As the rich Group of 8 (G8) nations convene in L’Aquila, Italy this week, world hunger will once again take center stage. The United States will likely announce a “significant” increase in funding for agricultural development aid, along with multi-year commitments from other G8 countries. This follows the G8’s admission of failure in tackling hunger at its first-ever farm conference in Treviso, Italy in April 2009.
Editor’s Note: A press booklet, created by a coalition of organizations, on recommendations for U.S.-Africa policy can be found here.
It’s time for some straight talk on U.S. foreign policy as it relates to Africa. While Obama administration officials and the U.S. African Command (AFRICOM) representatives insist that U.S. foreign policy towards Africa isn’t being militarized, the evidence seems to suggest otherwise. While Africans condemned U.S. military policy in Africa under the Bush administration, the Obama administration has not only mirrored Bush’s approach, but has in fact enhanced it. President George W. Bush established Africa as a foreign policy priority in 2003, when he announced that 25% of oil imported to the United States should come from Africa. Like the Cold War, the Global War on Terror establishes a rationale for bolstering U.S. military presence and support in Africa. Yet official pronouncement of U.S. policy is routinely presented as if neither of these two developments occurred. Unfortunately, the more evasive we are about our intentions on the continent, the more we invite not only skepticism, but even resistance.
A deadly and dangerous species of vulture is evolving. Policy experts are trying to trace the exact whereabouts of this new species because it has caused around $1 billion in damage to poor nations in recent years. These creatures have no feathers. They are predatory investors known as "vulture funds."
Hussein Yusuf’s initial essay in this strategic dialogue is Indicting Bashir is Wrong; Meghan Stewart’s initial essay is Indicting Bashir is Right.
This is part of a strategic dialogue on Omar al-Bashir’s indictment. Find Meghan Stewart’s piece here and the responses here.
This is part of a strategic dialogue on the indictment of Omar al-Bashir. You can read Hussein Yusuf’s piece here and the responses here.
On the morning of June 28, masked soldiers burst into the home of Honduran President Manuel "Mel" Zelaya and forced the elected head of state onto a plane out of the country. Later that day, the Honduran congress overwhelmingly elected its speaker Roberto Michiletti, a member of Zelaya’s own Liberal Party, as the country’s new president.
"Iran is now on the verge of an Orange-style Revolution." This statement is likely to elicit enthusiasm from those working tirelessly to promote democracy in Iran.
Facing an unprecedented popular uprising against his autocratic rule and his apparently fraudulent re-election, Iran’s right-wing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has attempted to blame the United States. A surprising number of bloggers on the left have rushed to the defense of the right-wing fundamentalist leader. Citing presidential directives under the Bush administration, they argue that the uprising isn’t as much about a stolen election, the oppression of women, censorship, severe restrictions on political liberties, growing economic inequality, and other grievances, as it is about the result of U.S. interference.
As the Islamic Republic of Iran veers closer to outright insurrection and the competing factions of Mir Hossain Mousavi and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei engage in a game of high-stakes political brinksmanship, should the United States play a more active role in Iranian affairs? Those in power must chart a careful course, for the same thorny question toppled the legacy of another Democratic president 30 years ago.