All Global News on One Page

Nuku’alofa, Kingdom of Tonga. WikiLeaks has given New Zealand’s Sunday Star-Times 1,490 diplomatic cables from the United States’ Wellington Embassy. To date, only a few of those cables have been publicly released. However, they clearly indicate an increasingly close relationship between New Zealand and the U.S., as well as an increasing reliance by the U.S. on New Zealand when it comes to Pacific security issues.
While a closer relationship is desirable, given the growing importance of the Pacific in global affairs, primary reliance on New Zealand to guide the way in the Pacific is not sufficient and leaves the region vulnerable to outside influences and internal instability.
U.S.-New Zealand Security Relationship
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and U.S. President Barack Obama at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit.
The renewed engagement between the U.S. and New Zealand seems to have gained momentum about five years ago. Since the 1980s, due in large part to its anti-nuclear stance, NZ was not treated as a full security partner by the U.S. While still a member of ‘Five Eyes’ (a security grouping of the U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand), it had restricted access to intelligence.
That started to change around 2005. A 2007 cable written as a ‘scene-setter’ for then New Zealand PM Helen Clark’s visit to Washington reads: “Clark has since the 2005 election appointed to key positions a number of officials well disposed towards working with the United States.”
Officials named included Foreign Minister Winston Peters , Secretary of Defense John McKinnon, and Director of the NZ Security Intelligence Service Warren Tucker. The cable explains: “these officials have improved their agencies’ coordination on U.S. policy and instructed staff to be helpful to us wherever possible.”
The U.S.-New Zealand relationship was further improved with the election of current NZ PM John Key, described in another cable as having a “strongly personal pro-American outlook”.
The closer engagement coincided with increasing US security concerns about the Pacific, including concerns over China’s expansion in to the region.
New Zealand as a Security Force in the Pacific
New Zealand police units with the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands. Photo by Michael Field.
New Zealand has seemingly successfully positioned itself as a reliable source of information and as an operational ally in Pacific countries such as Tonga. The 2007 cable reads: “We continue to cooperate closely on events in Fiji and have come to value the views of Kiwi officials regarding events in E.Timor, the Solomon Islands, and Tonga.”
The cooperation is tactical as well. According to the cables, US Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research Randall Fort “commented that GNZ sigint had been critical to USG understanding of the 2006 coup.”
A 2010 scene-setter for Hilary Clinton’s January visit to New Zealand, features the header: “New Zealand’s Special Relationship with the Pacific Islands”.
It reads:
New Zealand, otherwise a relatively small country on the geopolitical periphery, gains strategic importance if Washington feels it can ‘deliver’ in the Pacific. NZ benefits from highlighting security concerns in the Pacific and placing itself in the center of the solution. The rewards are valuable. The 2010 cable notes: “Our intelligence relationship was fully restored on August 29, 2009 (which should not be acknowledged in public).”
The cables also show that New Zealand presents itself as better equipped to manage the Pacific than Australia. A 2008 cable reports the opinion of Maaten Wevers, who oversees NZ’s intelligence committee: “Often there are significant differences with Australia, he added, as New Zealand is a more Pacific country than Australia and the latter is not always attuned to Pacific developments.”
This message was reinforced in the 2007 cable, which reports that Helen Clark: “also realized after the Fiji coup that New Zealand had become too reliant on Australian intelligence.”
(It is worth noting that, according to a WikiLeaks 2005 Canberra cable on North Korea, Australia had its own issues with NZ. The cable reports: “If U.S. officials wanted to hear the “bleeding hearts” view of “peace and love” with respect to North Korea, [Australian Foreign Minister Alexander] Downer joked, they only had to visit his colleagues in New Zealand.”).
What This Means for Regional Security
In a time when the Pacific is getting more attention from Washington, Wellington’s role in advising on the region is becoming more valued
This is potentially problematic in two ways.
First, NZ’s information and advice may not always be as reliable as thought. There are examples of failure to predict/manage critical situations. For example, mismanagement of the Fiji coup by NZ/Australia resulted in pushing Fiji closer towards the China camp.
Fiji Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama and Chinese Ambassador to Fiji Cai Jinbiao make a deal.
Similarly, in Tonga, New Zealand has been backing the ‘pro-democracy’ movement. That group triggered riots in 2006 that burned down much of the capital city. Following the riots, failure by NZ to substantially participate in the reconstruction resulted in Tonga having to take out a debilitating loan from China. The fact that a group supported by NZ as pro-democracy resulted in the country becoming indebted to an authoritarian country is a small indication of the something going wrong.
Coincidentally or not, in the 2008 cable, US Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research, Randall Fort, notes that the larger Pacific region is more fragile today then it was ten years ago.
Another problem is the character of NZ’s engagement of the region (which can affect intelligence gathering, analysis, and operations).
There is a perception of a pervasive NZ ‘we know better’ attitude towards Pacific island nations. For example, NZ is proposing sending a team to train the new Tongan parliamentarians in governance, in spite of the fact that the Tongan system is fundamentally different than the NZ one.
Similarly, in the 2007 cable, NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Deputy Secretary Caroline Forsyth offered that:
RAMSI troops in the Solomon Islands.
The sort of ‘engagement’ that results in one nation sure thinking it can, and should, make “long-lasting improvements” in another nation’s society does little to build mutual trust and respect.
Second, NZ’s interests are not necessarily US interests. NZ has its own range of national priorities and one would expect it to put those above the interests of partner states, no matter how close the relationship.
For example, the 2010 cable notes that: “There is also collaboration [between the US and NZ] on the Energy Development for Island Nations (EDIN) project, which aims to develop renewable energy resources for Pacific Islands and reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.”
However, as is seen with the proposed Meridian deal, NZ is not above using tied aid to try to get Tonga to buy a solar power plant from a Government of NZ owned company. This could potentially tie Tongan consumers in to high energy costs and so undermining economic development, which can lead to instability, which can lead to greater gains by others, including China (as has happened in the past).
Towards a Secure Pacific
All in all, while a closer relationship between NZ and the US is desirable, it would benefit both nations, as well as the Pacific islands, if the responsibility for the region’s security was more embedded in the region itself.
Given the Pacific’s increasingly geopolitical importance, the US might want to consider opening more diplomatic missions of its own in the Pacific (perhaps even along with the UK and burgeoning partner India), as well as helping to facilitate the opening of reciprocal missions to Washington.
There is a lot of natural warmth towards the West in the Pacific, but the relationship with NZ has left some feeling burned. That can affect intelligence flows and operational capacities, creating vulnerabilities for all concerned. NZ should encourage more direct US engagement in the region, if only to buttress its own intelligence and security.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, U.S. Navy, greets Tongan Honor Guard soldiers during a visit to the kingdom on Nov. 9, 2010. Mullen visited Tonga on the second stop of a Pacific tour to thank the Tongan people for their continuing dedication and support in sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley, U.S. Navy.

This Blogger’s Books from
Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises will Redraw the World Map
by Cleo Paskal
Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises will Redraw the World Map
by Cleo Paskal

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As the U.S. Senate prepares to vote this December on ratification of the New START Treaty, Republican legislators appear on the verge of producing an international disaster.
From the standpoint of logic, there are excellent reasons to ratify the treaty. This agreement between the U.S. and Russian governments provides that each of the two nations would reduce the number of its deployed strategic nuclear warheads from 2,200 to 1,550. This reduction — although a modest one, given their current nuclear arsenals totaling over 20,000 nuclear weapons — would honor the commitment of the two governments, under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 1968, to nuclear disarmament. At least as important, it would resume the nuclear arms control and disarmament process, which has been stalled for years. At a time when Washington is pressing the North Korean government to dismantle its nuclear arsenal and to convince the Iranian government not to develop one, New START also would lend moral authority to such non-proliferation efforts.
Certainly, thoughtful observers, both foreign and domestic, wonder why the United States and Russia need 95 percent of the world’s 23,000 nuclear weapons. After all, what possible purpose is served today by these vast, Cold War-style, doomsday arsenals? As the New York Times recently editorialized: “Two decades after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the United States and Russia still have more than 20,000 nuclear weapons. That is absurd.”
Moreover, the New START treaty would strengthen U.S. national security. Minimally, it would ensure that 650 fewer Russian nuclear weapons — each with the capability of massacring hundreds of thousands of people — were pointed at the United States. In addition, it would provide for substantial U.S. examination of Russian nuclear weapons facilities, including 18 short-notice inspections of Russian nuclear forces every year. With the expiration of the old START treaty last December, U.S. inspection came to an end and, at present, the United States can no longer keep tabs on what the only other significant nuclear power is doing with its nuclear weapons.
Not surprisingly, New START ratification is backed by the U.S. secretary of state, the U.S. secretary of defense, the entire current U.S. military leadership, and U.S. allies. Furthermore, it has been endorsed by six former U.S. secretaries of state, five former secretaries of defense, three former national security advisors, and by seven former commanders of the U.S. Strategic Command.
But treaty ratification requires a positive vote by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. And this is far from assured. Although Senate Democrats have indicated their solid support for the treaty, Senate Republicans have not. Indeed, the GOP solons seem ready to torpedo it. Why?
In part, Republican opposition to the treaty is based on the fact that GOP Senators are simply more hawkish than their Democratic counterparts. Beating the drum for the U.S. military, even when it involves a weapons system or a war U.S. military officials don’t want, has become standard Republican behavior.
But Republican resistance to New START goes deeper, for President Barack Obama — in a clear effort to win Republican support for treaty ratification — has already promised the GOP a huge increase in U.S. nuclear weapons expenditures. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reported only a few weeks ago, the administration has proposed spending 10 percent more on the U.S. nuclear stockpile in the current fiscal year and “more than $80 billion to modernize our nuclear weapons complex over the next decade.” Overall, “the administration proposes spending more than $180 billion [in the next ten years] on the infrastructure that sustains our nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.” And yet, despite this nuclear weapons bonanza, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the chief negotiator for Senate Republicans on the treaty, continues to raise objections to it.
A more important explanation for GOP opposition is that the implementation of New START would be popular and, therefore, redound to Obama’s political benefit. Given the fact that, for some time now, the Republican political strategy has been to denigrate Obama and to block congressional measures that might be considered administration successes, Republican Senators are very reluctant to reverse gears and hand the president a victory. The political dimension of GOP resistance is further illustrated by the fact that the old START Treaty, negotiated by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, was ratified by a Senate vote of 93 to 6 in 1992 and the Moscow Treaty, negotiated by President George W. Bush, won approval by a vote of 95 to 0 in 2003.
Thus, the situation is eerily reminiscent of some 90 years ago, when Republican Senators — eager to hand President Woodrow Wilson a foreign policy defeat — blocked U.S. ratification of the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations, thus paving the way for World War II. Will we have a modern version of that disaster — through the destruction of the nuclear disarmament process, a return to the nuclear arms race, and, eventually, nuclear war? The answer to that question might well lie in whether Senate Republicans put the good of their country and the world above narrow, partisan political advantage.
Lawrence Wittner is Professor of History emeritus at the State University of New York/Albany. His latest book is Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford University Press).

This Blogger’s Books from
Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement (Stanford Nuclear Age Series)
by Lawrence Wittner
Toward Nuclear Abolition: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1971-Present (Stanford Nuclear Age Series)
by Lawrence S. Wittner

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Nuku’alofa, Kingdom of Tonga. The small South Pacific country of the Kingdom of Tonga has been busy. In a two-week period around the start of September, separate military delegations from the US, New Zealand, Australia, UK, India and the UN stopped by for a visit. The French sent a frigate and a military aircraft. China sent two warships.
Chinese Navy Ship Visiting The Kingdom of Tonga
Why all this activity in a country of 100,000? There is real concern that the West may be losing critical influence in the Pacific, while others such as China, and even the Arab League, are dramatically extending their reach. The implications are global, and may already have affected UN Security Council voting. It wasn’t always this way. The Pacific is the West’s to lose.
Recent history of geopolitics in the Pacific — Western Heydays
From a security perspective, since WWII, the nations of the Pacific have been considered part of the West (and in particular the American) security zone. However, especially since the end of the Cold War, the larger Western powers, including the US and UK, started to lose interest in the region. There was a sense that the West had ‘won’ and so strategic concerns could take a back seat to commercial ones.
That meant standing down what were considered primarily security or power projection-related postings. For example, around five years ago, the UK shut three high commissions (embassies) in the Pacific, including the one in Tonga. From a Western security perspective, the day-to-day management of the region was essentially handed over to Australia and New Zealand (A/NZ).
Unfortunately, while there is no questioning the deep bonds between A/NZ and the nations of the Pacific, some of the A/NZ policies in the region seem to have an old-style colonial bent. Countries like the Kingdom of Tonga, for example, are often seen by A/NZ largely as places to export excess or subpar products, and from where to import cheap seasonal labor (for example, Tongan seasonal workers pick New Zealand’s kiwi crop).
Nor have Australia and New Zealand been consistently helpful with international trade agreements.
In 2005, for example, when Tonga signed on to the WTO, Oxfam’s Phil Bloomer said: “The terms of Tonga’s accession package are appalling”, worse than any other than Armenia. According to Oxfam, Tonga was allowed to impose tariffs of no more than 20% on any product. By comparison, the US can apply a 350% tariff on beef imports, and the EU can apply an equivalent tariff of over 300% on sugar imports. Oxfam NZ Executive Director, Barry Coates said: “To our shame, New Zealand, as a member of the working party that negotiated Tonga’s accession, has participated in this process.”
In short, until recently, Australia and New Zealand have largely been practicing classic old school sphere-of-influence economic and political policies in the Pacific, while larger Western allies, such as the US and UK focused on other matters.
Geopolitics as it is — Looking for new friends
The problem is these sphere-of-influence policies are a based on a Cold War-era model, in which the traditional allies are the only game in town and so can decide policy in a relative geopolitical vacuum.
Those days are long gone. In an increasingly multipolar world, all sorts of new foreign policy options are available, especially as the enormous value of the island nations of the Pacific becomes increasingly clear.
From a geopolitical perspective, the nations of the Pacific offer (among other things):
Sea-lanes and ports in relatively calm waters (increasingly important as China, in particular, increases trade with South America);
Access to fisheries (something increasingly important as the Atlantic is fished out);
Agricultural exports (especially important as concerns over food security increase in countries such as China);
Unknown but potentially valuable underwater resources;
Geostrategic military basing sites;
Crucial votes in international fora (Pacific Island countries represent around a dozen votes in the UN – a substantial voting block).
Given what is at stake, other nations are understandably keen to take advantage of discontent with traditional partners in order to advance their own position in the Pacific.
West drops the ball, China picks it up
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (R) shakes hands with Dr. Fred Sevele, prime minister of Tonga, at the opening of the the First Ministerial Conference of the China-Pacific Island Countries Economic Development and Cooperation Forum in Nadi, Fiji, April 5, 2006.
For example, following the ‘pro-democracy’ riots in Tonga in 2006, A/NZ sent in troops, but they didn’t provide access to funding needed to rebuild. China jumped into the gap and ended providing the major loan for rebuilding downtown. So, ironically, due to a lack of support by democratic allies, a ‘pro-democracy’ action ended up indebting Tonga even more to a non-democratic nation.
The China loan (along with other aspects of the growing Tonga-China relationship) has international repercussions. When I asked one member of Tonga’s delegation to the Copenhagen climate conference what the country’s negotiating position would be, I was told: “whatever China says it is, we owe them hundreds of millions of dollars.”
Similarly, when A/NZ tried to isolate Fiji after the 2006 coup, that left the field wide open for China, which quickly developed deep ties with Fiji.
Discontent with the A/NZ handling of Fiji also gave momentum to the Pacific Small Island Developing States group (P-SIDS). P-SIDS does not include Australia and New Zealand and is tentatively charting a new geopolitical course for the Pacific.
Arab league on the playing field
Arab League and Pacific Island leaders meet in Abu Dhabi, June 2010
Members of this grouping recently met in Abu Dhabi with the members of the Arab League. While the Arab League pledged tens of millions of dollars aid and a growing trade relationship with the Pacific nations, Pacific leaders supported the Arab League’s call for a nuclear-free Middle East (which targets Iran and Israel).
P-SIDS may have given even more tangible support to the Arab League in the latest voting round for seats on the UN Security Council. Australia was backing Canada for a seat while the United Arab Emirates was opposing.
According to international relations expert Dr Richard Herr from the University of Tasmania, in the Pacific ”There was a sentiment that Australia went too far, that it was pushing its own objectives to get a seat down the track.” The vote was secret, but Canada lost. Fiji, for one, has openly said it didn’t vote for Canada. If the P-SIDS did back the UAE position, and continue along that path, it could mean a whole new ball game in the UN.
So where are we now?
Geopolitically, the impression is growing that, while the nations of the Pacific are still solidly part of the West, desperation caused by out of date economic and political policies (compounded by ongoing costly damage caused environmental change as well as demographic challenges) is forcing leaders to look to anyone who can help.
From a Western perspective, this is a potential growing security concern, especially given the growing tensions between China and the US (on display, for example, in the South China Sea). The Pacific is once again a front line.
American Samoa’s member of the US Congress, Eni Faleomavaega, bluntly expressed concern that the “inept policies and heavy-handed actions” of the Australian and New Zealand governments were putting American interests in the region at risk. He also pointed out that the interest of New Zealand and Australia may not always be the same as the interests of America.
Not coincidentally, there has been a sudden and growing interest from Washington in the Pacific islands. Apart from the visits to Tonga, on November 7, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made a point of visiting American Samoa, and the US announced the reopening of USAID posts in Fiji with a budget of US$21 million.
A few days later, the Kingdom of Tonga received another visitor — the highest ranking one of the season: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen. Interestingly, part of Mullen’s support team for the visit included top regionally based UK government personnel. These are symbolic visits. Clearly, there is concern in Washington and London about the management of the region.
Lord Tuita, Admiral Michael Mullen, HRH Princess Pilolevu, and Mrs Deborah Mullen
The Big Boys are back. And not just in the islands. On the same trip Clinton visited American Samoa, she established a new strategic relationship with New Zealand. And in Australia she was joined by Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to discuss base sharing in Australia as concerns rise that the US may need to downsize its Japan-based bases.
The bases would be part of the US’s new “forward-deployed diplomacy” in the region. The generally given reason for the need for the bases is to be able to aid in the case of humanitarian disasters, though analysts agree that the real reason is concern over China. Interestingly, India, especially after President Obama’s recent trip there, may become an increasingly important US partner in the region.
What next?
The Pacific is the West’s to lose. But to engage effectively it needs to understand that the days of old-fashioned colonial engagement have to end.
For example, one promising initiative is the Tonga Energy Road Map, an exciting vision for renewable energy development, lauded by the World Bank, IRENA, and others as a model for the future. Unfortunately, parts of the Road Map are already being undermined by traditional partners.
In spite of signing on to a Road Map Declaration that include the key principle of no tied aid, New Zealand is currently in the process of offering aid for a solar power plant, but only if that plant is built by a New Zealand government-owned company. Details of the agreement have yet to be released, however if the plant results in tying Tongan consumers to high-energy costs (or unreliable supply), it could be severally detrimental to the economy. It is of concern that the contract was not open for competitive bidding.
New Zealand and other have to start to understand that in small, fragile economies, these sorts of agreements can seriously undermine domestic growth and stability in nations that should be natural allies, forcing them in to situations where they look to others for outside help.
Tied aid may give specific sectors of the New Zealand economy a small, short-term advantage, but it can compromise the security of the region, and ultimately of New Zealand (and of the West).
In these changing times, if one weaken ones allies, one weakens oneself.
Of course, much can be said about the way others, such as China, engage in the region. But it is particularly problematic when free market, democratic nations, with deep and natural ties to the Pacific, enact policies that may have the ultimate effect of impeding the development of both the free market and democracy in nations that are considered allies.
For the West to create security in the Pacific (something that would reap benefits around the world) all it takes is developing equitable, long-term partnerships with countries like the Kingdom of Tonga.
The military visits are a start, but they need to be followed up with academic scholarships to the US/UK/Canada/etc., direct flights, low-tariff market access for Pacific products, access to low interest loans, and others indicators that the engagement is real, deep, and there for the long run.
If the West isn’t there for the nations of the Pacific, someone else will be.
Sign at the construction site of the Cook Islands Courthouse, financed and built by China

This Blogger’s Books from
Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises will Redraw the World Map
by Cleo Paskal
Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic and Political Crises will Redraw the World Map
by Cleo Paskal

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In the heat of divisive politics, President Obama declared that he was willing to be a one-term President if that’s what it took to get a health care bill passed. It seemed at the time like a show of principle, the kind of thing a mature, adult leader would say rather than a self-serving politician. But in the background, Democrats believed that he would never have to live up to his words. At the time, the country hated Republicans more than ever. The 2008 election had been a rout. When re-election time came, there seemed to be no credible Republican candidate for President in 2012, much less a serious challenger.
The midterms radically changed that perception. Obama’s “shellacking” press conference made him seem weak and uncertain. The worst had happened, which wasn’t just the resounding setback of the progressive agenda. Far worse was the evidence that a principled leader who wanted to heal the country’s corrosive gridlock had been defeated by the party of no. By acting as selfish and unscrupulous as they wanted, the Republicans halted the process of governance, blocked hundreds of appointments both judicial and executive, thumbed their noses at the Democrats’ super-majority in the Senate, and to add insult to injury, ran against Obama’s health care bill after they were the ones who ruined it. In the process of having their cake and eating it, too, the Republicans proved that being the party of no could fool most of the people most of the time.
Suddenly pundits were saying that a Romney or Huckabee had a chance against him in 2012 (today’s Gallup poll shows him losing to both of them at this point). We began to witness the Jimmy Carterizing of Barack Obama. And the scary part is that he seems to want to fill the role. His most ardent supporters — and I am one of them — started to see his virtues as liabilities. This may not be the time for a laid-back man whose instincts are conciliatory. His brain trust didn’t fix the economy. The recent trade meeting with the rest of the world brought back few victories, signaling that American prestige isn’t what it used to be. So are our fears right? Is Obama the wrong leader at the wrong time? I think that Democrats have to make this a serious consideration, so here are two rationales that are struggling against each other:
Rationale #1– America is going through a tough transition. Wall Street caused a worldwide recession, and in their anger, the rest of the world refused to share the pain. Instead, they told the U.S. to bear the burden, and we are. German, France, and China have recovered better and faster on their own, while we are weighed down by the same sagging housing market that triggered the meltdown. Obama cannot be blamed for this. It’s a storm any President would buckle under. Even Roosevelt saw the Depression enter a double dip in 1937, despite all his best efforts. We don’t have another Roosevelt today because the country is too divided. The public speaks out of two sides of its mouth. People cry for Washington to do something to help them, yet time after time they elect the most divisive candidates pledging to get the government off their backs. Obama believes that he gave the right medicine, but the patient rebelled and refused to swallow it. Nobody could do any better. Therefore keeping him as President, because of his vision of a better future, based on the campaign of 2008, still represents our best hope.
Rationale #2 — Obama inspired us in 2008, but he buckled once he got into office. The Republicans ran roughshod over him, and instead of fighting back, he remained aloof and out of touch. The serious reforms that Obama promised in health care and the financial sector never materialized. He caved on the public option. He caved on punishing Wall Street and bringing them under strict regulations. Each piece of legislation that he calls a compromise is actually a defeat. Now that the tide has turned and the right wing is stronger than ever, Obama has been discredited. He is the same man he always was, but that’s the problem. We need a warrior, not a negotiator. Divisiveness is incurable. The economy is horrible. Leaders can’t escape paying the price for their failures, and we need to stop pretending that Obama has hidden potential waiting to be unleashed. He needs to step down and turn to what he is best at: inspiring the rest of the world. That’s what got him the Nobel Peace Prize, so let him move on to the role he was born to fill.
I cannot choose between these two scenarios, because both rationales can be made to look persuasive. Maybe Hilary Clinton, aided by Bill’s incredible political skills, can take the Republicans to the mat the way her husband decisively defeated Newt Gingrich and put an end to the Republican dominance of 1994. Or maybe it’s foolish to think that history ever repeats itself. Obama is holding his finger in the dike, and just as he averted having the recession spiral into a depression, he is holding back the darkness of full-blown reactionary rule as represented by Sarah Palin’s gleeful brand of know-nothing bigotry.
Since so many of us are confused, there are two things we need in order to move forward. The first is for the White House to realize that both rationales are in play. Taking the stand that the doctor gave the right medicine but the patient wouldn’t swallow it just doesn’t wash anymore. Second, Obama needs to do what it takes to wipe out rationale #2, because what defeats a sitting President isn’t a crisis but a sense of paralysis. Jimmy Carter’s one term brought about more productive legislation than anyone realizes, unfortunately his achievements are overshadowed by his paralysis over the Iran hostage crisis. Obama can’t afford to let the same image overshadow his achievements, and his enormous potential. We need a fix-it president, but far more we need a President who can erase an image of weakness. Images have a way of turning into reality, and right now, the two are beginning to merge quite dangerously.
deepakchopra.com

This Blogger’s Books from
Muhammad: A Story of the Last Prophet
by Deepak Chopra
The Ultimate Happiness Prescription: 7 Keys to Joy and Enlightenment
by Deepak Chopra

Follow Deepak Chopra on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/DeepakChopra

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

This post originally appeared on the World Bank’s Conflict and Development blog on October 5, 2010.
If your child is murdered or your friend is tortured or someone tries to kill you, it is tough to forgive and forget. Animosities that spring from these kinds of brutality run deep. Yet moving on emotionally and psychologically is an important part of rebuilding society after the trauma of conflict and violence.
Hillary Clinton confronts Cambodia’s past. Chor Sokunthea/Reuters.
Different societies deal with these things in different ways. This week Hilary Clinton visited a former prison in Cambodia where thousands were held before being sent to their deaths in the killing fields. She urged the authorities to proceed with trials of the surviving leaders of the Khmer Rouge so that the country can ‘confront its past’.
This followed the decision by Prime Minister Hun Sen that there would be no more prosecutions after the trials of four senior Khmer Rouge leaders already charged. The prime minister says the country needs to bury the past. Ms. Clinton argues that a country that is unable to confront its past is a country that cannot overcome it.
The same day, there was another story describing how East Timor’s President Jose Ramos Horta plans to free Gastao Salsinha, the former rebel who shot and badly wounded him in 2008. The UN Secretary General, rights groups, and the opposition have reacted to the decision with dismay, saying it will undermine the rule of law.
For President Horta, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1996, it is about mercy and reconciliation. With internal tensions still strong in his impoverished Asian nation, he believes offering clemency is an opportunity to consolidate peace and stability which outweighs arguments for punitive justice.
Is there a right approach to this thorniest of post-conflict problems? Research for the WDR finds that over the last three decades almost 40 countries have implemented various measures to redress serious human rights abuses.
These measures involve both judicial and non-judicial approaches.
Click here to continue reading.

Follow Nicholas van Praag on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/nickvanpraag

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

As the mid-term elections draw near, I have been following with interest the large number of female candidates and political influencers. Forbes’ “Top 25 women political influencers” include women from the left and the right. Whether I agree with the politics of these female candidates or not, and whether I would vote for them or not, I applaud that more women are running and getting their voices heard, and serving as role models for the next generation. While women heads of state are still a rarity, the field of politics has made some progress in gender representation considering that women only got the right to vote 90 years ago — a fact that will never cease to amaze me, considering how my generation has always taken this right for granted).
As more women assume leadership positions, we however have to be aware of a very real and very damaging form of potential bias against women candidates: the Glass Cliff. This body of research shows that women are more likely to be chosen for leadership positions when the position itself is precarious — that is, when the risk of failure is high. This phenomenon, coined by academics Alex Haslam, Michelle Ryan, and their colleagues, shows that when a job description entails an organization or group in “crisis,” individuals are more likely to choose a woman for that position: in this article, Haslam says his research shows “There seems to be an unwritten law that says ‘think female, think crisis…’ If a company is doing well, then the ‘jobs for the boys’ rules still apply, but if it is in trouble, no man wants to give the job to their friends it seems, so for many the answer is to get in a woman.”
Indeed, their research has shown that in both the board room and politics, women are more likely to be put forth for those precarious positions — the situations where success is unattainable.
Back to politics, perhaps the best example of a Glass Cliff political appointment was Kim Campbell. I am not sure anyone remembers, but Canada did have a woman head of state… for 132 days. Kim Campbell was the 19th Prime Minister of Canada, and lasted 4 months in the job. After 9 years as Prime Minister, in 1993 Conservative Party lead Brian Mulroney was facing supremely low approval ratings, and the discontent for his party was high. His party was facing an almost assured loss in the upcoming general elections. Mulroney resigned, knowing he couldn’t lead his party to victory. Many thought the party would then elect up-and-coming candidate Jean Charest; instead, the party picked Defense Minister (and inexperienced campaigner) Kim Campbell. Campbell became de-facto Premier upon Mulroney’s resignation and led her party into the mandated general election 4 months later, which saw the liberals take control of the country and of a record number of seats lost for the conservatives. After Campbell’s ouster on the heels of this humiliating defeat, party leadership was then handed over to Jean Charest, who had in effect been spared being identified with the humiliating defeat of the elections. At the time in my twenties and living in Canada, I was not a conservative voter but I was embarrassed that our only ever woman head of state would have been associated with such a dismal failure (4 months in office!). When I read the Glass Cliff research a few years ago, I immediately thought of Campbell.
Do people always pick the woman candidate when the situation is dismal? No. If this were the case, Hilary Clinton would have been ensured the presidency two years ago, inheriting a mess of epic proportions. (An interesting point is that researchers suggest that the glass cliff phenomenon applies not only to women but other minority groups — in the case of the race for the Democratic nomination, two minority candidates were vying for the post (Clinton and Obama)). Regardless, this body of research is critical for people to be aware of — in politics and in companies, genuine efforts to advance more women in leadership positions can backfire if women are being chosen for precarious projects.
In our own work with women in high-technology, women in senior leadership positions often discuss how they are consistently given the “messy”, under-resourced, “clean up” projects. One research report also finds that there is a greater price to pay for women who fail under such conditions.
In your experience, are women more likely to be picked for leadership positions that involve messy, high-risk projects? Do you think this will influence people’s votes on Tuesday?

Follow Caroline Simard on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/csimard

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A small band of Brits still try to defend America’s current foreign policy to a sceptical world. When US forces abroad do something cruel or counter-productive, like bombing another wedding party or fighting the wrong country, we point to their nobler values and to past defences of freedom. Surely they at least meant well. The Wikileaks revelations now gleefully headlined across Europe have left us floundering.
The brutality and apparent collapse of front-line discipline is charted in thousands of meticulously filed US government reports, proving only one thing, that any war “among the people” that goes on too long degrades its participants and degenerates into senseless cruelty. Our friends become our victims and our enemies triumphant.
The fact that the leaks are irresponsible and helpful to the enemy is by now immaterial. The enemy, mostly Iran, is riding high on the sheer incompetence of coalition and NATO operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and increasingly Pakistan. Hilary Clinton’s objection to them, that they are leaks, hardly meets the case. These are true records from the side that claims “higher values”, of helicopters shooting innocent individuals in cold blood, of the massacring of 600 civilian drivers, women and children among them, at checkpoints, of the killing of people trying to surrender, of a litany of prisoner torture and maltreatment that shows Abu Ghraib was no exception. The idea that the American invasion liberated Iraqis from kidnap, torture, rape and summary execution is shown to be a sick untruth. Indeed a shocking feature of the leaks is that few Iraqis appeared surprised.
I have visited enough wars to see what happens to young soldiers when politicians’ promises of victory prove false. Led by fools into swamps, they adjust their moral compasses, at first slowly and then fast. The leaks show controllers departing from any concern for “winning hearts and minds” as self-protection takes precedence over the safety of others. Troops err on the side of violence. An obsession with kill rates, inherited from Vietnam, recruits enemies at every turn and makes the prospect of stability and peace ever more distant.
In Afghanistan the random killing of Pashtun as “bad guys” has become a call to arms not just across Waziristan and the Punjab but throughout the muslim world. On a recent visit to Pakistan, I was shocked at savagely unpopular America has become, not because of its aims but because of its methods, now reinforced by the pilotless bombing of mountain villages. Many Pakistanis genuinely believe Washington is in the pay of Ahmadinejad of Iran, as his influence increases over regimes from Beirut and Damascus to Baghdad and Kabul. This too is recorded in the leaks.
I at least expected Clinton to offer some apology for the reckless cruelties recorded, and to suggest some inquiry into the more outrageous atrocities. Instead she only damned those who leaked the truth. What on earth are America’s friends to say?

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In advance of the 2010 Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) being held later this month, I interviewed the Director of Commitments for CGI, Marilia Bezerra, on the founding, meaning, and vision of the Initiative.
Brief Background: In 2005, President Clinton established CGI to turn ideas into action and to help our world move beyond the current state of globalization to a more integrated global community of shared benefits, responsibilities, and values. By gathering world leaders from a variety of backgrounds, CGI creates a unique opportunity to channel the capacities of individuals and organizations to realize change. To fulfill the action-oriented mission of CGI, all members devise practical solutions to global issues through the development of specific and measurable Commitments to Action.
What separates the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) from other international gatherings such as the World Economic Forum?
CGI was created on a premise of action and unlike any other convening, CGI members are expected to create what we call a “Commitment to Action,” essentially a project that is new, specific, and measurable and addresses one of our four global challenges: Education, Economic Empowerment, Global Health, and Environment and Energy. CGI is no longer just a meeting but over time it has become a community of “do-ers” and every year our members are developing stronger ties and creating more and more partnerships that result in positive change.
Why has CGI been so successful in gathering together the crowd that it does?
I think more and more people are drawn to the idea of coming together to take action. It’s incredible how much gets done at our Annual Meeting. For three days our members are meeting each other, sharing ideas, discussing best practices, and forging real collaborations that will make a tangible difference in the work they do. Companies increasingly understand that social responsibility is part and parcel of what makes a market leader in the 21st century, and that makes our Annual Meeting a “must attend” forum for top CEOs. But it also attracts government officials, philanthropists, socially active celebrities, directors of nonprofit organizations, and others who want to make a difference, to be a part of this community I described. This year, First Lady Michelle Obama will join President Clinton during the closing session on Thursday, September 23. Other featured attendees include: Jean-Max Bellerive, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Cherie Blair, Richard Branson, Laura Bush, Paul Farmer, Melinda Gates, Jeff Gordon, Valerie B. Jarrett, Muhtar Kent, Shakira Mebarak, Eric Schmidt, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ratan Tata, and Muhammad Yunus.
And of course, it is undeniable that President Clinton’s unique convening power plays a role in our success as well.
How has CGI evolved over the years in both its approach and agenda since its first gathering five years ago?
CGI’s model has evolved from being an event-driven operation, all work being galvanized around the Annual Meeting, to a year-round operation. We now host events throughout the year. In the last 12 months, we have launched more than a dozen Action Networks, which allow members to meet throughout the year and coordinate action on specific issues. We also hold one-time networking events for members with similar interests. And we have expanded our staff, so we now have more capacity to work one-on-one with members and address their specific needs.
Also, our agenda and commitments work has historically been organized around four major global challenges which have not changed much since CGI’s creation: Education, Global Health, Environment and Energy, and Economic Empowerment. However, in 2009, President Clinton asked us to not just discuss the issues we are facing–or “what” are the most pressing challenges of our times–but he wanted us to also direct our members to ways through which they could address them. He always says that people are used to only asking two questions: what you are going to do, and how much money is it going to cost? And he wants them to focus on how they are doing it, because therein lies the real sustainable, scalable solutions.
CGI 2010: Answering The “How” Question from Clinton Global Initiative on Vimeo.
In executing the CGI model, where has the organization faced the most resistance in fostering a culture of commitment and social change?
CGI members self-select into our community so they are not going to be very resistant to the idea that we are all global citizens that need to do our part. They may have different priorities within the world of development/environment, and of course they sometimes have different ideas about the most effective approaches. We encourage these discussions, and do our best to share the lessons we’ve learned from the 1,700 commitments created to date. We tell them about great success as well as sharing stories of mid-course corrections, and outright failures.
What are the main issues this year that CGI 2010 wishes to tackle?
As I mentioned, we are working with the question of how to accomplish change. And to that end, the meeting will be structured around four Action Areas which will shape our Annual Meeting agenda: Empowering Girls and Women, Strengthening Market-Based Solutions, Harnessing Human Potential, and Enhancing Access to Modern Technology. We will also have special sessions on topics like Recovery in Haiti and Combating Cancer in the Developing World.
To view the full agenda for the 2010 Clinton Global Initiative, click here.
Cross-posted with RahimKanani.com.

Follow Rahim Kanani on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/rahimkanani

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Presidential elections of 2008 may very well go into history as the greatest event in American elections. Even if candidate Obama wasn’t your first option, even if you were a Republican, you have to admit it was an awesome feeling to see an African American become the most powerful leader in the World.
For the sake of full disclosure (or as the latest fad demands: transparency), I was a diehard Hilary supporter- I still wear my “I Love Hilary” shirt, and with exuberant pride. So you can definitely rule out that I was ever an Obamaniac. But to paraphrase the words of a dear friend involved in this much deeper than I’ll ever be, when all is said and done, we’ll all rally behind the one nominee. And so, without losing my regard for Hilary as the best possible option for the Presidency, I gave my support to the one I considered the second best.
While my regard for President Obama is growing, it seems that his star may be diminishing with the news media and those “professional Democrats” that melted before Obama the candidate. But I’m most surprised by the Obamaniacs- those ruthless Obama supporters that I spent countless hours fighting in the blogs during the primaries. They swore that Obama was the change you could believe in; the one that would bring America to its glory days… new glory days.
It appears that the intense primary fighting has left them tired; and all the high expectations have given rise to disappointment. Surely, someone must have told them that their support, and even input, would be required as the months passed by, and would become most dire as the mid-term elections approached. Have they become silent and apathetic? Have they gone back to their textbooks and to drinking lattes?
Perhaps they thought that their candidate would get into the White House and, like a Christ cleaning the temple, would lash out left and right turning tables, driving lobbyists from Capitol Hill, and breaking corruption against the marble floor of the holy ground on which he walks. Did they really think the road to change would be smooth and with an end in sight from the beginning?
Did they think that their support would need not go beyond the day they voted him into office?
Do African Americans feel that Obama sold them out? Did they expect he would more for them? Did they expect that Obama would introduce reparations and act in other ways to benefit only African Americans and with complete disregard for Whites?
So whether his supporters had unrealistic expectations of Obama the candidate or themselves, or whether they were ignorant about the role they were taking on, the truth is that President Obama needs them in order for the Senate and the House to, not only remain under the Democrats, but to become even stronger. We are still at the beginning of that “change we can believe in”. The road ahead will be long, and even arduous, but to expect more than what has been accomplished is to be as ridiculous as those conservatives that insist that Obama caused our current financial predicament or that he started the war in Afghanistan.
If the mid-term elections don’t serve to increase the number of Democrats in the House and the Senate, then I will be sold on the idea that Obama’s supporters were nothing more than latte drinking maniacs who were never interested in leaving a footprint in history, but were content with a smudge on the ground.
If last election was a huge upset for Republicans, you have the opportunity to make this mid-term election an even greater disappointment for them. So grab your latte, get on the blogs, and start supporting your Democratic candidates. And once you have voted them into office, keep reminding them why you voted for them.

Follow Steve Garcia on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/steve4change

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com