When U.S. forces found themselves beset by a growing insurgency in Iraq following their lighting overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the most obvious parallel that came to mind was Vietnam: an occupying army, far from home, besieged by a shadowy foe. But Patrick Cockburn, the Independent’s (UK) ace Middle East reporter, suggested that the escalating chaos was more like the Boer War than the conflict in Southeast Asia.
They used to be seven. They embodied power and relished it. Other leaders envied their photo ops. They were the cream of the cream, the top of the top. They were the G7.
And now they are 20, and they meet in Toronto this week. The G20 is the Senate of our global government. It sets global economic policy, giving direction to an alphabet soup of global executive agencies, from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Watch out for those “black swans” — like the one paddling up the bayou at this very moment — carefully dodging the oil slicks. We’re so busy looking at old threats and repeating our old prejudices at ever higher volume that we can’t hear the splash of those big, webbed feet.
Institutions of global governance such as the United Nations are often limited to inter-governmental dialogue with little input from the civil society actors they directly affect. However, in her book The United Nations and Civil Society: Legitimating Global Governance – Whose Voice?, Nora McKeon documents the interaction between civil society organizations (CSO) and the United Nations over the last two decades. Developments between the two actors, she argues, point to meaningful civil society inclusion within the global political system.
The future is no longer in plastics, as the businessman in the 1967 film The Graduate insisted. Rather, the future is in China.
The recent Council on Foreign Relations report “From Rome to Kampala: The U.S. Approach to the 2010 International Criminal Court Review Conference” tells one side of a complex story. The author Vijay Padmanabhan asserts that the “United States has historically been the leader in international justice efforts,” but now must oppose the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) endeavor to activate its power to prosecute crimes of aggression.
Despite spending more than half a billion dollars over the last quarter century, U.S. government broadcasts to Cuba have gained only a tiny audience and have had virtually no effect on the island’s politics, according to a new report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“I need a little space.”
When lovers utter these words, it’s usually a bad sign for the relationship. They feel suffocated. They’re reexamining their commitment. They’re checking out other options. But they don’t have the courage to make a clean break.
The rhetoric has changed. According to new U.S. “drug czar” Gil Kerlikowske, who heads the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Obama administration doesn’t use the term “drug war” because the government shouldn’t be waging war against its own citizens. In March 2009, U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke described the opium poppy eradication effort in Afghanistan as “the most wasteful and ineffective program that I have seen in 40 years.” He bluntly stated that the U.S. government had wasted millions of dollars on a counterproductive program that generates political support for the Taliban and undermines nation-building efforts. And in his trip to Peru this past April, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Arturo Valenzuela noted that the fundamental problem is not coca cultivation itself, but poverty and inequality.
With mid-term elections only six months away, many lawmakers are eager to demonstrate their strong support for Israel, which has argued for the adoption of “crippling” sanctions against the Islamic Republic as the only way to halt its alleged effort to acquire nuclear weapons short of a military attack.