By Madeleine Lesser

Global warming seems to be a reality that can be more accurately described as "global disruption."  John Holdren, professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government and Director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, claims that the effects of global warming are not merely a matter of temperature; although increased temperature is a the root of many of the problems.  He recognizes that the climate on the whole is affected, as can be seen by changing winds, ocean currents, storm patterns, melting glaciers, flooding, and droughts.  Clearly, the increase in global warming has led to global climate change entirely.

Increased global temperature exacerbates already existing and inevitable natural disasters.  For example, hurricanes have been, and probably always will be, a fact of life; but the reality is that increased temperatures and higher levels of carbon dioxide produce more intense hurricanes.  Overall, since the 1970s, hurricanes characterized by levels 4 and 5 have risen from 20% to 35% in the 1990s.  Furthermore, total precipitation has increased 7% over the past hundred years. 

Most of us have been plagued by the photos of polar bears that are dying as a result of melting ice caps.  Melting glaciers not only lead to the death of polar bears, penguins, and other mammals, but add to a rise in sea level.  There are two problems here: poor, innocent mammals are dying as a result of global warming that has been, in many regards, the fault of humanity; and a rise in sea level that will eventually displace and possibly take the lives of thousands, if not millions, of people. 

Moreover, the melting of the arctic permafrost in Canada, Alaska and Russia has negatively affected many ecosystems.  At first, the melting will create new lakes, but eventually those lakes will evaporate and release methane from peat bogs native in the permafrost. 

Conversely, in many areas, the increase in temperature has led to an increase in evaporation.  Because the earth is considered a "closed system," the evaporation will lead to more rain, and more rain can cause greater erosion.  And, over time, a significant augmentation of erosion can lead to desertification in many areas.

What will it take for our government to make serious policy changes and actually attempt to fix the global climate change that we have exacerbated by carbon dioxide emissions from our cars, factories, homes, etc.; by deforestation; by the use of aerosols; and many, many others?  Yes, global warming is a natural cycle that has occurred in the past, but there is no denying that human activity has severely affected this natural phenomenon's characteristics.  There have been great efforts by companies to do their part to address these issues with the introduction of hybrid vehicles and fluorescent light bulbs, but more needs to be done at the root of government.  We need to take responsibility for our more than 25% contribution to carbon dioxide emissions by signing Kyoto and making reductions.  We need to allocate money to research and development of alternative fuel and energy - now, not tomorrow or the next day.  This problem is not going to fix itself - serious change must happen today because if we don't take action we'll surely regret it in the near future.

If we don't act, how can we expect, or ask, anyone else to?

On June 27, the Brookings-Bern Project on Internal Displacement held a panel discussion the terms and progress of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in 2005, which was meant to end the Second Sudanese Civil War. While many barriers still exist in its full implementation, including the recent violence in Abeyi and the local disputes over Sudan’s oil reserves, the panelists brought some interesting perspectives from their broad backgrounds.  

Two representatives from the Sudanese government were in attendance, including Dr. Mudawi Al Turabi, Parliament member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Dr. Lam Akol, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, SPLM National Liberation Council. Some of the insights provided by both representatives were surrounding the difficulties of implementing a peace agreement in an emerging democracy. Dr. Turabi noted that there are fourteen different parties in the Sudanese Parliament, and that power sharing is the objective of creating sustainable peace. In mentioning Darfur, Turabi said that all development has stopped, there has been relatively no investment due to the non-implementation of the CPA and conflicts in the Darfur region. Negotiations are difficult, he described, when you have so many warring factions. The main theme of the remarks regarding Darfur was that it has a ripple effect on development, aid, and political implementation of the CPA.  

Dr. Ajawin contributed to the dialogue on contextualizing the peace agreement, noting it took eleven years to negotiate from 1993-2004. He highlighted that the peace agreement is addressing a complicated problem, and that the people of Sudan need encouragement that unity is their best solution to a complex power struggle. The CPA is not open-ended, and has timelines for the political parties to have a referrendum on the Souths independence. However, Ajawin made it clear that the people of southern Sudan need assistance to have faith through the political process to achieve fair elections, effective democracy, and sustainable development. His final note was that the Interim period in the Sudan “must lead to self-determination.” 

Also in attendance were Lynn Fredriksson, Africa advocacy director for Amnesty International USA, and Pamela Fierst, a member of the Sudan policy group at the State Department. Pamela Fierst’s comments were initially positive, noting that while the CPA is slow-moving, “it is the most significant achievement in 25 years.” She noted that the electoral process must include all of Sudan, including the Darfur region, and that preparations for 2009 have not been fast enough. Fierst was firm that UN peacekeeping forces must be deployed now, without obstruction, and that future elections “must include Darfur or their voices will continue to be silenced.”  

On a more critical note, Lynn Fredricksson from Amnesty International outlined 8 critical but brief concerns involving the CPA:

- Human rights abuses in Darfur

- Censorship. The lack of freedom of expression/organization

- Lack of oversight of Police Forces. Arrests and detentions of persons without due process, some believed based on ethnicity.

- The ongoing refugee crisis, and the lack of ability of refugees to return to their homes. This concern included a lack of assured sustainability, schools, job training, health services, and the ongoing threat to women.

- American Service-Members Protection Act as an unrecognized agreement.

- Political and economic fragmentation in Darfur, and in South & Eastern regions of Sudan.

- Lack of transparency in oil revenues and wealth/power sharing. Demarcation of borders and the killing and displacement of 50,000 in the last month. Discussion of recent violence in Abeyi.

- Questions surrounding the International Communities role in implementing the CPA and in Darfur? What’s the role of assistance, should it require further peace progress and UN troop deployment? 

The overall tone during the question and answer portion was largely that of frustration, with many members of the audience originating from war-torn regions. Numerous coalitions and members of the press urged the Sudanese government representatives to address human rights abuses in Darfur, while others from Abeyi were alarmed by the lack of implementation of the June 8^th Roadmap Agreement. From an outsider’s perspective, it appeared that even within groups discussing peace, accusations and blame weren’t removed from the sentiments expressed.  

While the government officials did admit that the Darfur region is “complicated,” they concluded that “without political peace agreements they will not have peace to keep” on the ground. Struggling to explain its complex reality, the officials were concerned about the level of aid resources specifically channeled to Darfur over other regions of the Sudan. Not unlike the oil revenues already contested, it appeared international funding and developmental aid was not exempt from political battles over resources. They believed this struggle was responsible for slow development in southern Sudan, and giving little hope to the people that the Peace Agreement was working in their best interest. What effect this will have on the projected 2009 elections, no one would say for sure. However, Dr. Turabi did pledge that the government is determined to have free and fair elections, and “would welcome international monitoring” to ensure this were so.

Most people would agree that allowing a psychopath to handle a loaded gun is an extremely bad idea, but apparently not the government of Sudan.  Summoned by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for 51 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, the Sudanese government refuses to arrest and turn over their Minister of Humanitarian Affairs Ahmed Haroun and Janjaweed militia leader Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman.  Under resolution 1593, adopted by the United Nations’ Security Council in March of 2005, the ICC controls the Darfur legal proceedings and the Sudanese government is obligated to cooperate.  Some one might want to let the government in Khartoum in on that fact.

Despite the ICC issuing arrest warrants for both men over a year ago, in April of 2007, Sudan has failed to detain either of the men.  In fact, Haroun is still serving as the Minister of Humanitarian Affairs- a man accused of the gravest injustices, essentially allowing the murder of 300,000 of his own countrymen, is supposed to be in charge of protecting them.  Talk about tragic irony.

While the rest of the world scrambles to end the suffering of the people of Darfur, its own government is adopting a very lackluster attitude.  The European Union has threatened Sudan several times with various economic and diplomatic sanctions if they fail to abide by the rules of the ICC.  Already the EU has instituted an arms embargo and restricted members of the Sudanese government, but neither action has resulted in Sudan’s cooperation.  Frustrated UN and international officials continue to pressure Sudan to turn the two men over to the ICC, including its former protector China.  Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated that “peace and justice go hand in hand.  Impunity for the serious crimes committed in Darfur cannot be accepted.”

The need for the immediate imprisonment of these two men is of crucial importance.  Haroun and Rahman must not be allowed to preserve their places of power in the Sudanese government or else the crisis in Darfur will never be resolved.  The unproven efficiency of the ICC also hangs in the balance. The world leaders must find a way to force Sudan to make the arrests or the reputation of the ICC will collapse before it is ever truly established.

By Madeleine Lesser

So far, the elections (or lack there of) in Zimbabwe have stirred up major international attention.  Morgan Tsvangirai defeated Robert Mugabe (the incumbent president), in March 2008, which provided hope to Zimbabweans that a new leader would take office and an increase in human rights and progress would be restored.  However, since Tsvangirai did not officially attain the majority, a runoff election was scheduled for this Friday, June 27, 2008.  Rradical measures instituted by Mugabe and his ruling ZANU-PF party have marked the nature of his determination to remain in power by ruthless meaures including physical abuse, detainment, inflicting destitution, etc.

Clearly, Mugabe is a seriously disturbed and brutal dictator who stated that critics of his violent methods over the past few months are “raising a lot of noise for nothing, absolutely nothing. We will proceed with our elections. The verdict is our verdict. Other people can say what they want, but the elections are ours. We are a sovereign state, and that is it."  How can Mugabe's verdict be "his" verdict if he does not rely on the political process of his own nation and uphold its laws (not to mention upholding basic human rights)?  The answer is that the verdict cannot be, which directly caused Tsvingarai's retreat from competition.  The measures that Mugabe has taken in response to the election are not new - his legacy is plagued with human rights violations.

The international community has taken immediate steps to prevent, and to hold accountable, Mugabe and his party.  The United States and Britain were ready to bring Zimbabwe before the Security Council of the United Nations; although South African President Thabo Mbeki has tried to mediate the conflict, and in turn, has suspended the U.N. effort.  Possibly a threat from the African Union would go a long way to force Mugabe to reconsider his unacceptable methods.  Unfortunately, it does not seem likely that the situation can be reconciled solely within the nation itself, given Mugabe's brutal history, so the need for international intervention is of great need. 

The idea that Mbeki basically told the U.N. to "hold on" is quite bold.  The U.N. is governed by law and cannot merely enter into a nation's politics by any means necessary, so when the body attempts to (and can) make serious steps to directly ameliorate a problem, those measures should be respected to the utmost degree and not be discarded.  The U.N. would most likely be better equipped to create real change compared to any fair or just solution Mbeki could find, based on the nature of the parties to the conflict.  Mugabe's blatantly illegal tactics of murder, abuse, disregard of the political system are warrants for an indictment to the ICC - maybe that's the next step that the U.N. will be forced to take.  Without serious consequences, serious changes cannot and will not be made.  

By Madeleine Lesser

On June 22, 2008, "Report: Torture failed on Sept. 11 Planner," highlighted the growing acceptance that torture does not work. CIA agent, Deuce Martinez, notably established a relationship with Khalid Shaikh Mohammad (suspected 9/11 conspirator) that produced actionable intelligence. After years of experts pleading that "cruel and unusual" methods of interrogation do not result in valuable information, it is not surprising that establishing rapport, and a level of personal understanding, were effective.

Even in 2005, this not-so-new phenomenon of the invalidity of torture was addressed by Washington Post Columnist, Anne Applebaum, in her piece, "The Torture Myth." During the Vietnam War, Applebaum notes, that while faced with a ticking-time bomb scenario, Air Force Colonel John Rothrock utilized some "not nice" methods, but those methods could not be characterized as torture. Methods of cruel and inhumane treatment of suspects does not mean that "not nice" methods are not used or cannot be considered legitimate (given boundaries) since the methods still maintain the prisoner's human rights (such "not nice" practices include forcing a prisoner to watch his wounded comrade die). Psychological manipulation produces useful intelligence, whereas humiliation, physical and mental abuse, isolation, etc. (methods used currently by the U.S. military in Iraq and Guantanamo) all result in the detainee telling the interrogator what he wants to hear, however false it may be, to get the pain to stop.

Research shows that a prisoner will more likely produce actionable intelligence if he is "befriended" rather than "interrogated." Even if we were to forget the immorality and illegality of torture, the fact remains that, practically, it does not do us any good. We have to ask ourselves: Why does our U.S. Military continue to utilize torture when they know it does not work and at the same time puts our soldiers and citizens in greater danger? Do they deny reality? Are they plagued by combat and see these measures as a defense mechanism?

The reality, to get to the bottom of it, seems to be a lack of training. Soldiers have documented that they were not provided with adequate education, information, and intelligence upon their arrival to army prisons to act as interrogators (i.e. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo). Many soldiers who were trained in combat are placed in prisons and merely given orders to extract confessions and information from the detainees - sometimes by whatever means necessary. Without proper guidance, it is not inconceivable that these soldiers resort to the tactics that they do. In no way do I mean to excuse their methods, but the lack of training can certainly be an explanation. The men and women faced with the turmoil of war cannot help but feel frustrated, angered, and threatened by the enemies they face; and without the proper tools and outlets to channel those emotions, a resort to violence has resulted.

A real and concrete way to make immediate changes in the way interrogations are carried out is to provide soldiers with the appropriate training.  FBI and CIA personnel are instructed on valid, legal methods of how to turn out relevent intelligence, and thus have not been prosecuted for torture. Since the U.S. Military mainly carries out the interrogations, it would make sense to devout resources to guarantee soldier's proper training. Of course, training is not the sole determinant of whether torture results, but it is one step closer to ensuring that it doesn't.

By: Meghan Nash  

   Every generation has its cross to bear.  Those born at the turn of the 20th century survived two world wars.  Baby boomers practiced hiding under their school desks in case of a nuclear attack during the peak of the Cold War.  While I consider bad hairstyles and horrendous wardrobes the downfall of the 80s, most would probably point to the emerging popularity and complexity of technological devices.  Our current generation has two vital challenges that now lay before us: ending the proliferation of nuclear weapons and stopping global warming.  In every aforementioned crisis, the government of the United States has stepped up to the plate and made a major contribution, but in these two areas we have been noticeably absent from the field.
   In order for the United States to preserve its self-awarded title as the world’s only superpower, the government must be much more assiduous in taking a leading role in solving these two problems, both of which have grabbed the attention of the general public.  One could point to the recent increase in international tensions or the rising amount of celebrities driving hybrid cars and building “green” houses as explanations for the issues’ intensifying interest among Americans.  Or perhaps the general constituency is simply realizing the perilous results these issues could produce if they are not resolved.  Either way, U.S. citizens are watching with baited breath to see how their government will save them from future calamity. 
   Traditionally, the United States has pursued a course of isolationism proposed by our first president, George Washington: rejecting an opportunity to join the League of Nations, spawned by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson; creating the Monroe Doctrine; and waiting until the final year to enter World War I.  Despite increased international interaction since WWII, when action is required, the U.S. tends to adopt a unilateral strategy, the most obvious example being the current war in Iraq.  To put it plainly, we do not play well with the other children in the sandbox.  But this trend cannot be allowed to continue.  The problems we now face are too large and complex for one nation to take on single-handedly.  They can only be overcome if the United States begins to behave more like a super partner of the world instead of its lone superpower.  While the United Nations is taking valiant strides to end the production of nuclear weapons and global warming, their resources are stretched precariously thin and their efforts prove largely ineffective without the cooperation and support of the world’s leaders, especially the United States.
   Of these two problems, ending nuclear proliferation is the question that has haunted the leaders of the world essentially since the inception of nuclear weapons.  The United States remains the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another, with the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII.  As the world witnessed the horrific consequences of these attacks, it began to question the practicality and morality of their existence.
   The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was created in 1968 and entered into force in 1970.  All five officially recognized nuclear powers- the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China- signed the treaty, pledging to gradually disarm their countries of nuclear weapons in exchange for the agreement of other signatories not to build them at all.  The other nations, currently more than 180, that sign the NPT can receive aid in developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes.  Under NPT, the International Atomic Energy Agency carries out inspections to ensure countries are abiding by the rules.  Unfortunately, there is no way to monitor or restrict those countries – such as India or Pakistan- who refuse to sign the NPT.  These countries have steadily been assembling their own nuclear arsenals and, in Pakistan’s case, have been covertly selling parts and information to North Korea and other countries.  Then there is the possibility that Iran’s uranium enrichment is aimed at producing a bomb.  As much as the world may desire to return to simpler times, there is no turning back of the clock; there is no way to erase the nuclear knowledge acquired and expanded on over the past 50 years.  But is it still possible to stop nuclear proliferation and start dismantling bombs where they exist?  And can the U.S. take responsibility to make this happen?
   While the global warming debate is not as old as nuclear proliferation, it is rapidly achieving equal status in the eyes of the public.  Increasing temperatures, anomalous hurricanes and droughts stretching across the African continent have caught the attention of scientists who point to global warming as the crux of these events.  Global warming, which most insist, has been brought about by humans. 
  To combat these charges, the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and the United Nations Convention on Climate Change (UNCCC) in 1992.  UNCCC’s current focus is ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, created on December 11, 1997 and entering into force on February 16, 2005.  Under the Kyoto Protocol, 36 industrialized countries must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by five percent over five years.  Even though the U.S., under the advice of former Vice President Al Gore, signed the protocol in 1998, it was never ratified by a Republican Senate.  Today, over 180 countries have ratified the protocol but not the United States.  The current Bush administration cites the large loss of U.S. jobs the Kyoto Protocol could result in as an explanation for its aloofness.  
   The need for a multilateral approach to achieve the elimination of global warming and nuclear weapons is an undeniable fact.  The days of U.S. unilateralism must come to a close in order to solve these issues.  The countries of the world need to unite amidst their differences in the next few crucial years to guarantee the safety of tomorrow’s world.

By: Madeleine Lesser

Abdul Qadeer Khan (A.Q. Khan), Pakistani scientist and metallurgical engineer, originally admitted to working with Libya, Iran, and North Korea on nuclear proliferation; although he later retracted his participation in such activities. Following a confession in February 2004, A.Q. Khan was put on house arrest because of the fact that he had provided those countries with information and technology to develop nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, since the time of Khan's house arrest, he has allegedly been secretly developing blueprints for a relatively small and compact warhead. Analysts have purported that the designs would likely be of greatest use for Iran and North Korea - since both states have faced difficulty creating native weapons.

Given Khan's back-and-forth history of confessions and retractions, he is clearly not a man whom the U.S., nor the international community, can trust to succomb to goals of non-proliferation. Just as the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists - because they cannot be trusted - we must not be tricked into negotiating with Khan.

With the introduction of START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), initiated by Reagan in Geneva on June 29, 1982, the U.S. and USSR agreed to commence a process of not just limiting but actually reducing the overall warhead count. Given the amount of nuclear weapons currently in the world, non-proliferation is an appealing method, similar to that of START, to reduce the amount of weapons countries possess by creating multilateral agreements.

Practically, we must not lose sight of the fact that non-proliferation cannot be achieved merely by recognized states agreeing to reduction. The discovery of Khan's secret methods of producing weapons sheds light on the reality that terrorists and individuals possess the knowledge, and potential capabilities, to produce their own nuclear and ballistic weapons. If non-proliferation were just a matter of negotiating between and among states, we could have faith in the word to become a safer place - but clearly, we do not have control over all who desire to create a more dangerous world.

By: Madeleine Lesser

One must keep in mind the immense complexity and fragility of the governmental, as well as societal, politics of Sudan. The nature of relationships and agreements are constantly changing throughout this unstable country regarding tribal alliances and loyalties. Jerry Fowler, President of Save Darfur, addressed the need, at a lecture held at the Holocaust Memorial Museum on June 19, 2008, to always be mindful of the civilian casualty rates that result from the North-South struggles from each trying to maintain a greater influence.

The mode governing the nation of Sudan has been based around a flawed economic system in which loyalties are bought and sold depending on monopolies (and monopsonies). Since the buyers and the sellers of these "so-called" loyalties seem to have no other option, i.e. competition, along with the sheer immorality of buying and selling personal devotion as a commodity - and the human rights violations associated with that - create a market that is far from humane. Shifts in loyalties are not uncommon: today's friend could be tomorrow's enemy, and vice versa. Clearly, trust and honesty are two characteristics that would not be used to describe this corrupted political system.

Statistics show that the Sudanese system itself has no regard for human life, particularly innocent civilians who become collateral damage as a result of a rejection of the peace agreements. Either militia leaders and politicians enjoy war, or are too narcissistic and will settle for nothing less than full, individual power - or maybe it's both.

An influx in killing, and the genocide in the Darfur region, tend to be the result of various peace agreements made between the North and the South. It seems that every agreement causes more deaths in the short term than any lasting peace in the long term. Maybe the international community's role should be in enabling a productive place where the politians, leaders, and head of state can meet to collaborate on an effective method for a sustainable peace. It is unreasonable to expect one, single nation to unilaterally assume full responsibility to address the issues inherent in Sudan; rather what is needed is a full, multilateral effort from the global community. A wrong step would be to try to overwhelm and take over the politics of Sudan; we need to keep in mind that the nature of the country and its future need to be left to the Sudanese to decide. Multilateral aid to affect peace-talks is appropriate, unilateral political takeover is not.

By: Madeleine Lesser

    China's previous veto, shielding the Sudanese government from United Nations' pressure to comply with International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants for arrests of suspects, no longer offers such protection.  With seemingly less opposition from China, the Security Council of the U.N. has been more able to come to a concensus to place real, significant pressure on the Sudanese government to address the genocide and human rights violations in the Darfur region.     

    Sudan, a member of the United Nations since 1956, should know the rules, and follow them, when dealing with U.N. propositions - not to mention that the blatant corruption evident within the government is in itself, a serious issue and violates many so-called "rules."  The U.N. has outrightly demanded that the Sudanese government unconditionally cooperate with the ICC, consistent with resolution 1593.  Regardless of these demands, a denial of compliance to the legal warrants, and a continued dismissal of the ICC's influence over the war crimes occuring in the country, ignites valid international unrest and concern. 

    Specifically, arrest warrants for government official Ahmed Haroun and militia leader Ali Kosheib have not been adhered to.  To think that war criminals are unjustly (and illegaly) granted immunity by their government based merely on the notion that the government "refuses to comply," is unacceptable and should not be tolerated.  In no just place would leaders of genocide be granted immunity by the very people who fund it, while the rest of the world looked the other way.

    As a result of these rejections of international law by the Sudanese government, the Security Council decided to make a trip to Khartoum (Sudan's Captial), from June 4-5.  The fact that the U.N. needed to physically show the seriousness of the matter is unsettling.  It clearly relays that Sudan neither values the U.N. and its demands, nor the lives of its own people.  Refusing to adhere to the ICC's warrants fuels the genocide and does nothing to save the Sudanese people from a potentially irreversable fate.  Pressure needs to be continually heightened, in conjunction with serious and binding consequences to those who continue to ignore international law.  

The latest poll from WorldPublicOpinion.org demonstrated that out of 20 nations surveyed, no political leader inspires substantial confidence or trust "to do the right thing regarding world affairs." The international players investigated in the report included global and regional leadership from Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and Eurasia/Middle East. The largest focus area of analysis included global opinion surveys of United States President George W. Bush, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, newly-transitioned President Vladmir Putin, President Hu Jintao of China, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan. The 19,751 respondents were taken from nations that comprised 60 percent of the world's population, large and small territories both represented.

President Bush resulted as one of the worlds least trusted leaders, ranking the second to last world leader that inspires confidence in global affairs. Fifteen nations rate the leader of the free world negatively, while only two (Nigeria 60%, and India 45%) are even marginally positive. Interestingly, Bush is surpassed only to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who is rated only slightly more negative in more nations worldwide. This is no surprise, considering even in the United States Bush’s approval rating has recently hit an all-time low. According to the latest Washington Post-ABC poll, 68 percent of Americans disapprove of the job President Bush is doing – 54 percent strongly.

According to WorldPublibOpinion.org’s study, Chinese public opinion of Bush has softened, with a ten point increase in positive views since last year. Not surprisingly, the most negative views come from the Middle East region, and despite foreign policy efforts nearly all Palestinians (95%) express low confidence, 79 percent with “no confidence at all.” Argentina and Mexico were also largely negative, with Mexico’s negative outlook increasing 16 points since last year. Ironically, Iran reported the mildest negative ratings in its region. Bush also got the highest average percentage of negative ratings, totaling 67 percent.

The most fascinating piece of information provided by this study, in my opinion, shows that the only international leader in play to elicit more confidence than distrust regarding global affairs is UN Security General Ban Ki-moon. Ban’s country of origin, South Korea, gave the largest number of positive ratings at 83 percent “a lot/some confidence.” Nigeria, China, Britain, France, India, Indonesia, and Azerbaijan all gave majority positive ratings as well. Very interestingly, despite sanctions from the UN Security Council to stop uranium enrichment programs, Iranians also reported mostly positive (43 to 18%). The nations demonstrating largely negative views were all five from the Middle East region, the largest in Palestine. The US, Russia, Argentina and Thailand expressed “not too much” confidence predominantly, relatively few with “no confidence at all.” Those expressing a lack of confidence are surmised to be expressing a lack of familiarity with the largely new and low-profile UN Secretary General.

What does this reveal about the status and opinion of global leadership? At least from this specific analysis, the overall worldwide consensus indicates more confidence in the United Nations leadership than any other national figure worldwide. Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org reported, “While the worldwide mistrust of George Bush has created a global leadership vacuum, no alternative leader has stepped up into the breach. Hu Jintao and Vladmir Putin are popular among some nations, but more mistrust them that trust them. Also, the nations that trust them are not organized into any clusters that have the potential to be a meaningful bloc.”

Encouragingly, with the November elections emerging, the next President of the United States has an opportunity to regain international trust regarding global affairs, hopefully alongside UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.