhere from 100,000 to 400,000 Fidesz

supporters took to the streets in protest of the European

Commission and IMF restrictions.

Due to Viktor Orbán’s popularity, the EU needs to be careful

in insisting that all of these laws be amended. Although, ultimately

the EU has significant powers, especially in the financial sector, it

would have a daunting, if not impossible task, of expelling

Hungary as a member state.

Moreover, this seems extremely unlikely due to the fragile

state of several Eurozone countries; namely, Greece, Portugal,

Italy and Spain; and EU minister’s desires to keep the fiscal union

intact.

Because of the newly ratified Lisbon Treaty, if the circum-

stance were to arise where Hungary claimed that the situation has

changed enough since they originally became a member, they

could technically withdraw. This scenario is unlikely. Therefore,

compromise will remain the most likely solution.

However, the EU needs to examine its authority in forcing a

massive overhaul of any new laws in Hungary. First, both Orbán

and his Fidesz party were elected in what was deemed free and fair

elections. Second, public support for Orbán’s government

becomes problematic when attempting to control a nation, which

legally, the European Commission only possesses partial

sovereignty over.

The public protests in Budapest prompts the question: are

these laws what the people want? If this is true, as it appears to be,

then minor changes and cautious negotiation must be utilized to

avoid ostracizing an entire nation, or worse, having them reject

compromise.

Considering the role of social media and mass protests that

have ruptured in several European states, European Union officials

are wary of forcing change on another European state.

The EU needs to consider its options before taking a hard

stance against Orbán’s government. Change and a return to a more

democratic ideological political system should be encouraged, but

not at the expense of the will of the people, the foundation on

which democracy is founded. ■

1 1

Russia Unlikely toSee Reforms

PostMedvedevBy Rashad Aliyev

09 April 2012

There is a Russian proverb – “Не пеняй на зеркало, коли

рожа крива” – which loosely translates as: “Don’t blame the

mirror for your ugly face”. Ironically, Russia’s ruling elite are not

blaming themselves for the shortcomings of the, so-called, Putin-

Medvedev tandem.

Two recent developments in particular have prompted this

dilemma within the elite class. First, in mid-March President

Medvedev’s Chief of Staff, Sergei Ivanov, voiced his mistrust in

various country rankings prepared by international organizations,

such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index

which placed Russia at 143rd – along with Belarus, Nigeria and

Azerbaijan – among 183 countries. He spoke of the need to create

Russia’s own corruption ranking.

Then came the Times Higher Education World Reputation

Rankings “Top 100 Universities by Reputation” for 2012, where

not a single Russian university made it to the top 100. Two days

after Mr. Ivanov’s statement, Russia’s Education Minister, Andrei

Fursenko, promptly announced, in response, that Russia will create

its own “international and universally recognized” university

reputation ranking system, which would rival the Times’ rankings.

Fursenko was in fact reiterating an almost forgotten statement

made by Vladimir Putin in February 201 1 regarding the “need to

be very cautious about standings, and work out a self-made

objective method ofevaluating the quality ofeducation.”

Authorities have made similar complaints in several resource-

rich former Soviet republics, namely Turkmenistan and

Azerbaijan.

On the democratization and human rights fronts, various

international organizations; such as Human Rights Watch,

Amnesty International and Freedom House; have, for years,

opined on the subject of systemic impediments to the development

of a well-functioning Russian society.

Nonetheless, it is not just the outside world that points out

these flaws. The wave of protests that followed the parliamentary

election last December is indicative of trouble for the Kremlin’s

rule, which can’t be ignored. In the realm of science and

education, Russian scientists at home and abroad have long

warned of systemic risks.

Therefore, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to authorities that

universities in Russia are lagging in world rankings, because the

academic community, which is supposed to educate future

generations, is fleeing Russia to countries that can offer a better

quality of life and better career opportunities.

In an interview with the New York Times, Times’ editor Phil

Baty attributed the poor performance of Russian universities to the

lack of investments, the low number of English-language

academic publications in Russia, compared to other countries, as


well as the country’s ‘brain-drain’ . The brain-drain phenomenon is

triggered by several factors. Scientists and researchers have a

tendency to leave their home country, mainly due to instability or

stagnation caused by political and socio-economic problems, and,

when they do leave, higher education and scientific research

suffers the biggest blow, as they are deprived of the best minds the

country has to offer.

1 2

This order has come at the cost oftransforming Russia into a society wherepolitical and economic competition andaccess to resources is restricted to membersofthe dominant coalition and their client

networks

Russia has experienced several waves of brain-drain with the

last one occurring in the early ‘90s when a massive wave of

scientists left Russia for the U.S., Israel, and Europe, primarily due

to political and economic instability in the aftermath of the Soviet

Union’s collapse. The roots of present day outflows seem to be

systemic despite Russia’s relatively good economy in addition to

oil revenues that have helped Russia cushion the shock of 2008

global economic crisis.

In the political arena, the Kremlin claims to have built a stable

political order. This order has come at the cost of transforming

Russia into a society where political and economic competition

and access to resources is restricted to members of the dominant

coalition and their client networks. It is precisely this manipulation

of the economic system by the political elites and the rent-seeking

schemes (graft) that have been skillfully put in place in all sectors,

including in education and research, which stifles all aspects of life

in Russia.

Similar trends are seen in other resource-rich countries of the

former USSR; such as Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan;

which have followed the Kremlin’s policies and suffered from

popular discontent with the existing political and economic

regimes, based on state-capitalism. The seeming political stability

in these countries is based on a system of patronage networks run

by various high-ranking government officials, which perpetuates

the corruption and bureaucratic red tape of the Soviet era in

virtually all areas – from healthcare and the issuance of building

permits to education institutions – making it extremely difficult to

become an honest public servant, run a legitimate business, or

even pursue a successful scientific career, without first joining the

ruling party, praising the “savior of the nation”, or exercising self-

censorship.

Those in the patronage networks carve out advantages for

themselves at the expense of the rest of society, science, and

education.

Talks are in the works by Russian authorities of pouring

billions into science and education in an effort to stem the brain

drain. One such effort was an ambitious science and technology

project in Skolkovo, dubbed Russia’s Silicon Valley, in order to

attract scientists at home and from abroad and possibly reverse the

brain-drain.

But in an embarrassing development, two notable Russian

physicists – Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov, who both live

and work in the U.K. and who won a Nobel Prize in late 2010 –

turned down an invitation by the head of the international

cooperation department of the Skolkovo Fund to join the project

and work in Skolkovo. Geim. They denounced the Skolkovo

project as “surrealism” stating: “You must have all gone mad over

there, ifyou think that for a sack ofgold you can invite anyone”.

April 1 st - 1 5th

Both physicists attributed their refusal to return to the

ingrained corruption and bureaucracy, as well as the lack of

resources that would pose a serious barrier to any successful

research work in Russia.

The spillover effects of the patronage system for an ordinary

non-sycophantic scientist are the lack of academic and research

independence, limited freedoms, limited career prospects, poor

education and health services for their children, as well as a low

overall quality of life.

In an opinion poll conducted by the Levada Center in 201 1 ,

these factors were cited among the main reasons why the young

and well-educated opt to leave Russia. The results of this survey

revealed that 22 percent of Russia’s adult population would prefer

to leave the country for good, a threefold increase from 2007; only

7 percent of the population wanted to leave despite the rise in

living standards during this period.

This, by far, was the largest increase in the number of

frustrated citizens in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union,

when only 18 percent of the population said they wanted to leave

the country in 1991 . Similarly, over 50 percent of entrepreneurs

expressed their desire to leave Russia. But most importantly, those

considering this option are not the poor and uneducated. The

disgruntled citizens are the educated middle class, which includes

entrepreneurs and students.

Critics believe that real change in Russia and other resource-

rich states of the FSU can only occur if the ruling elites ease their

grip on the economy and open up political and economic space to

genuine competition, build and strengthen an independent

judiciary and other state institutions, while, at the same time,

combating corruption and bureaucracy.

Until then, when the authorities aren’t pleased with the way

they are seen from abroad or at home, they should take a long,

hard look in the mirror. ■

incident with the audience. It was a troubling case of a subordinate

to Bo Xilai trying to, we can only assume, gain asylum, or to

create a layer of security for himself or his family by passing on

information to a higher power being that of the Americans. The

Chinese may be careful to save face and thus the Americans now

hold some cards as to the real events going on within the Party.

While this has been deemed a treacherous activity by the Chinese

media it was actually a very clever attempt by Wang. It remains to

be seen if he will actually have a lesser fate, but what is clear is

that he obviously did this because he felt he had exhausted all

other channels available to him. And for unknown reasons, this

was the time when he felt that he could no longer continue on the

same path.

Most readers of the daily news in the United States, Europe

and elsewhere may have some understanding of the politics in

China and its one-party system, but the various depth and the

specific pathway to leadership is far more opaque and requires

more careful study. There are no real elections to be held or for

that matter any kind of open campaigning to be done that can

really be picked up on the western media. On the whole the Party

is portrayed as a monolithic entity that has deep control over most

facets in society.

1 3

The Tailor of…Chongqing?Chinese Political Thriller Fit for Hollywood

By Tristan McInnis

09 April 2012

The story of Wang Lijun’s supposed asylum request at the

American Embassy in Chongqing, the ousting of Bo Xilai in a

major denouncement by China’s Premier, the intrigue over the

mysterious circumstances of Bo family friend Neil Haywood’s

death and speedy cremation, the rumors of an attempted coup and

gunfire being heard in the Chinese capital Beij ing, it all sounds a

bit like a John le Carré spy thriller. We’ve got Chinese

Communists, American Consulates, a failed defection, a

questionable death, a leadership power struggle…it is the perfect

plot.

No wonder there has been such a media firestorm surrounding

the affair.

The Wang Lijun story while it was intriguing, as a potential

diplomatic catastrophe, really didn’t connect the severity of the

After Bo Xilai was dismissed from his post as head of

Chongqing we see even more clues emerge as to the nature of his

departure. Some have argued that it was his personal style of

politics that was the cause. If you read China’s premier, Wen

Jiabao’s statements carefully, you see that he was speaking out

against Bo for raising the rhetoric of the troubled past of the

Cultural Revolution that he considers a dark period. Others write

of this victory of Bo by Wen as a kind of payback for past deeds

during the Tiananmen days that saw Hu Yaobang’s faction facing

up against Bo Xilai’s father and other hard-line anti-reformers.

Neil Haywood’s death has shifted the attention of the western

media and is seen as a way of captivating audiences to the level of

intrigue that allows them to connect with power struggles in the

high-stakes game ofChinese politics.

There have been countless ruminations in both the Chinese

and foreign media from the fallout of Bo Xilai since he was ousted

on March 15 during the “two meetings” or “Lianghui”, the annual

session of the National People’s Congress (NPC) and the Chinese

People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC).

Many hold that this was really about the differences in

leadership style between Bo, a Princeling touting the Chongqing

model and his own kind of fiery politics, not seen since the

Cultural Revolution era, and the more practical and pragmatic

leadership of figures such as Wen.

The dust has settled somewhat and it is still unclear what

With the rise ofthe new generation ofPrincelings, it seems the old rivalries andbitterness ofParty infighting have notdisappeared but are merely hiding behindChina’s new face ofglimmering officetowers and extravagant conferences


fate lies ahead for Bo Xilai and Wang Lijun. Whether the

corruption case will be lifted against Bo Xilai or for whatever

grounds they may have for his dismissal to justify to the public,

from whom his support in Chongqing is still quite strong.

It then must be said that politics in China is very much rooted

in history. With the rise of the new generation of Princelings, it

seems the old rivalries and bitterness of Party infighting have not

disappeared but are merely hiding behind China’s new face of

glimmering office towers and extravagant conferences. The old

face ofChina’s politics never really left.

The fight over what to do next with reform is taking hold

because there is a feeling of stagnation in the reform process. They

have yet to tackle rising income inequality, the high levels of

corruption, and environmental degradation that have been

associated with their steady climb in GDP growth.

China’s leadership transition will take place this October; with

the top job all but assured to Xi Jinping, but his plan for taking

China forward remains unclear. Social stability will remain his top

priority, how he will achieve this in the context of the reforms

remains to be seen.

For now though, the political thriller that has become the

Chongqing saga will continue to unfold as those who were most

connected to Bo will seek to save their own careers. ■

becoming the “largest economy in Latin America after Brazil and

Mexico” is spurred on by their estimates, which show that the

Colombian economy grew by 7.7 percent in the third quarter of

201 1 .

The economic forecast is equally encouraging with IMF

estimates that the Colombian economy will continue to grow by

4.5 percent between 2012 and 2015.

1 4

The Promise of ColombiaBy Michael W. Edghill

10 April 2012

While much of the globe has been mired in an economic

malaise, the simultaneous growth of Latin America has been well

chronicled. Most of the attention given to Latin America’s rise has

focused on Brazil, which recently surpassed Great Britain to

become the world’s sixth largest economy. The attention has been

justified given Brazil’s remarkable turnaround, its economic

growth, potential growth, and forthcoming global spotlight by way

of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics. Overlooked

by many, when examining the opportunities for growth that exist

in Latin America, is the promise ofColombia.

In January, Colombia’s Minister of Trade, Industry, and

Tourism, Sergio Diaz Granados, said that his nation seeks to be the

third largest Latin American economy by 2015. The goal of

Colombia’s economic reforms regarding oiland gas “could be considered a model forenergy management in the region”

Reasons for this growth are numerous and at least partly due

to the fact that Colombia, like many of its Latin American

neighbors, was never as fully integrated into the global economy

before the worldwide recession. Some of the economic promise for

Colombia must be credited to the government’s aggressive work at

nurturing trade relationships regionally and internationally. The

previous government and the current Santos government have

overseen the renegotiation of trade agreements regionally,

including agreements with Venezuela, a neighbor with whom

Colombia has a relationship perpetually tumultuous yet potentially

beneficial.

More broad international trade agreements have been made

with eyes towards the Pacific and towards Europe. There is also

the recently agreed to Free Trade Agreement with the world’s

largest consumer, the United States.

The growing relationship with the United States is one that

has been slow to develop but goes well beyond mere free trade. In

a statement regarding the Free Trade Agreement, Chair of the

House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen said,

“Colombia has served as a strong ally in the region” to combat

drug trafficking.

Implemented in the 1990s, the Plan Colombia was a

significant achievement in proving how a sovereign Latin

American state could collaborate with the US to combat narcotics

cartels and improve their own internal security. The Plan

Colombia was not a ‘cure all’ as highlighted by a collaborative

201 1 report released by the Latin America Working Group, the

Washington Office on Latin America, and the Center for

International Policy.

While there has been great progress made since that time,

April 1 st - 1 5th

certain troubling elements of the program’s implementation,

combined with the fact that Colombia still produces more cocaine

can anywhere else in the world, must be addressed if Colombia is

to take the next step that it desires.

Another key component to Colombia’s growth is “Colombia’s

Energy Renaissance”, termed as such by a 2010 report by the

Americas Society/Council of the Americas.

In it, the report suggests that Colombia’s economic reforms

regarding oil and gas “could be considered a model for energy

management in the region.” This model of efficiency and

investment attraction stand in stark contrast to the decline in both

areas that has been witnessed in Venezuela’s PDVSA under the

influence of Hugo Chavez. Colombia’s energy sector saw oil

exports to the US increase by about 66 percent in 201 1 , placing

Colombia as the 7th largest oil supplier to the United States.

But the promise of being a great country involves more than

just improving security and growing the economy. The great

nations of the world assume leadership roles regionally.

Colombia’s President Juan Manuel Santos appears to be

embracing this role as his country tries to become a Latin

American leader. Recently it was Santos who, ahead of the

Summit of the Americas to be held in Cartagena, served as a

mediator between Cuba and the other attendees of the Summit.

While having never been included in any of the previous Summits,

Cuba’s allies in ALBA have threatened to boycott this Summit of

the Americas if Cuba is not in attendance. Santos personally flew

to Cuba to try and create an amicable resolution to this political

stalemate.

These are the actions of a leader who has great hope for the

future of Colombia. Long ago, Simon Bolivar proclaimed a vision,

albeit in a slightly different context, for a Gran Colombia.

Colombians themselves are starting to recognize the progress

made and potential that exists in their country. It is time that others

in the world begin to pay attention to the promise ofColombia. ■

Lessons Hidden in AfghanistanBy Cpt. Kent Eiler

10 April 2012

1 5

What should be striking about the reported news out of Afghanistan lately is the

extent to which the headlines have been about tragic, non-military events. Korans were

defaced and a U.S. service member is suspected ofmurdering seventeen Afghan civilians.

These acts have both had a profound, negative impact on U.S.-Afghan relations and, by

extension, have put our troops and our mission in Afghanistan in greater jeopardy.

But what is today’s mission? To what extent is there still a military mission in

Afghanistan? How do we distinguish a military mission from a political mission more than

ten years into the post-9/1 1 global world? As a service to our men and women who

volunteer to defend us we ought to answer these questions.

Militaries, throughout history and around the world, are designed to fight wars. That is

what they do. It is their design. A military such as ours, under civilian control, follows the

orders of its civilian leadership. It is appropriate to reexamine political and military

missions periodically, particularly as the

percentage of Americans who have

served in the military decreases, and

fewer citizens are familiar with our

military and its capabilities.

A “stronger” military is simply one

that wages war more effectively than its

weaker opponent. Wars entail military

engagements, military casualties, and the

capturing of territory. These are some of

the indicia of military objectives. What

should be striking about the tragic

headlines out ofAfghanistan lately is they

deal with none of those indices of

military objectives. News headlines out of

Afghanistan haven’t been about those

indices in years. The fact that the recent

headlines have been dominating the news

cycle is further evidence that the mission

in Afghanistan is no longer military in

nature but rather political.

The views expressed in this piece are solely those ofthe author in his personal capacity and do not reflect the

official policy or position ofany military service, the Department ofDefense, or the U.S. Government.

Discerning when a military mission

exists, as opposed to a political mission,

in the post-cold war era, is extremely

difficult but also extremely important. It

is complicated as war itself is motivated

by politics. Colin Powell has famously

said “War should be the politics of last

resort.” The fact that it is difficult today

to determine when a military mission

exists as opposed to a political one,

shouldn’t cause the U.S. to isolate when

instead we should act. What is required is

diligent, thoughtful analysis about the

resultant political mission when

considering embarkation on a military


one.

Time after time, history has shown that militaries have a

difficult, if not impossible time executing political missions. When

foreign militaries attempt to achieve a political mission they

necessarily transition from a force projecting military power into

an occupying force. We have to look no further than our own

history in the United States.

Reconstruction in the south following the Civil War

demonstrates the difficulty inherent when militaries take on a

political mission. Given both the broad, justified, public support

today for our men and women in the military and the can-do

attitude of those men and women as they approach their duties, it

can be tempting, even amongst senior military leaders, to assign

roles to our military outside its core competencies.

Militaries are exceptionally good both at destroying things

(people and places) and threatening to destroy things. In Bosnia,

the threat of annihilation kept local militias in check and stopped

the genocide there. Bosnia was and still is a place where there

exists a clear military objective – keep the peace by threatening to

destroy anyone who would disturb it. In Rwanda, the military

objective of keeping the peace was within the capability of the

U.S. military. President Clinton has said his failure to deploy

troops to stop the genocide there is without question his biggest

regret from his time as President. The list continues. In Libya last

year the United States completed its military mission.

Over the last decade, in both Afghanistan and in Iraq, we

have asked our military at times to do its best to backfill, i.e.

nation-build. In Iraq, some advocates of military intervention

suggested the U.S. could anticipate military success along the lines

of its policy successes in Germany and Japan following World

War II. In making such comparisons, either these advocates

cynically knew that significant, non-military assets would be

needed in the post-war environment and failed to appropriate the

resources as required or, as is more likely the case, they made the

mistake, as many often do, of failing to understand and distinguish

the military campaign ofWorld War II and the political campaign,

the Marshall Plan, which followed.

With the Marshall Plan, the U.S. spent what would be, in

today’s dollars, over 100 billion dollars in aid to Western Europe.

It was the brain-child of the State Department. The Marshall Plan

enabled Western European societies to rebuild. U.S. troops came

home. They didn’t manage Western Europe’s recovery nor were

they expected to. Only a small fraction of U.S. troops remained in

Europe after the war and assumed defensive postures for the

purposes of the Cold War. By stark contrast, today there are over

five times as many U.S. troops in Afghanistan as there were at the

height of military operations in 2001 . The U.S. achieved a huge

political victory with the Marshall Plan, vital to our country’s

interests at the time, when it provided the Europeans themselves

with the money and means to rebuild their society.

Notably, there haven’t been calls for a comparable plan in

Afghanistan for a number of reasons. The Marshall Plan, as big of

a political victory as it was, shouldn’t be confused with the

military victory that the Allies achieved during World War II.

Afghanistan poses a tremendous challenge today. After a decisive,

quick military victory in late 2001 , we have spent over the ten

years since trying to achieve a political victory as decisive in turn.

Over this last decade in Afghanistan our troops have sacrificed

tremendously and served as mentors, engineers, urban planners

and doctors to name but a few roles. Our troops have helped build

schools for young Afghan girls to allow them to get a formal

education for the first time. They have protected refugees.

Whether these changes are adopted by the Afghan people remain

to be seen and recent headlines cast doubt. For their part, our

troops have served proudly with great distinction because we

asked them to.

The selflessness with which they accept their missions and

their willingness to sacrifice, means we owe it to them to

determine, first, whether we are seeking a military or a political

victory and then to allocate the appropriate resources. By better

distinguishing when we are faced with a military mission, as

opposed to a political one, we will do a more effective job of

winning both. ■

16

History has shown we typically do ourselvesno favors when we try and have our military

backfill

There remains some debate as to whether the political mission

of the United States was furthered by its military campaign in

Libya. Syria poses another instance where the United States could

choose to engage in a military mission, its military being far

superior to that of Syria’s, but, to date, for a number of reasons,

has elected not to do so. As in Libya’s case, there exists a wide

range of opinions about whether the U.S. should engage militarily

in Syria.

Military objectives can be as simple as providing airlift

support. The U.S. Air Force is exceptionally good at providing

airlift support whether the cargo be tanks or, as at was in Berlin in

1948, or in Haiti after the earthquake disaster, pallets of food and

supplies. So what isn’t a military objective? Nation-building is one

example. Nation-building doesn’t require destroying things or

threatening to destroy things. Building schools, winning hearts and

minds, building trust in a society are all things that the United

States should support, but they aren’t things a military is trained to

do as its core competency.

The U.S. has executive agencies dedicated to these vital tasks

such as the State Department, the Millennium Challenge

Corporation, the United States Agency for International

Development, and the Peace Corps. These agencies receive a small

portion of the federal government’s budget compared to the

defense budget, but history has shown we typically do ourselves

no favors when we try and have our military backfill.

April 1 st - 1 5th

The Logic of UnintendedConsequencesThe ‘Mess in Mali’By Ramzy Baroud

11 April 2012

17

to the messy colonial legacy inherited from colonial powers, and Mali is no exception.

It is perhaps too early to talk about winners and losers in the Mali fiasco, which was

triggered on March 22 by a military coup led by army captain Amadou Sanogo. The coup

created political space for the Tuaregs’ National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad

(MNLA) to declare independence in the north, merely two weeks later.

The declaration was the culmination of quick military victories by MNLA and its

militant allies, which led to the capture of Gao and other major towns. These successive

developments further emboldened Islamic and other militant groups to seize cities across

the country and hold them hostage to their ideological and other agendas.

Ansar al-Din, for example, had reportedly worked in tandem with the MNLA, but

declared a war “against independence” and “for Islam” as soon as it secured its control

over Timbuktu. More groups and more arms are now pouring through the ever-porous

borders with Mauritania, Algeria and Niger.

Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad, along with al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are now

making their moves across Mali. New alliances are being formed and new emirates are

being declared, making Mali a potential stage for numerous permanent conflicts.

Speaking to the Guardian, former UN regional envoy Robert Fowler railed against

NATO: “Whatever the motivation ofthe principal �ATO belligerents [in ousting Gadaffi],

the law ofunintended consequences is exacting a heavy toll in Mali today and will continue

to do so throughout the Sahel as the vast store ofLibyan weapons spreads across this, one

ofthe most unstable regions ofthe world.”

Considering that the inevitability of post-Libya destabilisation was obvious to so many

from the start, why the insistence on referencing a “law of unintended consequences”?

Even “chaos” has its own logic. For several years, and especially since the

establishment of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) in 2008, much

international meddling has taken place in various parts ofAfrica.

Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, Gregory Mann tried to undermine the fact that

Sanogo “had American military training, and briefly affected a US Marine Corps lapel

pin.” He said that these details “are surely less important than the stunning fact that a

decade of American investment in special forces training, co-operation between Sahalien

armies and the United States and counter-terrorism programmes ofall sorts run by both the

State Department and the Pentagon has, at best, failed to prevent a new disaster in the

desert and, at worst, sowed its seeds.”

The details are hardly “less important,” considering that Sanogo called for international

military intervention against the newly declared Tuareg republic, referencing Afghanistan

as a model.

True, regional African countries and international institutions have strongly objected to

both the military coup in the capital Bamako and the declaration of independence by the

The intentional misreading of UN

Security Council Resolution 1973

resulted in NATO’s predictably violent

Operation Odyssey in Libya last year.

Not only did the action cost many

thousands of lives and untold destruction,

it also paved the way for perpetual

conflict – not only in Libya but

throughout North Africa.

Mali was the first major victim of

NATO’s Libyan intervention. It is now a

staple in world news and headlines such

as “The mess in Mali” serve as a mere

reminder of a bigger “African mess.”

On March 17 of last year, Resolution

1973 resolved to establish a no-fly zone

over Libya. By March 19, NATO’s

bombers began scorching Libyan land,

supposedly to prevent a massacre of

civilians.

The next day, an ad-hoc high-level

African Union panel on Libya met in

Nouakchott, the capital of Mauritania,

and made one last desperate call to bring

NATO’s war to an immediate halt. It

stated: “Our desire is that Libya’s unity

and territorial integrity be respected as

well as the rejection of any kind of

foreign military intervention.”

It is difficult to believe thatdespite years ofUS-Frenchinvolvement in Mali and thesurrounding region, the

bedlam wasn’t predictable

The African Union (AU) is seldom

considered a viable political player by the

UN, NATO, or any interventionist

Western power, but AU members were

fully aware that NATO was unconcerned

with human rights or the well-being of

African nations. They also knew that

instability in one African country can lead

to major instabilities throughout the

region.

Various North African countries are

glued together by a delicate balance, due


Tuaregs in the north, but that may prove irrelevant after all.

The Azawad succession appears permanent and the US,

although it suspended part of the aid to Mali following the junta’s

takeover, has not severed all ties with Sanogo. After all, he too

claims to be fighting al-Qaida and its allies.

It is difficult to believe that despite years of US-French

involvement in Mali and the surrounding region, the bedlam

wasn’t predictable. The US position regarding the coup was

precarious.

“The Obama administration has not yet made a formal

decision as to whether a military coup has taken place in Mali,”

wrote John Glaster in AntiWar.com. According to US military

definitions, this is still a “mutiny, not a ‘coup’” and US army

personnel – referred to as “advisory troops” – were in fact

dispatched to Bamako after March 22, according to Africom

spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple.

What is clear is that the “mess in Mali” might be an

opportunity for another intervention, which mainstream media

sources are already rationalising.

A Washington Post editorial on April 5 counselled: “NATO

partners should perceive a moral obligation, as well as a tangible

national security interest, in restoring Mali’s previous order. The

West should not allow its intervention in Libya to lead to the

destruction of democracy – and entrenchment of Islamic militants

– in a neighbouring state.”

Unintended consequences? Hardly. ■

18

greater nuclear transparency to more

stringent restrictions on its enrichment

activities – to reverse the economic siege

that is bringing the country close to the

edge? Is she going to use the talks as a

delaying tactic or will she finally strike a

mutually-acceptable deal with the West?

From the perspective of the Iranian

leadership, with sanctions beginning to

squeeze the Iranian economy – atop

intensifying threats of military invasion

and growing Western naval presence in

the Persian Gulf – the nuclear impasse is

worryingly morphing into a question of

regime survival.

Sure, the regime has significant

resources – both financial and military –

as its disposal to head-off growing

Why Iran WillCompromise This Time

By Richard Javad Heydarian

12 April 2012international isolation, and pursue its nuclear program, but growing external pressure can

affect the very foundation of Iran’s trillion-dollar industrializing economy. Moreover,

growing economic uncertainty – compounding decades-long structural economic challenges

– could also impact the country’s very social cohesion, amidst lingering discontent among

certain quarters of the population.

This is precisely why this time could be different, and there are no shortages of

diplomatic overtures on the part of Iran, signaling Tehran’s interest in resolving the crisis.

If there is one thing that is consistent with the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is her

undying instinct for self-preservation. Moreover, the Iranian regime is anything but

monolithic: even within the upper echelons of the politico-military leadership, pragmatic

forces have always sought to prevent any crisis or conflict, which would endanger the

country’s territorial integrity. After all, the 1979 Iranian Revolution was nationalistic: its

A s we inch closer to the crucial

nuclear talks between Iran and the world

powers, the so-called P5+1, the

primordial question is whether this time

will be different: Is Tehran willing to

make necessary compromises – from

April 1 st - 1 5th

founding principles emphasized Iran’s territorial integrity and

independence.

The Iranian regime is often characterized as a fundamentalist

revisionist power, whose legitimacy – and very identity – is

anchored on continued opposition to the West, especially Israel

and the U.S. Its rationality is often questioned on the grounds that

its core leadership is composed of messianic individuals, who

don’t conform to the logic of survival and self-preservation. Some

commentators – from American neo-conservatives to Israeli

politicians – go as far as saying that she is willing to pursue her

radical ideals – from the creation of a regional Islamic order to the

destruction of Israel – even if it means self-abnegation. After all,

she has purportedly endured three decades of sanctions and

international isolation to stay true to her political beliefs and

pursue her revolutionary principles. Following this line of

argumentation, if the regime secures her grip on a nuclear device,

or even a ‘break-out’ capacity, she will not hesitate to use it as

means to pursue radical ends.

By any measure, the Iranian regime is peculiar. On the issue

of foreign policy, the Islamic Constitution describes a state that is

bound by an internationalist-idealist Islamic doctrine. Contrary to

the universal trend, there is no mention of the concept of ‘national

interest’ – requiring a pragmatic and rational foreign policy –in the

constitution, but instead articles 1 1 , 1 52, and 154 describe a state

that should pursue a much more revolutionary objective: the unity

of the Islamic World (Umma) and the protection of the oppressed

(Mostaza’fin) against tyrants (Mostakberin). In this sense, the

Iranian constitution prescribes a foreign policy that is found on an

essentially internationalist Islamic charter.

and self-restraint.

Faced with the prospect of external invasion and territorial

defeat, the Iranian regime did not only agree to end the American

hostages crisis in 1982, but it also signed the UN Security Council

Resolution 598, which concluded the Iran-Iraq War.

All these transpired at the height of Iran’s revolutionary zeal.

After the war, under the leadership of the pragmatics, Iran

invested heavily in normalizing relations with Arab countries and

improving relations with Europe.

Later, during the reformist era in the early 2000s, Iran even agreed

to halt its nuclear enrichment in order to prevent a military

showdown with the Bush Administration. In all these cases, we

can see how in actuality the Iranian regime has prioritized regime

survival when faced with an existential dilemma.

This bipolar tendency is a reflection of the Iranian state’s

fundamentally dualistic character: simultaneously, both a

republican state (Jumhoori) bound by modern rationality and rule

of law and a theocracy governed by Islamic principles and clerical

supervision (Velayat-e-Faqih). The ebbs and flows of the Iranian

foreign policy have been determined by this eternal struggle

between the two pillars, Islamic and Republican, of the Iranian

nation-state.

Also, almost all periods of foreign policy crisis – from the

1980 Hostage Crisis to the 2006 and 2009 breakdown in nuclear

negotiations – were a product of constant jostling among

competing political factions. Today, Iran is firmly under the

control of traditional conservatives, under the auspices of the

Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. With the

regime internally consolidated, it is clear with whom the West

should deal.

Encouragingly, on three fronts Iran has indicated its

willingness to compromise: first, the Supreme Leader has agreed

to upcoming talks in Istanbul – followed by a second talk in

Baghdad – and has even welcomed President Obama’s reticence

about any military intervention; second, top government officials –

from the head of the Iranian nuclear agency to the foreign minister

– have indicated their willingness to consider more intensive

inspections and cap enrichment levels; and lastly, powerful

pragmatists, such as former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani,

have called for direct talks with America and greater diplomatic

flexibility to resolve the nuclear impasse.The fact that the West

has expressed its respect for Iran’s right to enrichment provides us

another reason for optimism.

The key to resolving the impasse is to assuage the Iranian

regime concerns with regime survival. Nevertheless, resolving the

Iranian nuclear crisis will ultimately necessitate sustained

diplomacy and an arduous series of top-level negotiations,

especially between Iran and the U.S. ■

19

Encouragingly, on three fronts Iran hasindicated its willingness to compromise

However, pessimists – who invest little faith in upcoming

negotiations – tend to overlook the other side of the coin: the

regime’s history clearly demonstrates how every period of

ideological excess was counter-balanced by a succeeding period of

moderation, reform, and realism. Why? Precisely because – even

under the Islamic Republic – the instinct for self-preservation and

the concept of expediency (Maslaha) has always trumped the

sustenance of any kind of policy, which endangered the regime’s

survival and the country’s territorial integrity. Currently, the

nuclear issue is increasingly proving to threaten the regime’s

survival.

Time and again, the Islamic Republic has shown its ability to

follow a pragmatic logic, actually placing national security over

revolutionary objectives. On the one hand, intent on preserving

cordial relationship with China, Russia, and Syria, Iran adopted a

low-key position on the 1982 Syrian Islamic uprising, Muslim

repression in Western China, and Chechen Islamic Separatist

Movements and Serb-led reprisals against Muslim Bosnians in the

1990s. On the other hand, Iran was not only neutral in the 1991

and 2003 Gulf Wars against Iraq, but it also supported U.S.-led

attacks against the Taliban regime in 2001 .

Iran has also shown considerable ability for strategic learning


For hundreds of years, South America has provided much of

the world with essential natural resources. The global nature of the

world economy, coupled with the development of South American

countries and turbulence in the Middle East presents South

America as an alternative to dependency on oil from far flung,

sometimes adversarial areas of the world.

The contemporary governments of most of South America

have made it clear that they are open for business. This does not

diminish some of the risks involved with the region, but the area is

full of economic possibilities that would be mutually beneficial to

the countries of the continent and their trading partners.

A cursory glance at the balance sheets of the larger South

American economies leaves even the novice economist in awe.

While many western countries deal with record trade deficits, the

countries of South America enjoy trade surpluses. Peru, Colombia,

Chile and Argentina all experienced GDP growth over 5% in

201 1 .

of private capital and credit.

Second, the goods that the countries export are largely

irreplaceable. Venezuela, Peru and Colombia sell oil. Peru sells

gold. Chile sells copper, essential in manufacturing electrical wire,

consumer electronics, computers and small appliances.

Argentina deals in grain and beef, essential food

commodities. Again, most of this is purchased by the United

States, China and other larger democracies.

This has maneuvered South America into prominence

internationally. Think of expanded oil exploration on and around

the South American continent. This oil and subsequent reserves

could prove to be an alternative to the oil in the Middle East and

provide income for South American countries to expand their

economies.

20

Risk with Great Reward in South AmericaBy William Eger

12 April 2012

GDP Growth

This is reflected in their national debts. The national debt of

the United States and much of Europe continues to climb.

Meanwhile, most of the South American countries enjoy surpluses

or minor shortfalls requiring credit. The strength of South

American economies is not only in the amount of trade but in what

they trade and with whom.

Budget Surplus

The internal strength of their economies is buttressed by two

fundamental facts: who their primary trading partners are and the

commodities they trade.

First, South America’s best customers for their exports are the

United States and China, two larger countries with an abundance

Balance of Trade

There are some concerns that come with investing and

expanding trade in South America. The continent is home to one

of the most outspoken American critics, Hugo Chavez, who seeks

to expand his own brand of socialism and anti-Western

philosophy. Chavez has gone so far as to align himself with Iran.

The other countries are still recovering from the decades of

internal violence and centuries of western colonialism. Two

countries, Colombia and Peru, continue combating organized

threats to their governments. FARC, though somewhat blunted,

remains a constant, yet reduced threat in Colombia.

The smaller FARC forces have spilled over into the border

areas of Peru. Peru, itself, continues its operations and programs

against the Shining Path.

Ironically, the Shining Path almost once defeated has re-

grouped and reorganized around the aforementioned narcotics

April 1 st - 1 5th

trafficking, which is prevalent in many South American countries.

The governments of South America continue to make progress in

stabilizing their own domestic securities.

The modern scourge of the continent is illegal drug production

and trade. This presents the largest destabilizing factor on the

continent. Colombia, the world’s largest producer of cocoa leaves,

supplies cocaine to most international drug markets and also

supplies the world with ample amounts of heroin. Most of the

money from this trade is laundered or invested in Colombia. Peru

is the second largest cocoa leaf producer behind Colombia. Brazil

is the world’s second largest consumer of cocaine.

The public suicide of 77-year-old pharmacist Demitris

Christoulas a short distance from the parliament building in

Athens and the outpouring of grief and anger reveal the trauma

and desperation in Greek society in the midst of an economic

crisis. In a handwritten note before he shot himself in the head,

Christoulas complained that the government had made it

impossible for him to survive on the pension he had paid into for

35 years. The note on his body said, “I find no other solution than

a dignified end before I start searching through the trash for

food.”

To get a rescue package for its economy and to keep its place

in the euro zone, the Greek government has slashed wages and

retirement pensions by as much as 25 percent. With the

unemployment rate exceeding 20 percent, Greece faces a national

ordeal. Last year, the government admitted that suicides had risen

by 40 percent over the previous two years.

A day before Christoulas ended his life, an Italian woman of

78 in Sicily had jumped from the balcony of her third-floor

apartment. Her monthly pension had been cut from 800 to 600

euros and she could take no more. Her son said, “The government

is making us all poor, apart from the wealthy, who they don’t

touch, in contrast with us workers and small businessmen who are

struggling with heavy debts.”

A week before, a businessman tried to commit suicide by

setting himself alight outside a tax office. He had lost his appeal

against a claim of unpaid tax. And a 27-year-oldconstruction

worker ofMoroccan descent set himself on fire because he had not

been paid wages for four months.

Thus an alarming trend, first seen among India’s debt-ridden

farmers in the 1990s, has spread to the European Union, where

citizens have begun to end their lives because of crushing poverty

and utter hopelessness. There is a feeling that rich will become

richer at the expense of poor, that governments will either side

with the wealthy, or be impotent in the face of powerful

institutions determined to force economic reengineering on nations

that will bring the greatest pain to the greatest number of people.

The age-old social contract between the state and its citizens is

in an unprecedented crisis. Philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau

implied in his eighteenth-century work A Discourse On Inequality

that natural inequality, meaning disparity between human strength

and weakness, is established by nature. But moral inequality is

based on a kind of convention that is established, or at least

authorized, by the consent ofmen.

Today, the system of privileges, which some enjoy to the

prejudice of others, is fighting for legitimacy. Those who are

privileged are “more rich, more honored, more powerful and in a

position to extract obedience.”

Human evolution has been an epic struggle against moral

inequality, which inevitably leads to accumulation of wealth and

21

Most countries deal with the crimes associated with illegal

drug trafficking: money laundering, weapons trafficking and the

subsequent violence.

Removing the narcotics trade from the political and economic

systems of these countries is an imperative. The true salvation for

this group of emerging countries lies within themselves. As their

domestic economies develop, the governments will have to make

strategic and serious investments into areas outside of urban

centers.

This will enhance their economies further, spread opportunities

to the poorer areas and provide a replacement for the income

wrought from the illicit narcotics trade.

Even partially levitating the income disparity in these countries

will carry great dividends down the road. As trading partners, it is

important that western countries realize that these countries will

not accept a version of colonialism cloaked by the name 21 st

century globalism. (This would only reinforce the anti-western

platitudes by Chavez in Venezuela.)

What is needed is true and fair capitalist investment in the

region. These countries do not need sporadic handouts of aid from

the west. They need long term development. ■

What’s Left?By Deepak Tripathi

15 April 2012


power and abuse of both. That monumental struggle is at a crucial

juncture. On one end are forces of unrestrained capitalism that

have been in the ascendancy since the collapse of communism. On

the other, expressions of mass opposition in the form of the Arab

awakening and the occupy movements in the American and

European continents.

People’s movements are usurped by the very forces they were

supposed to fight. The prospect looks more bleak and bloody. To

pessimists, the contest between the corporate interests,

international institutions and ruling elites on one hand and the

citizens on the other is increasingly one-sided.

The feeling of disenfranchisement has spread to the north.

Modern capitalism has created conditions not unlike those found

under communism, which allowed party bosses and bureaucrats to

control the population. Democratic centralism, sanctified by Lenin

as “freedom for discussion, unity of action” at the Tenth Party

Congress in 1933 may look obsolete a quarter century after Soviet

communism collapsed. But corporate businesses and international

financial institutions, working in harmony with politicians and

other members of the ruling elites using state instruments, have

gained unprecedented control over vast numbers of citizens today.

The pyramid of power is intact. Social democrats once

provided an alternative with a conscience to the extreme rightwing

monetarism. But they have all but surrendered to the neo-capitalist

theory based only on growth and the idea that the one and only

social responsibility of business is to make profit. Political labels

of Left and Right have become meaningless. And autocratic

instincts of capitalism of today mirror those of communism of the

days gone by. ■

22

April 1 st - 1 5th

I have always loved

international travel, but I have

always hated the “immigration”

process, except for the part where

I get my passport stamped. I

realize what I have just written is

not entirely rational since it’s hard

to have foreign travel without

“immigration,” but people are not

always rational.

Even when doing nothing

wrong, a profound sense of

anxiety and apprehension washes

over me as I hand my passport to

an immigration official. After all,

that person is the only thing

standing between me and a

foreign country—where I can be

exposed to new thoughts,

not asked to show proof of either when I arrived in Colombo.

It was late when I arrived. The man checking my passport looked more exhausted that I

did; he scanned it, although I don’t even think he looked at my picture.

I do not view overstaying my visa as a viable option; the government has been cracking

down on those people recently.

I also read a very Orwellian story in the Daily Mirror in January, where the government

announced that “the Immigration and Emigration Department (IED) will set up a special

unit to monitor the activities ofsome tourists to Sri Lanka.”

Yikes!

Now, the ETA has definitely streamlined the immigration process and, in doing so,

made it easier for the CID and other State authorities to monitor people. State authorities

already know my phone number and address. Furthermore, I’ve been in and out of

Colombo for a while now. This makes me wonder how extensive this new monitoring unit

that the government recently set up is.

Really, I just wonder exactly how many people are being watched and how heavy the

monitoring is. If it were only people engaged in serious criminal activity, like the two

Ukrainians who were recently caught in Negombo, then there’s no problem. Massive credit

card fraud is a major issue.

It seems like the NGOs and other members of civil society would be more closely

watched given what has just transpired in Geneva. Although, that might not be true; the

people I’m talking about might have already been closely observed even before the vote at

the Human Rights Council.

I suppose a part of me would prefer total chaos at the IED. That might mean I have to

wait in line a bit longer at the airport, but that would make me feel much more anonymous.

As I leave the airport, I turn on my nearly obsolete cell phone to contact the person who is

picking me up. I brace myself for the heat that invariably greets me as I step outside. As

usual, I need to be careful ofwhat I say. Not so much for my sake, but for the sake others.

I always try to stay apprised of the latest developments when I am away, which can be

difficult. That being said, it was not difficult this time. News about Sri Lanka has been

popping up all over the place.

I should look on the bright side. At least nobody here has to deal with psychological

surveillance; that sounds quite invasive.

No, there are not yet any Thought Police in Sri Lanka. I don’t think there are anyway; it

seems like I would have read about that. ■

This article first appeared in Groundviews.

23

Immigration Anxietyand Ruminations on

Thought PoliceBy Gibson Bateman

03 April 2012

practices, mores, traditions and more.

Immigration officials stand between me

and learning, humility or adventure,

matters I do not take lightly.

This is why I was especially nervous

about applying for a tourist visa using Sri

Lanka’s Electronic Travel Authorization

(ETA) system. While not hugely

important, I have said and done things

that certain State officials in Sri Lanka

might not appreciate. The last thing I

want is anyone with a computer taking a

close look at my background. I

understand that I am an insignificant

person. Nonetheless, I would still prefer

that that not happen. So, instead of

getting a visa on arrival, I did apply in

advance and my application was

approved within hours. What a relief!

There would be no need for Valium when

deplaning.

Just in case, I decided to print out

information regarding my checking

account; so that, if necessary, I could

prove that I had enough money to

purchase copious amounts of rice, curry

and arrack for at least the next month. In

addition, I even printed out a return plane

ticket. None of that mattered since I was


There is a fresh discussion in India about the concept of

nonalignment from a few notable scholars who have recently

produced “Nonalignment 2.0: A Foreign and Strategic Policy for

India in the Twenty First Century”.

The document presents a new perspective on today’s global

dynamics characterized by multi-polarity, as opposed to bi-polarity

which emerged immediately after the Second World War with the

United States occupying one sphere and the Soviet empire

occupying the other.

“Nonalignment 2.0” also outlines a comprehensive overview

of the prevailing and future challenges and opportunities for India

which must be included in the on-going debate over India’s

foreign policy.

The doctrine of nonalignment and the Non-Aligned Movement

(NAM) have been declared irrelevant due to a decades long effort

by the United States and its many Secretaries of State; like John

Foster Dulles, Henry Kissinger and Condeleeza Rice; and also

because of economic and security imperatives and constraints on

the poor and developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin

America, commonly known as the Third World. Yet, the NAM

still survives and will continue to do so.

In the field of international relations, powerful nations have

occasionally violated the basic principles of international social

behaviour in order to protect their own national interests, however

selfish or narrow they might have been.

Two World Wars and revolutions or internecine struggles are

the dark facts of world history. At the end of the Second World

War, in 1945, there emerged a new doctrine of international

behaviour, propagated by Jawaharlal Nehru, Josip Broz Tito,

Gamal Abdel Nasser and Sukarno which came to be known as

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

The post-9/1 1 world has altered the international system.

Radical Islam is the new enemy of the West with Samuel

Huntington’s book “The Clash of Civilizations” finding renewed

resonance in popular discourse. It has further accentuated certain

features of US foreign policy already in evidence for the past two

decades and has also given rise to new and disturbing military

doctrines that pose a grave threat to global peace and security,

particularly to the Third World.

In this scenario, the U.S. has emerged as the dominant

economic and military power.

The United States has been the dominant player in most of the

post-Cold War instruments of global order, like the Bretton Woods

institutions, the World Trade Organization, and the International

Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Its veto power on the United

Nations Security Council enables the U.S. to pursue its unilateral

diplomacy, including declarations of war, when necessary, as in

case of the second Iraq War, or collectively with the other G-8

countries, as in Afghanistan or the first Iraq war.

The United States certainly remains the global system’s

dominant military and economic power. But it is the seductive

charms of this lifestyle as the global role model that has catapulted

the U.S. to the status of global hegemonic power, distinguishing it

from other G-8 countries.

This has inflicted a deadly blow on the countervailing power of

various regional arrangements. Indeed, the underlying thrust of the

United State’s grand strategy set in motion in the early years of the

first Clinton administration has been to prevent the emergence of

global rivals, which still holds today and is, in fact, a skilful

extension of the continuing imperialistic, interventionist, and

hegemonistic policies in place since the end of the Second World

War. As a consequence, the losers are the least developed or

developing countries.

The developing world has not welcomed the post-Cold War

environment with open arms due to structural inequalities. During

the Cold War period, most states, particularly the non-aligned

ones, managed to diversify their dependence on the U.S. and the

Soviets by establishing regional power blocs. But these were

eliminated by the United States and others, paving the way for

political instability, class struggle, social revivalism and economic

deprivation.

Against this backdrop, reinventing the concept of the non-

alignment is worth pursuing not only for sake of the Third World,

but also for the peace and security of the entire world.

Identified with universal moral values, this doctrine can only

determine the natural course of public policy formulations within

states and can also properly regulate the course of inter-state

relations, thereby ensuring good governance within and among

nations.

It can further rediscover its identity in the present phase of

globalization as the conscience of the system in the sense that the

NAM, in its heyday, boldly and honestly represented the wishes

and aspirations of the disadvantaged sections of the world

community and characterised the largest global movement of

humanity, by former Indian Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru. ■

24

Reinventing Nonalignment: India’s ForeignPolicy

By Dr. Sudhanshu Tripathi

06 April 2012

April 1 st - 1 5th

After many months of following and writing about the triple

disasters in Fukushima, Japan – the earthquake, the tsunami, and

the meltdown of the nuclear power plants – I was pleased to

discover a conference that seemed as though it might touch on

precisely these issues. I signed up to attend the annual meeting

held in Tokyo, in Mid-March, of the Asia Association for Global

Studies (AAGS), a forum for international educators focusing on

global events across many disciplines.

The theme for the annual conference was “Humanity and

Humanitarianism in Crisis”.

Hosted by International Christian University in Tokyo, Japan,

between March 17 and 18, 2012, the conference setting was very

comfortable, even opulent – International Christian University, a

huge university campus on the outskirts of Tokyo, replete with

topiary gardens and what will soon, with a little rain, be a plush

carpet of moss, felt like a 1970‘s American island in a Japanese

sea. And it was about as far away from the disasters we were

recounting, as it could be.

Some of us conference presenters even attempted to take a

side trip up north to Fukushima, to better understand the scenario

we had been writing about, only to be kindly but firmly told to

observe the exclusion zone around Ground Zero. And that if we

were so foolhardy as to try the trip, we would need special papers

and steel toed boots to enter the zone.

Our safety could not be guaranteed and we gave up.

The conference presentations were interesting, thoughtful,

often inspired, some genuinely moving. My goal here is to portray

a very brief sampling (five papers out of 40) of the talks. All

conference papers are posted on the AAGS website and many will

later be published as conference proceedings.

Speakers

Keynote Speaker Charles McJilton

Charles McJilton, the CEO and founder of Second Harvest

Japan (2HJ), originally came to Japan in 1984 with the US military

and returned in 1991 to conduct research at Sophia University.

During this time he lived in San’ya, a low-income area of Tokyo

that is home to many day-laborers. Determined to understand the

difficulties faced by the homeless, he lived with them in a

cardboard house along the Sumida River from January 1997 to

April 1 998.

McJilton’s comments: “I was a professional by day. As long as

I wore my tie and my suit, and smelled clean from the shower,

nobody would know or think to inquire where or how I lived. In

fact, nobody at work knew I lived in a cardboard box with a group

ofday laborers. The subject just didn’t come up.”

“The men I knew had great dignity and many were very

knowledgeable. One guy—well anything you wanted to know

about haiku, he could tell you. They did not behave or act like they

were down and out…And from those who supposedly have

In addition to working for Second Harvest, Mr. McJilton

teaches NGO management at Sophia University.

McJilton’s sympathetic keynote speech was about being down

and out in one of the world’s cities, which unobtrusively flaunts

great wealth, Tokyo. He was living with those who exist at the

bottom of the ladder, whose very existence is denied by their more

well-heeled neighbors, battered not by occasional catastrophes but

by a perpetual economic crisis, and will never be the recipients of

governmental largesse.

McJilton devised a pragmatic solution of gathering and

providing to those who were hungry, “unneeded” food aid.

His speech, which set the tone for the conference- concern for

those in distress, was very much to the point.

Iskra Gencheva-Mikami

Iskra Gencheva-Mikami (Lakeland College, Japan),

“Humanitas: Human Response to Natural Disasters from Antiquity

until Nowadays.”

“This presentation will focus on the impact ofnatural disasters

on individuals and communities from ancient times until

nowadays. … By exploring the role played by people in disastrous

situations, it will analyze how they have been affected and how

they have resisted the traumatic experience according to their

human nature.”

This was one of the most beautiful and evocative presentations

during the conference, as it used fragments from the letters of

Pliny the Younger and images of illuminated Pompeiian wall

friezes and calcified bodies lying just as they were when engulfed

25

Conference Report: “Humanity andHumanitarianism in Crisis”

By Claire McCurdy

07 April 2012

nothing; they freely shared their food, resources, and time with

me.”

In 2000, McJilton became co-chair of a coalition working

together to share food resources for their own programs. Two

years later, he incorporated Second Harvest Japan, the first food

bank in Japan. 2HJ collects food that would otherwise go to waste

and distributes it to people in need.

“I existed between two worlds: theirs [the homeless men on the

Sumida-gawa] and corporate Japan. I have to be honest in saying

that I feel more comfortable with these men. They have taught me

much about the value ofhuman relations and what it means to be

human in the face of an inhuman situation. My one desire is for

other people to come to know and understand them as I have: my

brothers struggling simply to live in the face ofadversity.”


by volcanic ash, to evoke what was called in Latin lacrimae rerum

– there are tears for certain things.

Evocative in their own way, as were the bodies hanging from

the trees in Fukushima.

We have read so many stories of disaster encounters that this

account should have a very familiar ring to it, describing a

combination of the earthquake and the tsunami and just as she

pointed out, resisting the traumatic experience —yet it was written

not on March 1 1 , 201 1 , but in August 79 AD.

“Mount Vesuvius exploded in August 79 A.D…A “firestorm”

of poisonous vapors and molten debris suffocated the inhabitants

of the neighboring Roman resort cities of Pompeii, Herculaneum

and Stabiae. The cities remained buried for almost 1700 years

until excavation began in 1748.

“But their story… is available to us through the voice ofPliny

the Younger, whose letters to his friend Tacitus were discovered in

the 16th century. They describe his experience during the

eruption…

“Ashes were already falling… I looked round: a dense black

cloud was coming up behind us, spreading over the earth like a

flood…’We had scarcely sat down to rest when darkness fell, not

the dark ofa moonless or cloudy night, but as ifthe lamp had been

put out in a closed room.

“You could hear the shrieks ofwomen, the wailing of infants,

and the shouting ofmen; some were calling their parents, others

their children or their wives, trying to recognize them by their

voices. People bewailed their own fate or that of their relatives,

and there were some who prayed for death in their terror ofdying.

Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there

were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal

darkness for evermore.”

“…A gleam oflight returned, but we took this to be a warning

of the approaching flames rather than daylight. However, the

flames remained some distance off; then darkness came on once

more and ashes began to fall again, this time in heavy showers.

We rose from time to time and shook them off, otherwise we should

have been buried and crushed beneath their weight. I could boast

that not a groan or cry of fear escaped me in these perils, but I

admit that I derived some poor consolation in my mortal lot from

the beliefthat the whole world was dying with me and I with it. ”

Another story of volcanic eruption, tsunami, attempts to deal

with the crisis while respecting the autonomy of the indigenous

people, some 2000 years later.

Annisa Srikandini

Annisa Srikandini (Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia),

“Humanitarianism and Disaster Governance in Indonesia: Merapi

Eruption.”

Annisa Srikandini argues that although NGOs and donor

governments carry out humanitarian actions in the aftermath of

disaster they may also unwittingly reinforce root causes and

conditions. She argues for the concept of disaster governance,

preserving the resilience of affected people in the face of disaster.

Accounts of the eruption and tsunami bear a strong resem-

blance to those in Japan.

And the roles assumed by USAID and NGOs appear on the

face of it to follow recommendations – to fund and assist people

affected by the disaster so that they may resume their normal lives.

And then to withdraw.

On October 25, 2010 a 7.7-magnitude earthquake off the coast

of West Sumatra triggered a tsunami that destroyed villages and

displaced thousands of people in the Mentawai Islands A day later,

the Mount Merapi volcano in Central Java erupted, killing more

than 32 people, and displacing more than 40,000 people from their

homes. USAID, Red Cross and NGO staff worked with local

officials to provide coordinated assistance. Eruptions continued

into the spring of 201 1 .

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)

provided D$2 million in humanitarian assistance, working closely

with the Indonesian Government, the National Agency for Disaster

Management (BNPB), and local NGOs to deliver the assistance.

The funds were to be used for the immediate purchase,

distribution and replenishment of relief items. The assistance also

was intended to be used to help displaced persons return to their

homes and resume their normal livelihoods, respecting the

resilience of the indigenous people. Impeccable intentions.

And yet two years later, there are angry accounts in the press

by student activists and the Indonesian government about what is

termed the inappropriate actions of foreign NGOs, especially

Greenpeace. They have argued that the aid of foreign NGOs

should be rejected as the NGOs have repeatedly attempted to

undermine Indonesian sovereignty and discredit Indonesia in the

press. “Legal observers from the University of Indonesia (UI),

Darmono Budi, emphasized that foreign GOs definitely give

priority to foreign interests, not Indonesia. The Indonesian

government should firmly crack down on foreign GOs that

adversely affect Indonesia, he said.”

By contrast, press coverage over the Japanese people’s anger

and fear over the handling of the Fukushima disasters tend to be

more focused against the government’s failure to act and over

TEPCO’s evasive actions. It would be interesting to see a similar

commentary on the actions of the Indonesian government.

Michelle Hui Shan Ho

Michelle Hui Shan Ho (University of Tokyo, Japan),

“Radioactive Beef Scare and Alarmed Housewives; Narrativizing

Panic in Wide-Show Crisis News.”

Michelle Hui Shan Ho: has vividly documented the Japanese

people’s anger and fears over fallout from the disasters, especially

nuclear fallout. She has focused on public perception of the

possible radiation poisoning of foodstuffs and on those it most

affects– Japanese housewives.

“Seen in the context of Japanese infotainment television

programs, which focus largely on consumer issues, health and

lifestyle, this paper will examine representations of the recent

‘beefscare’ in July as a case study.”

Although this TV show was aired in July 201 1 , housewives

are still fearful of any foodstuffs especially beef, that emanate

26

April 1 st - 1 5th

from Fukushima. In Tokyo, March 2012, I visited shopping

centers to see if the speaker’s comments on gender and “the fear

narrative” still hold true. And they appear to do so.

The placards next to pieces of beef, with lengthy inscriptions

on where the beef came from, (in this case, Australia), and how it

had been raised and treated, tended not to reassure the shopper but

heighten her anxiety. It certainly heightened mine.

Given that local Fukushima politicians have been attempting

to get Fukushima people to eat Fukushima produce that has

already been condemned for sale, as a patriotic duty, I can well

imagine this “beef scare” would have been good TV theatre and

that it would have underscored the public’s sense of what our

presenter called “a community at risk.”

Of course, it’s not just the beef that has people worried- it’s

the environment as a whole. And as you get farther north in Japan,

you will observe people carrying Geiger counters everywhere- to

school, to work, to the grocery store—to find out how many clicks

will register at a given point. If the reading is too high, the kids

will be told they cannot go outside to play.

The last paper was another study in beautiful images and

subtlety of the change in Asian people’s attitudes- here, towards

old people. It did not focus on images of disaster or post disaster

but upon a shift in mindset- in its own way, as sad and ominous as

its earlier competitors.

Katharine Young

Katharine Young (McGill University, Canada), “From Respect

for Old Age to Celebration of youth in East Asian Art: Mirror of

Humanity and Humanitarianism in Crisis?”

“This paper analyzes how images ofold age in women, in East

Asian art, show a transition from traditional respect and support

for old age to modern celebration of youth. Is this an aspect of

globalization?”

Old people in Asia, particularly women, Young argues, are

being displaced and shoved to the margins and this has

implications for many public policy issues.

Young’s presentation, which included many obscure, muted

and generally sympathetic even reverent traditional Asian images

ofwomen in old age, made the point with restraint and clarity.

The early images (in some cases, exceedingly early) were

juxtaposed with current, vibrant powerful pictures, primarily

Chinese, of triumphant young women dressed in brilliant colors

flexing their muscles as they operated massive machinery or hoed

the ground.

It appeared that the images of triumphant young women

indicated that their supremacy was here to stay whereas the

sympathetic images of older women are fading into obscurity.

If one examines these traditional Asian images in light of

Japan as an aging society, where a significant percentage of the

population is over 65, and further as an aging society badly

battered by the recent events in Fukushima—a society where older

people are no longer revered purely because of their age, it is hard

to see this trend being reversed. And the prospects for their care by

the government appear dim.

This very beautiful presentation was one that lasted in

memory for a long time.

Conclusion

McJilton’s commentary on living with the down-and-outs in

perpetual economic crisis in one of the wealthiest cities in the

world was very effective. We were invited to exercise compassion

and understanding. It was especially useful since the conference

was so remote from the disastrous events which it was

documenting.

The conference was indeed cross-disciplinary and sometimes

a little awkward; at other times, as with the accounts of

earthquakes across the centuries, comparisons brought forth

interesting insights. Gencheva-Mikami’s presentation of the

eruptions ofMt. Vesuvius and the devastation wrought on Pompeii

and Herculaneum, recounted by Pliny the Younger, were offset by

Srikandini’s account of the post tsunami and volcanic eruptions in

Indonesia. And her remarks about foreign NGOs prompted

thoughts of Japan, on the part of the government and TEPCO-

although in Japan’s case the effect was the opposite- evasion,

obscurity and withdrawal rather than intrusion.

The account of the “beef scare” by Michelle Hui Shan Ho

was especially effective since it brought forth the core fears of the

Japanese people—that their food, their bodies, their lives have

been contaminated by radiation and that the government is

refusing to tell them what is going on. The thought of women

afraid to buy beef for fear it will poison their husbands and

children is a genuinely saddening, whether their fears are accurate

or not. The image of the Geiger counters being bought and used

daily all over Japan to measure and somehow keep radiation at

bay, is downright dreadful.

Katharine Young’s lament for the disappearance in Asia of

Confucian reverence for older people, as it appeared in muted

slides of elderly women… was juxtaposed with slides of modern

young women, triumphant, colorful, arrogant, and the wave of the

future. This was not a “disaster” paper or a “crisis paper” —it was

a portrayal of the vanishing of a centuries-old way of life, revering

the aged in Japan.

What can we conclude? Japan is not the only Asian country in

distress but it has suffered the most; it may be in Japan that

solutions may be found to the crises outlined above, and those

solutions may be able to be applied to other countries similarly

distraught. It is to be hoped that foreign NGOs will respect Japan’s

resilience; this has been a powerful bone of contention relating to

issues of mental health. One also hopes that the beef scare will

prove to be upsetting enough to reveal information on the true

state of radiation in Japan. And finally, one hopes that there is

some way to bring Confucian values back into play, so that the

former reverence for the dignity of old age may return also. ■

27


As I write this I am listening to a 16 minute “bootleg tape”,

now a CD, of the concert Martin Benjamin and I performed on

March 9, 1 962 (49 years ago) in a talla bet (beer house) in the

arada (market) of Gondar, Ethiopia. Marty was the lead on the

guitar and I just did my best to follow along. I doubt either of us

would be described today as a couple of aging rockers. The flavor

of the concert was Kingston Trio, aka “Gondar Duo”.

At the time talla was made by women and sold in their houses.

Walking around the market I would observe the green gesho

leaves drying on mats in front of the talla bets. The mats were also

covered with a mixture of wheat and barley which was wetted and

was allowed to sprout. The pounded gesho leaves and

wheat/barley were then placed in large (5 gallon) clay jars filled

with water where the mixture was allowed to ferment. The

resulting beer had a taste somewhat like the smell of silage.

However, having grown-up on a farm I was familiar with the

smell and enjoyed the beer. We generally felt secure drinking what

had been either boiled or fermented.

The talla bets were very popular with our students. I suspect

that the drinking of talla was an important source of calories and

vitamins in their diets. In my article Peace Corps Diary: Ethiopia

1962-1964 Part 2 in which I describe our trip to visit Lalibela I

printed census data for Lalibela in which of 900 females living in

Lalibela at that time, 298 were employed as talla bet operators.

Selling beer was one of the few occupations available for women.

Women from small farming settlements who had divorced their

husbands moved to a larger market town where they could open a

talla bet and offer beer and at times other services to male

customers.

We were infrequent visitors to the Gondar talla bets. Word was

passed to us from Ato Yoseph, the Provincial head of Education,

that as teachers we had a status to maintain and thus should only

drink scotch in the uptown National Bar which was located near

the Piazza. Rarely did we go to the National Bar and when we did

we only had a small glass of Mellotti Cognac. We enjoyed the

Cinema Bar, a cavernous Italian relic, where we could enjoy little

dishes of Italian ice cream.

On three occasions I describe in my diary visits to talla bets.

“John Stockton and I visited another talla bet in the market.

The woman who operates it must be in her 60’s. Everyone sat on

grass mats placed on the four inch high dirt platform which circles

the room. The old woman had lived in Asmara which she greatly

admires. The only English words she knows are ‘hello’ and

‘sleep’. In the center of the rectangular room was the common

charcoal stove made out ofa kerosene tin. On it a pot ofwat was

cooking. ext to the fire was the woman’s cat. She related that

Ethiopian cats don’t eat rats so at night she wraps tightly in her

blanket to keep the rats away. In a corner ofthe room sat a young

Ethiopian farmer and his two sons who sat very straight and

stared with wide eyes. It would be a great picture to sketch as the

room was lit by two tiny homemade kerosene lamps which outlined

the old woman and her dignified brother who must have been at

least as old as she.”

After another visit I wrote:

“Saturday night we went to three talla bets in the market. In

the first we were entertained with dancing to the beat of a dish

pan. In the second a mysenko (stringed instrument played with a

bow) was being played. In the final bet a Besse & Co. employee

bought talla for us. During that visit a student whispered in my ear

that the scruffy man leaving the talla bet was a member of the

secret police. After he left he was replaced by a young policeman

who sat and listed to what was being said.”

March 9, 1 963 was the night of our big concert. Marty and I

walked to one of the talla bets with an entourage of students

including Worku. The students had scouted out the place to be

certain that our music would not be viewed as intrusive. The ritual

of a talla bet was the same wherever we went. The beer was ladled

out of large earthen jars into battered metal tea kettles. For 25

cents (10 cents US) we each bought a large metal tea kettle. Before

setting the tea kettle on the dirt floor in front of us the server

poured a small amount of the talla from the kettle into her hand.

She then tasted the beer to prove it was not poisoned.

The server then poured some into our “birillis”. Birillis were

round glass drinking vessels with narrow necks. The birilli was the

worst possible glass vessel in terms of cleaning, however, for talla

its shape was perfect. After filling our birilli from the tea kettle it

was placed on the floor in front of us for a few minutes. During

that time the straw and chaff from the talla would rise to the top of

the narrow neck. Then in a ritualized manner we picked-up our

birillis and with a flick of the wrist the chaff and debris would fly

onto the floor. Objects that were brought to Ethiopia after the war

were often given descriptive names or names that reflected their

manufacturer.

For example our students called an ink pen a “scripto”, blue

denim pants were “wranglers”, and a vehicle or even a sewing

machine was a “mechina”. The birilli I assume was named for the

Italian skittles/bowling pin which duplicates its shape.

Marty brought his guitar with him to Ethiopia. The wooden walls

of our house were thin so often as I was grading papers or reading

I would hear him playing and singing his favorite old Weavers’

song “Two Brothers”.

28

Peace Corps DiaryEthiopia 19621964 Part 10

By Richard Lyman

09 April 2012

April 1 st - 1 5th

To record our concert I brought my small Phillips reel to reel

recorder in a TWA flight bag which I discretely set to one side in

the talla bet. The only light in the room came from a small locally

made kerosene lamp. A tinsmith in Gondar had cut out the sides

forming a two inch high container out of which protruded a

burning wick. It created a smoky “coffee house” ambiance.

Marty led the way as we worked our way through his

repertoire of folk songs interspersed with talk from the audience

and several impromptu Ethiopian songs.

Several years ago when Marty mentioned that he was teaching

his grandson to play the guitar I sent him a copy of the concert on

a CD. Marty had forgotten all about it. ■

public perception that wars and warfare are growing more

indiscriminate and brutal in recent years, while the most reliable

evidence points in the opposite direction.

Goldstein is convincing in correcting such common mistakes

about political violence and war in the contemporary world, but

less so when it comes to the frame and framing of this picture that

is conveyed by his title ‘winning the war on war’ and the

arguments to this effect that is the centerpiece of his book, and

accounts for the interest that it is arousing. For one thing the

quantitative measures relied upon do not come to terms with the

heightened qualitative risks of catastrophic warfare or the

continued willingness of leading societies to anchor their security

on credible threats to annihilate tens of millions of innocent

persons, which if taking the form of a moderate scale nuclear

exchange (less than 1% of the world’s stockpile of weapons) is

likely to cause, according to reliable scientific analysis, what has

been called ‘a nuclear famine’ resulting in a sharp drop in

agricultural output that could last as long as ten years and could be

brought about by the release of dense clouds of smoke blocking

incoming sunlight.

Also on the panel were such influential international relations

scholars as John Mearsheimer who shared with me the view that

the evidence in Goldstein’s book did not establish that, as

Mearsheimer put it, ‘war had been burned out of the system,’ or

that even such a trend meaningfully could be inferred from recent

experience.

Mearsheimer widely known for his powerful realist critique of

the Israeli Lobby (in collaboration with Stephen Walt) did make

the important point that the United States suffers from ‘an

addiction to war.’ Mearsheimer did not seem responsive to my

insistence on the panel that part of this American addiction to war

arose from the role being played by entrenched domestic

militarism a byproduct of the permanent war economy that

disposed policy makers and politicians in Washington to treat most

security issues as worthy of resolution only by considering the

options offered by thinking within a militarist box of violence and

sanctions, a viewpoint utterly resistant to learning from past

militarist failures (as in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran).

In my view the war addiction is real, but can only be treated

significantly if understood to be a consequence of this blinkering

of policy choice by a militarized bureaucracy in the nation’s

29

Nuclear Weapons are not Instruments ofPeace!

By Richard Falk

10 April 2012

A few days ago I was a participant in a well-attended

academic panel on ‘ the decline of violence and warfare’ at the

International Studies Association’s Annual Meeting held this year

in San Diego, California. The two-part panel featured appraisal of

the common argument of two prominent recent publications:

Steven Pinker’s best-selling, The Better Angels ofour ature: Why

Violence has Declined and Joshua Goldstein’s well-researched,

informative, and provocative, Winning the War on War: The

Decline ofArmed Conflict Worldwide.

Both books are disposed to rely upon quantitative data to back

up their optimistic assessments of international and domestic

political behavior, which if persuasive, offer humanity important

reasons to be hopeful about the future.

Much of their argument depends on an acceptance of their

interpretation of battlefield deaths worldwide, which according to

their assessments have declined dramatically in recent decades.

But do battlefield deaths tell the whole story, or even the real

story, about the role and dangers of political violence and war in

our collective lives?

My role was to be a member of the Goldstein half of the panel.

Although I had never previously met Joshua Goldstein I was

familiar with his work and reputation as a well regarded scholar in

the field of international relations. To offer my response in the few

minutes available to me I relied on a metaphor that drew a

distinction between a ‘picture’ and its ‘frame.’ I found the picture

of war and warfare presented by Goldstein as both persuasive and

illuminating, conveying in authoritative detail information about

the good work being doing by UN peacekeeping forces in a variety

of conflict settings around the world, as well as a careful crediting

of peace movements with a variety of contributions to conflict

resolution and war avoidance.

Perhaps, the most enduringly valuable part of the book is its

critical debunking of prevalent myths about the supposedly rising

proportion of civilian casualties in recent wars and inflated reports

of casualties and sexual violence in the Congo Wars of 1998-2003.

These distortions, corrected by Goldstein, have led to a false


capital that is daily reinforced by a compliant media and a

misguided hard power realist worldview sustained by high paid

private sector lobbyists and the lure of corporate profits, and

continuously rationalized by well funded subsidized think tanks

such as The Hoover Institution, The Heritage Foundation, and The

American Enterprise Institute.

Dwight Eisenhower in his presidential farewell speech

famously drew attention to the problem that has grown far worse

through the years when he warned the country about ‘ the military-

industrial complex’ back in 1961 .

What to me was most shocking about the panel was not its

overstated claims that political violence was declining and war on

the brink of disappearing, but the unqualified endorsement of

nuclear weapons as deserving credit for keeping the peace during

Cold War and beyond. Nuclear weapons were portrayed as if

generally positive contributors to establishing a peaceful and just

world, provided only that they do not fall into unwanted hands

(which means ‘adversaries of the West,’ or more colorfully

phrased by George W. Bush as ‘ the axis of evil’ ) as a result of

proliferation. In this sense, although not made explicit in the

conversation, Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons

set forth at Prague on April 5, 2009 seems irresponsible from the

perspective of achieving a less war-prone world. I had been

previously aware of Mearsheimer’s support for this position in his

hyper-realist account of how World War III was avoided in the

period between 1945-1989, but I was not prepared for Goldstein

and the well regarded peace researcher, Andrew Mack, blandly to

endorse such a conclusion without taking note of the drawbacks of

such ‘a nuclear peace.’ Goldstein in his book writes that

“[n]uclear deterrence may in fact help to explain why World War

III did not occur during the Cold War—certainly an important

accomplishment.”

Goldstein does insist that this role of nuclear weapons has

problematic aspects associated with some risk of unintended or

accidental use and cannot by itself explain other dimensions of the

decline of political violence, which rests on a broader set of

developments that are usefully depicted elsewhere in the book.

These qualifications are welcome but do not offset a seeming

willingness to agree that nuclear weapons seemed partly

responsible for the avoidance of World War III or the liberal

internationalist view, perhaps most fully articulated by Joseph

Nye, that an arms control approach is a sufficient indication that

the threat posed by the possession and deployment of nuclear

weaponry is being responsibly addressed.

Steven Pinker in his book takes a more nuanced position on

nuclear weapons, arguing that if it were indeed correct to credit

nuclear weapons with the avoidance ofWorld War III, there would

be grounds for serious concern. He correctly asserts that such a

structure of peace would be “a fool’s paradise, because an

accident, a miscommunication, or an air force general obsessed

with precious bodily fluids could set off an apocalypse.” Pinker

goes on to conclude that “[t]hankfully, a closer look suggests that

the threat ofnuclear annihilation deserves little credit for the Long

Peace.”

Instead, Pinker persuasively emphasizes the degree to which

World War III was discouraged by memories of the devastation

experienced in World War II combined with the realization that

advances in conventional weaponry would make a major war

among leading states far more deadly than any past war even if no

nuclear weapons were used. Pinker also believes that a ‘nuclear

taboo’ developed after World War II to inhibit recourse to nuclear

weapons in all but the most extreme situations, and that this is the

primary explanation of why the weapons were not used in a

variety of combat settings during the 67 years that have passed

since a single atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. But Pinker

does not raise deeply disturbing questions about the continued

possession and threat to use such weaponry that is retained by a

few of the world’s states. Or if the taboo was so strong, why this

weaponry remains on hair trigger alert more than 20 years after the

collapse of the Berlin Wall, and why on several occasions a threat

to use nuclear weapons was used to discourage an adversary from

taking certain actions.

And it the taboo was so valued, why did the United States fight

so hard, it turns out unsuccessfully, to avoid having the

International Court of Justice pronounce on the legality of nuclear

weapons?

And why has the United States, along with some of the other

nuclear weapons states, refused to declare ‘a no first use policy.’

The taboo exists, to be sure, but it is conditional and has been

contested in times of international crisis, and its strength rests on

the costs associated with any further use of nuclear weapons,

including creating a precedent that might work against future

interests.

Most surprising than these comments on how the presence of

nuclear weapons dissuaded the United States and the Soviet Union

from going to war, was the failure of my co-panelists to surround

their endorsement of the war-avoiding presence of nuclear

weapons with moral and prudential qualifiers. At minimum, they

might have acknowledged the costs and risks of tying strategic

peace so closely to threatened mass devastation and civilizational,

and perhaps species, catastrophe, a realization given sardonic

recognition in the Cold War by the widely used acronym MAD

(mutually assured destruction). The questions put by the audience

also avoided this zone of acute moral and prudential insensitivity,

revealing the limits of rational intelligence in addressing this most

formidable challenge if social and political construction of a

humane world order was recognized as a shared goal of decent

people. It is unimaginable to reach any plateau of global justice

without acting with resolve to rid the world of nuclear weaponry;

the geopolitical ploy of shifting attention from disarmament to

proliferation does not address the moral depravity of relying on

genocidal capabilities and threats to uphold vital strategic interests

of a West-centric world (Chinese nuclear weapons, and even those

few possessed by North Korea, although dangerous and morally

objectionable, at least seem acquired solely for defensive and

deterrent purposes).

30

April 1 st - 1 5th

I doubt very much that such a discussion of the decline ofwar

and political violence could take place anywhere in the world other

than North America, and possibly Western Europe and Japan. Of

course, this does not by itself invalidate its central message, but it

does raise questions about what is included and what is excluded

in an Americans only debate (Mack is an Australian). Aside from

the U.S. being addicted to war I heard no references in the course

of the panel and discussion to the new hierarchies in the world

being resurrected by indirect forms of violence and intervention

after the collapse of colonialism, or of structural violence that

shortens life by poverty, disease, and human insecurity. I cannot

help but wonder whether some subtle corruption has seeped into

the academy over the years, especially at elite universities whose

faculty received invitations to work as prestigious consultants by

the Washington security establishment, or in extreme cases, were

hosts to lucrative arrangements that included giving weapons labs

a university home and many faculty members a salary surge.

Princeton, where I taught for 40 years, was in many respects

during the Cold War an academic extension of the military-

industrial complex, with humanists advising the CIA, a dean

recruiting on behalf of the CIA, a branch of the Institute for

Defense Analysis on campus doing secret contract work on

counterinsurgency warfare, and a variety of activities grouped

under the anodyne heading of ‘security studies’ being sponsored

by outside financing. Perhaps, such connections did not spillover

into the classroom or induce self-censorship in writing and

lecturing, but this is difficult to assess.

The significance of this professional discussion of nuclear

weaponry in 2012, that is, long after the militarized atmosphere of

the Cold War period has happily passed from the scene, can be

summarized: To witness otherwise perceptive and morally

motivated scholars succumbing to the demons of nuclearism is a

bad omen; for me this nuclearist complacency is an unmistakable

sign of cultural decadence that can only bring on disaster for the

society, the species, and the world at some indeterminate future

point. We cannot count on our geopolitical luck lasting forever!

And we Americans, cannot possibly retain the dubious

advantages of targeting the entire world with these weapons of

mass destruction without experiencing the effects of a profound

spiritual decline, which throughout human history, has always

been the prelude to political decline, if not collapse. ■

The 23 March 2012 death of Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed –

former president of the Transitional Federal Government of

Somalia (TFG) – sparked an intense debate about his political

legacy.

President Yusuf left an indelible mark on the history of

Somalia. Some present him as a national hero and honest broker;

others see him as a dictator, a corrupt politician, and a tribalist.

These diametrically opposing views were the result of President

Yusuf seeking military support from Ethiopia to establish his rule

in south central Somalia. As a result, Ethiopia dominated the

internal and external affairs of Somalia.

In a 201 1 interview with Voice of America, Abdullahi Yusuf

Ahmed stated he regretted requesting military support from

Ethiopia. He unambiguously said that he decided to resign from

the presidency of the TFG because he did not want to be a stooge

ofEthiopia.

President Abdulahi Yusuf articulated his views of Ethiopia

before his death, when he wrote: “I never forgot an Ethiopian

adage Mengistu Haile Mariam [the former dictator of Ethiopia]

told me in our first encounter after he accepted the establishment

ofSSDF base in Ethiopia. The adage says, Don’t catch a leopard

by the tail, but if you do, don’t let it go because it will attack you

and eat you…The thrust ofthe adage indicate that in Mengistu and

Meles Zenawi periods the leopard (Ethiopia) will not stop in

eating anyone who let it go but it (Ethiopia) will violently attack

anyone or any state which resists the fulfillment of the Ethiopian

interests”.

“I retired from the Somali politics but two major issues that

need urgent actions are still outstanding. The First one is the

Ethiopian’s concern [obstruction] about the Somali unity and the

revival ofeffective State ofSomalia. The second issue is the tragic

domestic situation of Somalia without hopeful solution in the

horizon”.

However, with his public regret, the allegiance to and the

public defense of Ethiopia by Somali politicians and intellectuals

did not die. Loyalty to Ethiopia became a publicly-claimed quality

for gaining political power in Somalia.

“Dine with a stranger, but save your love for your family.”

– Ethiopian Proverb

At the beginning of this year, President Yusuf’s memoir was

released. Written in Somali with the title “Halgan and

Hagardaamo” – translating to “Struggle and Conspiracy” –

President Yusuf chronicles the supporters and saboteurs of the

major events in his long political struggle. The former president

argues, among other things, that Mr. Ali A. Jangeli, the former

foreign minister ofTFG, is one of the principal saboteurs.

I was a surprised to read Mr. Jangeli’s eulogy about the

former president, “President Abdullahi Yusuf: Warrior

Statesman”, published on various Somali websites, like Hiiraan

31

Somali’s Compete for Foreign DominationBy Mohamud Uluso

12 April 2012


Online.

It seems plausible that the main thrust ofMr. Jangeli’s eulogy

was to portray President Yusuf as the leader of a group who

decided years ago to bring Somalia under the subjugation of

Ethiopia. The second probable explanation could be an effort for

personal political rehabilitation after August 2012. Apart from my

inferences, Mr. Jangeli stated:

“Abdillahi was a true patriot who loved his country and had

the intelligence and the courage to manage any strategic

relationship for the benefit of his country. Take the example of

Ethiopia and other neighbors in the region. He knew that

Somalia’s path to peace and stability is interlinked in a profound

manner to that ofthe Horn region. "

"Having realized that it was in the strategic long-term interest

of Somalia to have a mutually beneficial relationship with the

States neighboring Somalia, he managed it in manner worthy ofa

proud Somali patriot. Those ofus who had the distinct privilege of

witnessing it firsthand could attest to that. Abdillahi also deeply

believed that the Horn region is so inter-dependent that it could

only realize its true potential if there is a paradigm shift in its

people’s thinking and approach. To the skeptics that is far offand

futile but to those of us who share Abdillahi’s vision of stable,

peaceful and prosperous Horn region believe it is a cause worth

fighting for”.

Ethiopia’s Regional Strategy

In a discussion about President Yusuf’s life and political

legacy moderated by Voice of America, Mr. Mohamed Abshir

Walde asserted that the Somali Salvation Democratic Front

(SSDF) was established in Ethiopia, in 1978, before the rebel

movement. Led by a group of intellectuals, Ethiopian leaders were

assured that SSDF’s vision and political agenda was to tilt

Somalia’s policy towards Ethiopia.

Some Somalia political and intellectual leaders still subscribe

to that pledge of allegiance towards Ethiopia. Last month,

President Sheikh Sharif travelled to Addis Ababa where he

discussed Ethiopian policy towards the regions of Hiiraan, Bay,

Bakol, Gedo and Galgudud; all currently under the control of

Ethiopian forces.

For its part, Ethiopia publicized its security and foreign policy

strategy towards Somalia.

First, Ethiopia’s strategy assumes that Somalia will remain

stateless in the short- and medium-term and proceed through a

long process of transformation before peace and stability take

place. Ethiopia takes a long-term view of Somalia’s recovery.

Second, it makes clear that Somalia will not have

relations with countries deemed to be anti-Ethiopian, and, third,

claims that the ‘greater Somalia’ ideology has been discredited.

Lastly, this strategy asserts that Somalia has no relevance to

the development and security ofEthiopia.

Indeed, Ethiopia decided to dam two rivers, the Shabelle and

the Jubba, so that less water will be made available to Somalia.

Taking into account President Yusuf’s counsel and Ethiopia’s

foreign policy strategy: why do some Somalian intellectuals and

political leaders believe that Ethiopia is critical to Somalia’s

revival? Another Ethiopian adage says, “the eye of the leopard is

on the goat, and the eye of the goat is on the leaf.”

There is no question that Somalia and Ethiopia are linked on

several levels, but they are two distinct nations with different

political and cultural systems. Somalia is a nation with its own

strategic interests, and it needs to develop its own policies without

interference from Ethiopia’s leadership or the international

community.

Efforts should be made to avoid the tragedy of 1884 when

Somali tribes competed for foreign domination of Somalia.

Beneath apparent security improvements, real progress in Somalia

will depend on the Somali people’s common determination and

not on external forces and strategies. ■

32

Drug Policy in the Western HemisphereBy Taylor Dibbert

14 April 2012

I recently read an interesting and smart piece on one of

Foreign Policy’s blogs which charted some notable policy shifts

among current Latin American heads of state as it relates to drugs.

It is true that, more than two years ago, the former leaders of

Brazil, Colombia and Mexico all (rightly) claimed that the “war on

drugs” had been unsuccessful. It is also true that the current

presidents of Argentina, Colombia, Mexico and Guatemala

(among others) have also called for a rethink on the current

prohibition regime.

In addition, Adam Siegel, of Eurasia Group, rightly points out

that leaders like Guatemala’s Ottó Pérez are not deriding current

drug policies because they are champions of individual liberty.

Rather, Pérez and company want to suffocate the cartels and

staunch the violence that continues plague the region, especially

Central America.

President Barack Obama has been encouraged to offer up

some “policy alternatives” at the Summit of the Americas in

Cartagena, Colombia. However, merely offering alternatives does

not measure sincerity or political will.

Yes, criticism of US drug policy will rise in the coming years.

On the other hand, the idea that a sitting US President would be

deeply moved by a few Central American nations or even Mexico

April 1 st - 1 5th

when it comes to this issue, is hard to believe.

Besides, one hugely important actor still has not been

accounted for: the American public. The most effectual pressure

that Obama (or any future US president) would feel when it comes

to reexamining drug policy will be domestic.

If it were left up to individual states, there is reason to think

that more liberal states like California could legalize (or at least

decriminalize) marijuana within the next decade. One survey last

year noted that the majority of US citizens supported the

legalization of marijuana, but the legalization of any other drug is

minimal.

According to one poll, ten percent ofAmerican citizens support

the legalization of ecstasy and even fewer support the legalization

of cocaine. The legalization of cocaine would have a major impact

on drug gangs’ revenues, but that is not happening any time soon.

So where does that leave us?

According to a recent report by the US Congressional Research

Service, “95 percent of all cocaine entering the United States flows

through Mexico and its waters, with 60 percent of that cocaine

having first transited through Central America.”

If one Central American nation, like Guatemala, legalized

drugs, others may follow, as it could be in their best interest to do

so if they want to curb violence. However, those countries would

have to weigh that decision against the costs of upsetting

Washington. Besides, Mexico, with a population of over 1 10

million and sharing a 900-plus mile border with the US, would still

need to go along. And, even if Mexico were to legalize drugs, the

problem of curbing US supply (and changing US policy) still

would not have been addressed.

True, the war on drugs has failed miserably; this is a complex,

demand-driven problem. That means that thinking inside the US

and, to a lesser extent, Europe is paramount.

President Obama is eloquent, articulate and cerebral. Yet, with

few exceptions, he has been a timid leader. Were he to be

reelected, he probably will not spearhead bold drug policy reform.

Nevertheless, America’s political leaders need to educate the

American public and raise awareness so that people fully

understand the costs of the current prohibition regime.

Disappointingly, if Obama were to push for meaningful drug

policy reform now, something officials in the White House have

already dismissed, he would undoubtedly alienate moderate voters.

That needs to change.

With healthcare, Obama saw how dangerous it is to swiftly pass

a major piece of legislation without broader support from the

American public. He will not make the same mistake twice.

Like his predecessor, Obama has largely ignored Latin

America. If he wins a second term, he will have an opportunity to

remedy that. It may make more sense to focus on other regional

issues like immigration or trade, although strident calls for US

drug policy reform will continue.

Finally, Latin Americans are speaking out about misguided drug

policies, but it is not clear how many people north of the border

are listening. ■

33

Social Business and the EnvironmentBy Jahangir Alam Sarker

15 April 2012

Our environment is in serious crisis. As sea levels continue

to rise due to global warming, Bangladesh faces an existential

threat.

Social business must be implemented along with existing

initiatives that are in place to save the environment. In doing so,

not only will we be able to save our environment, we will be able

to enrich it. But we must act now. We must act to create a livable,

survivable, and safe environment. And we know we are already

armed with a powerful weapon to combat the crisis – social

business.

Nobel Laureate Dr. Yunus continues to stress the potential of

social business as a means to eliminate many of the social ills we

face today. He also knows that the younger generation has the

talent, capabilities, and technologies to effectively change the

world. “We must use young people to harness the power of social

business,” Dr. Yunus has said previously.

To provide clean water, Bangladesh has undertaken the

world’s first social business initiatives. A new partnership called

Grameen-Veolia Water Ltd was created in 2008 to provide clean

water to the poorest in Bangladesh. Grameen-Veolia Water Ltd

further partnered with Grameen Healthcare Services and Violia

Water AMI Ltd to distribute purified water to people in

Bangladesh by 2012.

The elimination of forests, global warming, loss of animal

lives, and carbon pollution continue to threaten our existence.

Bangladesh must undertake social business initiatives

throughout the country. Poor people by far are the most vulnerable

victims of environmental pollution. To save them, businesses must

come forward and adopt social business. They have the financial

resources to successfully undertake social business initiatives. Big

businesses can produce the basic necessities of life in a cost

effective way and continue to make profits. Big businesses can

enter the social business arena easily but smaller businesses may

not the have necessary economy of scale. Large companies in

Bangladesh should be targeted to adopt social business initiatives

and the environment must be one of them.


Social business benefits society as a whole. Helping

communities survive and be sustainable is the primary focus of

social business.

Dr. Yunus has previously stated that young graduates first look for

jobs after graduation. “This must change,” according to Dr. Yunus.

He stresses that the ultimate goal of Bangladesh’s educational

system should be to benefit Bangladesh as a whole. “We must

provide social business opportunities for the college graduates,”

Dr. Yunus has stated.

One of Grameen’s initiatives, Grameen Shakti, has undertaken

providing solar energy in villages throughout Bangladesh. To date,

Grameen Shakti has provided solar panels to 70,000 households.

Initiatives like this will create an ecological balance.

Other social business projects like Grameen Bank Biogas is

providing portable low-cost and low-maintenance cooking stoves

to the poorest people in Bangladesh.

Technologies in natural science have improved dramatically.

These advancements have enabled us to predict weather

patterns, which saves lives during hurricanes, massive storms, and

other natural disasters. In today’s globally connected world,

disasters in one country may affect many others. Therefore, we

must proactively undertake initiatives to preserve our environment.

Social business is a new idea but its potential has already

reached beyond the borders of many countries in the world, as it

continues to enrich our lives. ■

April 1 st - 1 5th

34

March 15th - 31 st

42

Cover – China Economy/Currrency - MSNBC

Page 3 - President Barack Obama talks with President Dmitry Medvedev of the Russian Federation during their bilateral meeting at the Millennium Seoul Hilton

in Seoul, Republic ofKorea, March 26, 2012. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Page 4 - Israeli soldiers just inside Area C on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Image in the background is ofMarwan Barghouti, a Fatah leader in jail for multiple

murder counts. Source: Begemot/Flickr

Page 6 - European flags in front of the Berlaymont building, headquarter of the European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Photo by TPCOM

Page 8 - Vice President Joe Biden meets with Premier Wen Jiabao at the Purple Light Pavillion in Beij ing, China, August 19, 201 1 . Official White House Photo

by David Lienemann

Page 10 - Prime Minister Viktor Orbán during a debate on the political situation in Hungary in the European Parliament. Photo by Pietro Naj-Oleari

Page 12 - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Source: Presidential Press and Information Office

Page 14 - Bo Xilai, the former party chief ofChongqing.

Page 14 - President Obama greets Costa Rican President Oscar Arias during the opening reception at the Summit of the Americas in Port of Spain, Trinidad on

April 1 7, 2009. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Page 15 - U.S. soldier on the Afghan-Pakistan border. Official DoD photo

Page 17 - Part of an agreement to restore constitutional order, Mali’s ousted president, Amadou Toumani Touré, resigned from office. Source: kk+/Flickr

Page 18 - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations. Source: United Nations

Page 20 - All figures in this piece were courtesy of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook.

Page 21 - Riocinha Favela in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Photo by David Berkowitz

Page 22 - Protesters clash with riot police during a demonstration in Athens, Greece. Photo by PIAZZA del POPOLO/Flickr

Page 23 - Immigration Anxiety and Ruminations on Thought Police. Photo courtesy ofGroundviews

Page 24 - President John F. Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru during Mr. Nehru's third visit to the United States in 1961 : U.S. Embassy New Delhi

Page 25 - Victims at Pompeii

Page 28 - Pounding Dried Gesho Leaves by Richard Lyman

Page 29 - President Barack Obama talks with Crown Prince ofAbu Dhabi Sheikh Mohamed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, during a Nuclear Security Summit working

dinner at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C., April 1 2, 2010. Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

Page 32 - A woman holds a Somali flag at the Mogadishu International Airport, where a ceremony took place to receive the casket of former President of

Somalia, Abdullahi YusufAhmed. Photo by Stuart Price

Page 33 - President Barack Obama speaks with Prime Minister Stephen Harper (right) ofCanada and President Felipe Calderon (left) ofMexico at a joint press

conference in the Rose Garden of the White House on April 2, 2012 in Washington, DC. Photo by Ariel Gutiérrez

Page 34 - Muhammad Yunus, Managing Director, Grameen Bank, Bangladesh speaks to students during the Young Global Leaders session at the Swiss alpine

school during the Annual Meeting 2010 of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 29, 2010. Photo by Andy Mettler

International Policy Digest Volume I Issue VI

Documents

international policy

drug policy

richard falk

reproduction of articles

richard lyman

attached articles

timeby richard javad

ramzy baroud