Since his inauguration in January, President Barack Obama has promised to take the problem of climate change seriously and step into a leadership role in the global negotiations. Congressional leadership on climate has also swelled to deliver domestic climate change legislation. But a "blind spot" seems to be emerging that may make it more difficult for the United States to play the leadership role it wishes — and the world needs it — to play.
Editor’s Note: This commentary was adapted from the report "Why the Lugar-Casey Global Food Security Act will Fail to Curb Hunger," by Annie Shattuck and Eric Holt-Giménez. (Food First Policy Brief No. 18. Institute for Food and Development Policy. Oakland, California.)
Depending on whose analysis you read, the G20 summit in London was the best or the worst of meetings. To some critics, it was an abysmal failure by a self-appointed illegitimate body. To others (read: Gordon Brown), the world has been saved from the brink of its economic demise by inspired leadership and deft summitry.
Editor’s note: The Africa Policy Outlook is an annual publication released jointly by Africa Action and Foreign Policy In Focus that highlights the key themes and trends in U.S. Africa policy. See the appendix below for a general schedule of African elections planned for 2009.
I have been asked many times a variation of the same question: "Why do Africans wait until it is too late?" For most Westerners, Africa is hunger, war, despotism, AIDS and poverty — full of Africans who are either helpless victims, or who choose to sit on their hands, only lifting them up to accept Western handouts.
There’s growing support for fighting global economic stagnation and global warming simultaneously with a “green New Deal” nationally and globally. Investing to cut greenhouse gasses can create “green jobs” and provide fiscal stimulus while it is protecting the planet. But how is it going to be paid for?
The international financial crisis has shaken the self-confidence of the managers of the international financial system. Their frantic efforts to prop up the global financial system and stimulate national economies are noteworthy, not only for the magnitude of the funds they are throwing at the problem but also for demonstrating they don’t seem to fully understand the system that they created. Their confusion is producing the best opportunity in 60 years to create a more socially and environmentally responsible international financial order.
Since the end to the U.S. wars in Southeast Asia, many other wars have been waged, in other parts of the world, in new terrain, villages, and communities. Yet, the wars in Southeast Asia lingers.
Just a few weeks after releasing its official forecast for the next year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) adjusted its growth estimates downwards, predicting that poorer countries will see big losses in GDP over the next two years as a result of the global financial meltdown. Independent assessments estimate that developing countries’ losses between now and 2010 will be in excess of $300 billion.
Rumors of the International Monetary Fund’s demise appear to have been greatly exaggerated. While the IMF has spent most of the last three years looking for clients and “relevance,” the end of the U.S. housing bubble and the resulting global credit crunch seem to have given the institution a new lease on life.