I am delighted to hear this: these are opinions that I entirely concur with. Russia is a country that I am very familiar with. I have been doing business there for over 13 years and owned more than 40 magazines in the country. Over the years, I have been amazed at the changes that have taken place. There have been great strides forward — in democracy, domestic government, increasing economic prosperity, and in Russia’s role in foreign affairs. Of course, no country has an entirely unblemished history, nor does any nation possess a spotless record with its domestic government. However, focusing on the negative only reinforces those ideas and patterns of behavior. To encourage the positive trends within Russia, the international community (and, of course, we the media have a role to play here as well) must acknowledge and reward the progress made so far.

We in the West often rely on old habits of thinking and old ideas about Russia. It is common in human nature to fall back reflexively to the most comfortable position, and it is sometimes difficult to adapt to change. In international relations, that means we do not always make the most impartial judgment. It is for that reason that we have international law upheld by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Relying on their judgments is the surest way to ensure fairness and justice in foreign affairs.

If we consider the recent conflict between Russia and Georgia, I, probably like most other observers, may have been quick to blame Russia. However, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, told me something that was a revelation. When Georgia sent troops into Russia in 2008, “Russia, a non-state party, took the Rome Statute into consideration when planning its military campaign and sent more than 3,000 communications with allegations of war crimes committed by Georgia.”

In the conflict between Georgia and Russia over the territories of South Ossetia, the most of the press and the international community have been quick to criticize Russia. Georgia has been seen as the plucky little country standing up to an overbearing giant. A few observers noted that Russia was hotly provoked in August of last year, when the conflict began, and only a very small minority criticized the Georgian domestic political system.

This is because Cold War reflexes and Cold War-era systems of global agencies still dominate international relations. In July, when U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden visited Georgia and Ukraine, he explicitly rejected Russia’s “spheres of influence” policy. However, such language is very inflammatory in Russia. It is seen as Cold War rhetoric par excellence. While the West often censures Russia for so called Cold War thinking — great-power confrontation based on zero-sum power dynamics — it would appear that U.S. policymakers are not entirely immune to it either.

There is a security discourse in international norms that denies Russia’s identity as an equal player and, also, one that sets out a series of conditions for Russia to join the international community. The Russians are always asking that the international expert community take Russian concerns and ideas and make them the basis of policy analysis. In 2008, President Dmitry Medvedev claimed that “Russia is not part of any politico-military alliance. … Yet we are interested in our voice being heard in Europe.”

Contrary to received opinion in the West, Russia does not disregard all international conventions. It is more accurate to say that she ignores those in which she has little voice and little expectation of her interests being fairly represented. The solution is not to punish and veto Russia but rather to reform global agencies and empower them to make them more representative of the new balances of power and more empathic to diverse security concerns.

The conflict in South Ossetia is an example of the failure to do so. Russia’s concerns about insecurity on her borders in the Caucasus and her territorial integrity were consistently ignored. As a result, Russia considers herself surrounded by hostile powers, in a fundamentally hostile environment with no reliable friends. Whether this is an accurate depiction of reality is almost irrelevant. We have to take into consideration Russia’s political identity and security concerns. As for Georgia, domestic political turmoil and increasingly non-transparent decision-making should have alerted the international community. Rule of law and democracy within borders are absolutely crucial for security and stability outside borders.

In fact, Russia was not included and invested into our common security, nor was Georgia protected. We cannot build security in Europe by ignoring the security concerns of its largest country and a major global power. Nor can we ignore our responsibility to protect our vulnerable and small states. A stronger system of international governance that includes Russia will increase all our security. We must embed Russia into the international community and invest her into a shared, safer world. In other words, offer a competing discourse on security — one of indivisible and united security under a collective framework, defined positively with Russia rather than negatively against Russia.

Multilateralism is therefore the only solution. We need to look at the most important structures of global governance and reform them. To that end, I propose a radical overhaul of the existing structure: a NATO that includes Russia and structures of global governance that are truly international rather than only so in name.

In recent years, awareness of the need for global governance has become more acute. The present financial crisis, the environmental crisis, world poverty, increasing zones of conflict with their concomitant humanitarian crises and mass violations of human rights have all highlighted how important global solutions are. These issues affect all countries, and no country is able to fight alone. The West needs the rest of the world to help find appropriate solutions to international challenges. It is no longer possible to ignore the fact that the world includes more than the eight countries that make up the G8. It is a step in the right direction that the G20 meet to discuss the financial crisis.

If Europe and the U.S. want the participation of the emerging powers, they must be prepared to allow them representation within international agencies. Such a reform implies the relaunching of the Security Council to include more than the five permanent members, opening the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to the representatives of other world powers, and creating hard security alliances that all countries can participate in. Also, there must be a meaningful commitment on the part of all nation-states to follow the strictures of international law and abide by the judgment of its courts.

When it comes to Russia, the most important agency of international governance is NATO. NATO is the pre-eminent security alliance in Europe and the one considered most relevant by Russian policy-makers. NATO has been trying to redefine its mission since the Cold War. Without its previous major raison d’être, being anti-Russia, NATO has worked to promote democracy and stability. However, it has only been relatively successful in doing so (arguably, the European Union is better at this), and NATO has largely remained an organization directed against Russia.
There have been formal attempts to build relations. Russia became a member of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) in 1992. Separate institutions were created within NATO just for Russia; the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established in 1997.

However, these positive steps have been overshadowed by actions on the ground. The current European security architecture, centered on NATO, stands accused not merely of failing to alleviate tensions but also of aggravating them to the point of crisis. Western support for the Color Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, the development of U.S. missile defense plans in Poland and the Czech Republic, and a failure to manage Russian sensitivities in the former Soviet Union have generated considerable resentment in Moscow.

A perceived neo-containment policy by NATO is dangerous: It risks weakening the democrats in Russia struggling with powerful undemocratic forces. In international relations, Russia has come to regard the new configuration as illegitimate.
The fundamental mistake was that Russia was never formally offered NATO membership. The lesson of history is that it is more dangerous to exclude adversaries than include them and build alliances. Early statesmen of the post-Cold War period realized the importance of membership. The idea of Russia joining NATO was first suggested by Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. In 1993, James Baker, the former U.S. secretary of state, suggested that NATO should include Russia: “I cannot imagine a better way to ‘enhance the political component’ of the alliance than for NATO to consider the possibility that Russia, if and when it qualifies, be eligible for membership.”

Baker argued that the West has been hostile because Russia has never fully embraced democracy and free markets. Yet if Russia were to join NATO, not only would it alleviate domestic hostility within Russia toward the West, but the NATO Membership Action Plan would act as a stimulus to reform within Russia. Keeping Russia out of NATO encourages Russian expansionism and insularity, and degrades Western security.

The argument is often made that NATO should be expanded now if we want to contain Russia in the future. But is Russia inevitably going to become imperial? Such circular reasoning is dangerously close to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Nations are not constants and do not always act according to past precedents.

Security threats are radically different from those of the Cold War. It is no longer a matter of great powers facing each other — the so-called “great game” of the Cold War. The world is in transition: We are becoming more interconnected and more interdependent — interconnected through an extensive infrastructure of transport, energy, information, and technology. Shared economic growth, energy security, and environmental sustainability make all countries in the world deeply interdependent.

Let us be clear about the magnitude of the threats we face. Political insecurity has always been closely interlinked to economic instability. We see this in the Third World: Many African and Asian countries are caught in a spiral of political failure, economic instability, and human suffering. Poverty inexorably creates marginalization and social dislocation. We see that all too clearly in the Middle East. Terrorism is the almost inevitable consequence. The complex causes of social dislocation, modernization, and economic deprivation are not just prevalent in the Middle East. They are present in our societies too.

Finally, let us not forget climate change; it too has political implications. Competition for natural resources, notably water, will be aggravated by global warming over the next decades and is likely to create further turbulence and migratory movements in various regions.

This is all too depressingly familiar. The difference is that today these threats occur in a very different world. Innovations in technology make weapons of mass destruction, whether they are bio-weapons or cyber-weapons, more menacing and more accessible to even the smallest terrorist cell. Increasingly, terrorists are well resourced and well connected by electronic networks and transport infrastructures.

All major powers are exposed to this conjunction of political, economic, energy, and environmental crises, and none of them can successfully confront these challenges on its own. Both established and emerging powers have a strategic interest in investing in cooperation to place their prosperity and security on firmer grounds.

If the world in 2009 is very different from 1989, some things have stayed depressingly familiar, like military expenditure. According to the Center for Defense Information (CDI), average annual military spending by the U.S. during the Cold War (1945-1990) was $300 billion. The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation estimates that in 2009 the U.S. will spend $700 billion on military expenditures, which is approximately over 20% of the United States’s federal budget. This is a tragic and unsustainable waste that we can ill afford after a global financial crisis. That is expenditure that was not spent on eradicating poverty, developing vaccines, irrigating farmlands, or educating our youth. We should be investing that money on our schools and our health services, in promoting trade, and in boosting the economy.

Building a new future is a complex task. Creative and inspirational leadership is in great demand to manage the transition. More than ever, members of the international community have to listen to each other and take into account the voices of other nations. The only way to move closer together is through meaningful and constructive dialogue in open and accessible international forums.

I support this collaboration and communication among countries to help us work together to reach common goals. Rather than investing in military expenditures, we must invest more in research, innovation, and education, to bring more economic prosperity to our countries and economic stability to those in need. As we reach out to new countries, we have the possibility of new markets. Expanded markets, trade, and education are positive-sum goods, in turn bringing us other, fresh markets and, above all, peace.

Netanyahu, by demanding greater security for the Israelis, necessitates less democracy for the Palestinians. Threats, real or exaggerated, have significant consequences for democracy. They create a dilemma: they force us to choose between security or democracy.

This is an insidious paradox that is too often ignored in the making of foreign policy. Rising violence engenders all-around hostility and begets reduced empathy, reduced empathy provokes increased security, and this in turn diminishes democracy. As we act forcefully to ensure the security of states we sacrifice our human security. That concept can be defined as anything that identifies what it means to be human: democracy, freedom of speech, human rights and dignity.

Security-conscious political elites consistently flout the tenets of equality, privacy, and nondiscrimination. Security systems in airports now routinely include body searches, retina scans, biomedical passports and even racial profiling. The British government just unveiled details of its Humabio pilot project. Humabio is a new generation of biometric security systems that uses four layers of checks: facial recognition, fingerprint recognition, iris recognition, and vein imaging/palm recognition.

Even more insidious than over-zealous governments acting to protect their citizens is that ordinary people all over the world adopting fortress mentalities. In Latin America, high levels of fear and insecurity have led to increased reliance on private security guards, high walls, gated communities, calls for strict mano dura policing and mass incarceration of young men. In the shanty-town favelas of Rio Janeiro, building personal security has resulted in a system of vigilante protection provided by drug traffickers with violent crimes being met by equally violent reactions.

Violence and crime has made Johannesburg into a ghost town: the center has been deserted by businesses and shops. Drive through any wealthy suburb and you will see large houses barricaded by high walls, metal grilles and electric fences, infrared sensors attached to alarms and surveillance cameras. The sound you hear is guard dogs barking.

Nowhere is this more acute than here in the Middle East. Every routine journey I take involves a rigorous round of security checks, verification of papers and checkpoints (more than 260 of them in the region). And what if I were Palestinian? In that case, I would be subject to something akin to a military occupation infrastructure comprising checkpoints, Jewish-only settlements, road blocks, and the West Bank Wall, combined with a myriad of legal regulations that would govern my daily life.

Increases in violence and the perception of heightened threats have resulted in a social reaction that stymies democracy and limits basic human rights. The imperative of security induces us to surrender our civil liberties to daily surveillance and accept ever-more-intrusive curtailments of our freedom. But this is not a democratic practice that I am willing to accept. Paranoid, curtailed lives lived in perpetual fear and anxiety should not be the lived reality of democracy.

While I have been traveling in the Middle East, I am increasingly aware of the pivotal role that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict plays in this dilemma. Why does the survival of a small nation of 6.5 million people with a territory of 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) dictate the performance of democracy worldwide? Because, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most inflammatory issue in the Middle East, the flagship issue for proto-fascist Islamists worldwide and the political excuse sine qua non to justify hatred and terrorism. To resolve this issue is to remove a festering sore in the Middle East.

Trouble here affects not just 7 million Israelis, around 4 million Palestinians, and 200 million Arabs; it also affects more than a billion Muslims worldwide. Every time there is a major flare-up in the Middle East, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq or the Israeli bombing of Gaza, Islamic communities around the world become concerned, distressed, and angered. Few of them doubt the problem’s origin: the West. Now, the problem concerns more than the billion Muslims but extends to the entire world.

This anger is the strongest recruiting tool for a new generation of Hamas and Hezbollah. The cycle of hate and distrust moves beyond the Middle East. Transnational terrorists are enjoying record levels of recruitment among the Muslim youth of the poor suburbs of Paris and the housing projects of British inner cities. As we live physically closer to each other and also more technologically connected, there is no such thing as a separate conflict “far away” in the Middle East. Instead globalization interacts with growing demographics to create a melting pot of the world.

This is not just a question of democracy and stability in two states or even 57 states of the Middle East – it is a question of the safety and stability of 194 countries. Global security is being held hostage by this conflict. Terrorism, conflict, and regional instability caused by the Israeli-Palestinian issue have global repercussions.

There are other dangers in an interconnected, networked world. New and deadly forms of biological and cyber warfare are not hindered by the boundaries of nation-states. The fact that the components of nuclear, cyber and biological weapons seem to be increasingly available for clandestine purchase means that we must take seriously the danger that a ruthless breed of terrorists or a hostile government will soon possess such weapons.

The danger is already visible here in the Middle East. Even that most impregnable security state Israel with its F-16s, Jericho -1 and -2s, MGM Lance 52 missiles and Arrow and Patriot missile defense systems is virtually unprotected against cyber and biological weapons. Most countries that Israel considers itself likely to fight have been developing some sort of chemical or biological warfare for decades. Syria, for example, has an advanced chemical weapons capacity – Sarin, VX nerve gas and a small biological warfare program.

As for Iran, in June 2001, a plan called the Comprehensive National Microbial Defense Plan was adopted by the Supreme National Security Council . There is some discussion whether Iran may be building its own biological weapons capacity of anthrax, aflatoxin and microbial bombs using the smallpox virus, typhoid fever and the plague.

Cyber weapons are becoming easier to obtain, easier to use and more powerful. They vary from Trojan horses; denial-of-service attack tools; computer viruses; malicious computer code to powerful electromagnetic surges that disable computer electrics. The Achilles’ heel of any defensive response is that interconnected systems and ubiquitous communication networks means that any retaliation could have adverse repercussions on allied civilian infrastructure. U.S. forces reportedly rejected launching their own cyber attack against Iraqi banks in 2003 as such a move might also have brought down banks and cash machines in Europe.

In 2004, Eugene Kaspersky, of Kaspersky Labs, wrote a report, carried by the Russian television channel RIA Novosti, warning that we might be in danger of a large-scale attack delivered by Islamic terrorists – what he called an “electronic jihad.”

No unwieldy bureaucracy of government can move as fast as a cyberterrorist. No supply chain, however efficient, can out-pace a pandemic that spreads by human contact. It is only a matter of time before no government will be able to ensure the security of its people.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?
The two paramount security threats in the Middle East are the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a hostile, nuclear-armed Iran. These are two separate issues and part of the confusion arises when they are unhelpfully lumped into one.

The threat of a hostile Iran with nuclear capacity is an issue for the international community. The international community – be it the G20, the UN Security Council — has failed to deal decisively with Iran. By surrendering leadership in this matter, they have allowed the threat to grow, and Israel has had no option but to step into the vacuum and be the policeman of the Middle East.

Yet, a belligerent anti-Iranian policy by Israel serves Iranian strategic goals: it provides domestic support for Iran’s conservative anti-Semitic government, it inflames anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East, and it isolates Israel. (Conversely, the consequence of Arab-Israeli peace would be the isolation of Iran).

Iran is not a matter for Israel. First, Israel must manage its own conflict. Arguably, the state of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis is the worst it has been for decades. However, there is a qualitative difference to the past. The July-August 2006 foray against Hezbollah and especially the bombing of Gaza in January 2009 has caused an international psychological shift against Israel. Around the world, we watched aghast as human beings (not Hamas – unless schoolchildren were Hamas fighters) were killed, maimed, displaced, and then denied access to vital medical and food supplies. It was aptly called by the UN an 18-month “human dignity crisis.”

In fact, Israel’s campaign against Hamas did not damage Hamas in the long term and it did not increase Israeli security. It only served to deepen the antagonism against Israel.
Political dialog and ideas are of course crucial. There should be negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (predicated on the Palestinian leadership acting decisively against violence). The negotiating track should be reopened on the basis of the road map of 2002: Jerusalem should be declared international territory and there must be a clear unambiguous acceptance on both sides for a two-state solution to the conflict.

For a two-state solution to succeed it must be meaningful on the ground: statehood means that the Palestinians should be allowed the political and economic space to develop their democracy, their educational system, and their own import and export routes. They must control their own borders and they must have control of their own basic resources – currently 80% of their water is controlled by the Israelis. After four decades of Israeli occupation, there is no independent Palestinian currency, airport, or seaport. If Palestine does not control its borders and its airspace, there will always be rocket attacks on Israel. It is counter-strategic to for Israel to act as it does.

It has never been an issue of crafting reasonable political solutions but rather there has rarely been political leadership in either Israel or Palestine that has been willing to forgo violence, make compromises, and forget past injustices. On both sides, the political players are biased; emotions run high and dictate the politics. But, this is unsustainable – neither the scared people of Israel nor the starving people of Palestine have time for the luxury of self-indulgent anger and the righteous indignation of their politicians. It is time for the political elites of Israel and Palestine to take responsibility and forge a solution. If necessary, a final compromise needs to be prised out of these unwilling collaborators. They need to sit down together and they need to talk. Strong-arm tactics were tried at Camp David in the 1970s, and it did work. But it was temporary because the same stagnant political issues and the same political players remained at the heart of the discourse.

Therefore, there should be a focus on a new game altogether – social transformation, cultural exchange and profoundly altering the political culture of the region. History provides us with the templates: Japan and Germany after World War II underwent significant social transformation, constitutional reform, re-educated its political classes and forged cultural links with historic enemies. Today, those two historically belligerent powers are responsible, pacifist voices on the international stage.

Instead of endlessly traversing the political differences there could be a productive discussion on what possibilities peace would bring: tourism, economic progress, the cultural blossoming – focusing on the positive results of peace rather than narrowly concentrating on the fraught politics of war. This is not to ignore the politics but rather to widen the negotiating table to include economists, cultural theorists, artists and psychologists – only such a holistic approach aimed at nothing less than a radical transformation of the political culture of the region will allow change to become feasible.

Meanwhile, there should be a very intense concentration on improving Palestinian life in the West Bank. The reopening of a political track and making visible progress in the West Bank to materially improve the everyday reality of Palestinian – this is the combination that will build a lasting, enduring solution to the crisis.

Aid to Gaza must increase, and it must reach its intended recipients. The U.S. and western countries have put significant amounts of money into their Middle East development assistance budgets, but these funds’ primary purpose is to serve the immediate and short-term security and national interests of the donors rather than the long-term interests of the Israeli and Palestinian people. It is not enough for the U.S. to pledge $900 million in humanitarian aid to Gaza if the Israeli military is preventing the entry into Gaza of materials such as cement and piping that are crucial to rebuild hospitals, schools, and homes.

There’s a lot to be done for the economy in the West Bank: trade must be improved and barriers to trade eradicated. The economy could benefit if, for example, the Israelis would remove some of the checkpoints that hinder movement on the ground in the West Bank. A 2008 World Bank report stated that systemic and perpetual economic hindrances – road blacks, sanctions, the Wall – were a “paralysis confronting the Palestinian economy.”

WHAT ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY?
U.S. leadership is vital in the region but it must recognise the limits of military power. A military solution to the Middle East — far from affirming America’s leadership role — rouses hatred, undermines its authority, and ultimately weakens U.S. standing and safety. Arguably, the priorities and methods of the Obama administration are much more amenable and productive than what has gone before.

However, U.S. authority in this region is compromised: the war in Iraq and the so-called Israel lobby means that the U.S. acts as a hindrance rather than a help to Israel. It is perceived as over-indulgent of Israel. The siege of Gaza was seen as a joint U.S.-Israeli exercise. The Apache helicopter-gunships are seen less as Israeli aircraft than American aircraft with Israeli markings.

Leadership and guidance must be provided by the international community. There is already a ready-made forum of the international community – the G20. Twenty of the most significant democracies accounting for 85% of the world’s economy – speaking with one voice is a force to be reckoned with. There are few other options – the G20 must act.

There is a particular role for the EU. Today, Europe matters in international affairs: a wealthy power with tremendous economic potential. It must choose to engage rather than hang back and rely on the U.S. There have been promising signs. Karel Schwarzenberg, the Czech politician currently overseeing his country’s EU presidency, recently commented that ties between Israel and the EU would suffer if Israel did not pursue Palestinian statehood. With the EU as Israel’s largest market for exports and its second-largest source of imports after the U.S., it’s likely that the message did not fall on deaf ears.

Most importantly, Europe would bring a new, more acceptable, voice to the table. The EU’s normative approach to foreign policy, its tools of cultural diplomacy, its expertise in post-conflict reconstruction, and even its apparent sympathy to the Palestinians makes it a distinctive and uniquely powerful player within the Middle East. The EU’s oft-cited weakness as a “civilian power” is exactly the type of strength required here.

In my conversations with Israelis, Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims from all over the Middle East and Jewish friends from all over the world, I have come away with the overwhelming feeling that average citizens are tired of and disheartened by this war. There are promising possibilities in the moderation of the average citizen.

Consider Hezbollah in Lebanon. The war against Israel in 2008 did not win Hezbollah any more support – rather the Lebanese have been asking “why do we need to fight Israel anymore. what ideology is worth all this misery?” Hezbollah has been losing support dramatically. According to opinion polls conducted by the International Peace Institute, 58% of Lebanese feel that Hezbollah’s actions were unjustified in 2008. While the resounding victory for Lebanon’s Western-backed coalition in the June 2009 elections reveals how politically weak Hezbollah has become. The restraint and temperance of the Lebanese people should be a message to the politicians.

It will take a political miracle to enable a serious engagement toward a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. Rather than solely pursue this possibly unattainable goal and leaning so heavily on the preventative tools of security and high-politics, the international approach should focus on positive goals: creating a democratic civil society, promoting respect for the rule of law and human rights, encouraging cultural exchange and intellectual discourse, promoting trade, and bolstering economic liberalization. It is only on these foundations will we be able to build long-term stability, order and prosperity in the Middle East.

It follows that our foreign policy elites must accept a different model of democracy – one that is inclusive, accepting of values and cultures and different political systems. Building intercultural dialog through foreign policy and building a foreign policy that embraces cultural dialog – that is the only choice left. Everything else has been tried and has failed.

The silence and paralysis engendered by this crisis, the simmering anger just barely contained beneath the surface and above all the fear – living like trapped rats in our little corner of the world – should not be the accepted state of human life in the 21st century. It is about time we rediscovered the promise of globalization. We need to remind ourselves that it is not just a menacing world of terrorist cells, cross-border surveillance and deadly diseases. Globalization was to have been the way forward: make the world smaller, safer, more multicultural, and more diverse; to advance the rule of law, guarantee human rights, and ultimately expand the sphere of consensual democracy.

2. Certainly, America cannot afford to focus its energies solely on the demonstration of military power. Gone are the days when America could rely primarily on threats and coercion to safeguard its national interest. America cannot attack, “hunt down and punish” every terrorist in the world but must rather work through both dialogue and diplomacy to decrease hatred and resentment in the world’s troubled regions. This is doubly important since advances in science and technology as well as availability and ease of use, have created an even greater potential for terrorism – in the form of a biological or cyber attack – to have catastrophic impact.

3. In a world of rapid migration flows and advances in telecommunications, threats are no longer contained in far-away borders that can be attacked and eliminated. Indeed, the hubris of the Bush administration and its attendant lack of foresight has led to a manifold increase in potential extremist recruits not only outside, but inside America as well. In a world where no country knows what the next attack will look like, America’s next president must advance a policy of prevention, and a style of governance and management that is able to meet this challenge. To preserve American freedom amid these transformations, he should recognize that empathy, diplomacy and culturally-sensitive dialogue will further American freedom and security more than any “shock and awe” military display.

4. Neither can America afford leadership that recklessly tramples on the rights, freedoms, and cultures of citizens of America and elsewhere. For decades western nations have neglected to understand and respect the diversity of global cultures and the meanings people give to their lives in their religious symbols, customs and beliefs. America has been at the fore of this neglect, as it sought to impose misinformed solutions in countries ranging from Afghanistan to Somalia. The next president must recognize that any moral claim behind the Bush administration’s divisive dichotomy of “with us or against us” has been lost in the shame between Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and with it the role of America as a supporter of global human rights and the rule of law. While we must continually recognize and give praise to America’s historical foreign policy and economic record, whether it has been by spreading market-economy or intervening the Balkan war, the way forward for the next president has to start with replacing the righteous pride with humility.

5. What America needs is a president who can restore America’s ability to lead through collaboration, injecting its relationships with humanism and respect for other cultures – which are incidentally, a part of America’s own national cultural diversity as well. He must restore the core American belief in universal human dignity, empathy, and compassion for those in need. Entering the second decade of this millennium, America will leverage its power best through compassionate multilateralism.

6. In this spirit, three issues urgently call for renewed attention and leadership: a political settlement in the Middle East, functional partnerships with China and Russia, and development in the world’s most impoverished regions, starting with Africa.

7. The Israel/Palestine peace process is the most important issue of our time. In a world where America needs more friends and fewer enemies, an unresolved Middle East conflict makes the country a target of anger and resentment. Many in the region believe that it is within American power to work with Israel and secure Palestinian statehood. For them, America’s claims for democracy promotion and human rights are devalued as long as a blind eye is turned to their plight. Moreover, the ‘war on terror’ has constructed Muslims the world over as synonymous with terrorists. There are over one billion Muslims in the world. America cannot afford to alienate them. Instead, the next president must return to the cherished values of an open and inclusive society, both at home and abroad. This is doubly important since American military reach and its policy of a ‘best defense is a good offense’ in order to safeguard American freedoms is almost at its budgetary limit. The United States will simply not be able to afford further military adventures into Afghanistan or northern Africa, let alone the protection of other nations that have come to rely on American military might in the long run.

8. With China, glaring inconsistencies appear between American interests and the hostile strategy deployed erratically by the Bush administration. The next president must avoid the persistent criticism of China we have witnessed over the last eight years, particularly on the issue of Tibet. If the war in Iraq has demonstrated anything, it is that incorrect information, coupled with insufficient attention to history and context, can turn unstable situations into catastrophes. While China – indeed every country – must be called to account on its human rights record, its demonstrated willingness to engage in constructive dialogue on the preservation of Tibetan culture presents an encouraging opportunity that should not be dismissed. As I have argued elsewhere, America and other western leaders cannot afford to let the Tibetan movement become radicalized. Instead, they should support the active engagement with the stakeholders to create conditions for peace and long-term stability.

9. The next president should support efforts aimed at Chinese reconciliation, which includes clarification of historical memory about the difficult pasts of both China and Tibet, with a view to moving forward. Let us seek to understand the trajectory China has travelled over the last 50 years rather than prescribing incomplete, we-know-better solutions. A country that has succeeded in raising over 400 million people out of poverty over the last 20 years can provide lessons for the rest of the developing world. Good relations with China are both economically and strategically beneficial for America, not only because China finances America’s high deficit spending but also because America will need Chinese collaboration to conclude critical global agreements on issues ranging from climate change to trade. The next president must see China as an ally and not a threat, and seek to increase political dialogue and cultural understanding between the two nations. The Louise Blouin Foundation through the recent launch of the China Cultures Fund, will also be working at a high level to create solutions for Tibetan cultural preservation, and the promotion of Chinese culture as an effort towards greater cultural dilplomacy between China and the West.

10. In Russia, the next president must likewise re-examine the patronizing and intimidating approach adopted by the Bush administration. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says that Russia is heading to isolation and international irrelevance, or Governor Sarah Palin says that she can “perhaps” contemplate war with Russia, do they understand the consequences of their words? This is not to condone the proportion of the Russian reaction to Georgian provocation, but to underscore that America’s next president must understand that finger-pointing and Cold War rhetoric can dangerously undermine American interests and influence. Russia is essential to American economic, political, and security objectives. Instead of bullying Russia, America must lead through the ‘soft power’ of persuasion and moral example.

11. Finally, Africa is extremely relevant to American interests. In an interconnected world, economic distress and terrorism cross borders as easily as epidemics and pollution. Development-oriented policies cannot be rolled back or cast aside in this time of economic turmoil. Now more than ever, American leadership must continue to support the expansion of human freedoms in Africa. As I have emphasized here at the Huffington Post, trade must be the first strategy of ensuring African economic independence. Africa must be supported in the effort to create health and educational infrastructure, institutions of governance and rule of law, as well as the foundations for a healthy market economy. Not only do new markets in Africa present American corporations with investment opportunities, sound African economies, even in their infancy can do much more to lift the Continent out of poverty than aid alone. The Doha Round negotiations also have a vital role to play in decreasing African poverty and growing African economies. The WTO estimates that successfully completing Doha could lift 140 million out of poverty by 2015. America should leap at the opportunity to lead this effort.

12. Standing on the eve of tumultuous events in history, President Roosevelt said in 1941 that the future, safety and freedom of America were intimately connected with freedom beyond the country’s borders. Decades later, Americans face another historic moment of global turbulence. Once more, events of the times remind U.S. voters the world is more interconnected than ever. All Americans are being affected by the current economic crises. They are hurting, and reaching out for hope and self-confidence. Americans want a leader with the wisdom to steer clear of counterproductive military adventures, to regulate the banking sector, and rebuild trust in the country’s foundational institutions. They are looking for a person who can transcend party politics, and make them believe again. Obama is the presidential candidate with the poise and intellectual precision necessary to handle the multidimensional demands of our time. He can best restore American freedom and dignity.

Remember that when you go to vote, in order to safeguard American freedom a change is needed both domestically and in the global arena. The United States can no longer afford to create animosity throughout the world that can only be resolved by military force. America also can no longer turn a blind eye on the Israel/Palestine peace process nor African poverty, where the Doha Round agreement is a significant part. Prolonged poverty and deprivation will not only create further ill-will, but the conditions for terrorist elements to emerge. In a globalized era, one based on interconnection and mutual support the United States has the potential to maintain both its moral and economic leadership and as a result Americans and global citizens will maintain their freedom. In order for this to be ensured, the United States must engage with not only the global community but in particular with Russia, China, Africa and the Middle East, with respect and empathy, developing lasting relations and conditions of mutual support and trust.

Many of you are presently suffering from sharp increases in food prices. The main cause of this increase is here to stay since it results from structural changes in the demand for farm products. Reducing farm subsidies and tariffs should help create more room for your own farmers to export thus helping raise their revenues. It should also ensure a better connection between supply and demand. If anyone still wonders why agricultural subsidies and production systems need reform and why this is crucial for Africa, just look in the news everyday!
—World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy, addressing the African Union Conference of Trade and Finance Ministers, April 3, 2008

In mid-July 2008, trade representatives from World Trade Organization (WTO) member states began meeting in Geneva in an attempt to make a breakthrough towards completing what has been seven years of negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda. There has been political commentary on Doha that is skeptical about the success of the agreement; Barack Obama’s economic policy advisor, Jason Furman, for example, has told the media that it is impossible for the candidate to have an opinion on an agreement “that doesn’t exist.” Still, there is a growing consensus among trade representatives such as Peter Mandelson of the European Commission and Susan Schwab, the U.S. Trade Representative, suggesting that while many complex steps still need to be taken in order to complete Doha, a deal in 2008 must be made. Indeed, the need is critical and immediate, not only to help alleviate the pressure brought on by the spike in global commodities—oil and foodstuffs—and lift African economies out of poverty, but also as a symbol that nations can work together to address global issues.

The fundamental purpose of Doha was not just to create clearer and fairer conditions of global trade, but also to open up new opportunities for growth and development in the world’s most impoverished areas. In turn, millions would be lifted from poverty.

Inextricably linked to Doha’s goal of alleviating poverty was the strong desire among WTO members to issue a global response to what were perceived as the imbalances between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, that have been key drivers of terrorism and global conflict. Doha, while idealistic in its goal, set out in 2001 to develop a new platform for global cooperation that would depart from traditional aid and development programs. These have tended to see money simply flowing from rich to poor nations—if at all—usually with strings attached. Instead, this new platform has sought, by liberalizing trade barriers across the globe, to allow impoverished nations a vehicle to develop their own independent economies and stand on their own feet. Doha had, and continues to have, the profound ambition of restoring dignity to the world’s impoverished. Moreover, any Doha trade liberalization also stands to benefit rich nations such as the United States and those that comprise the EU, who are now more than ever relying on exports to maintain economic dynamism and growth.

Catching the World’s Eye
Unfortunately, in the near term, what has caught the eye of many of the world’s trade representatives involved in the Doha negotiations—particularly those of Brazil and India—is the recent approval by the U.S. Congress of the 2008 Farm Bill. This bill includes $289 billion in new food and farm spending over the next five years, with $20 billion of subsidies to U.S. cash-crop farmers. Effectively, Congress has approved precisely those subsidies that Doha is seeking to diminish. The Bush administration has further proposed dropping subsidies to $14.5 billion as a goodwill gesture. While it has been argued that a completed Doha agreement, once it has been ratified by Congress, could eventually render the Farm Bill null and void, the measure has cast doubt on the sincerity of the United States in trade negotiations. More significantly, it has shown that local, parochial American interests can trump both global opportunity—increased exports and market access abroad—and global crises like the recent surge in food prices.

Unfortunately, until a compromise on Doha that equitably alters global trade rules is reached, and until this agreement is accepted by Congress, U.S. consumers and the world’s poor will suffer as a result. For example, American shoppers and domestic food processors pay more than $1 billion annually in unnecessarily high sugar prices thanks to Farm Bill protectionism. U.S. taxpayers shelled out a total of $177.6 billion in subsidies from 1995 to 2006, including $56 billion just for the corn industry, the leading beneficiary of federal assistance. Inexplicably, the 2008 bill ties some of the new subsidy payments to today’s abnormally high export prices, therefore locking the government into additional billions of dollars in potential payments assuming prices dip.

President George W. Bush, in his message to Congress after vetoing the bill containing the farm subsidies, suggested the true cost of the legislation could reach as much as $600 billion over the next ten years. Moreover, Bush pointed out, a net farm-income increase of more than $28 billion was projected for this year.

These profit margins mark a shameful lost opportunity for reform provided by record global commodity prices. As Columbia University’s Jagdish Bhagwati has pointed out, payouts to U.S. farmers vary inversely with market prices, and thus actual delivered subsidies in the next year or two should be virtually nil. Given the robust nature of farm industry profits in the near term, subsidies have no practical meaning at the moment. This phenomenon, according to Bhagwati and many other observers, provides the perfect opening for the United States to soften its stance at the Doha negotiating table.

Beyond the burden on the American taxpayer to support Farm Bill payouts over the next five years, or higher global prices on protected commodities such as sugar, U.S. and European consumers are also experiencing dramatic inflation. While not to the same degree as during the 1973 and 1979 oil crises, both U.S. and EU headline inflation has reached approximately 3.9 percent this year, with price spikes occurring in key commodities like food and oil. In the last few months, according to WTO research, in the United States, wheat prices soared by 113 percent, soy by 83 percent, maize by 24 percent, and rice by 52 percent. WTO officials also suggest these prices will maintain high levels and continue to rise in the medium term. These price jumps are a tribute to a host of trade distortions and gradual shifts in the demand for grains and cereals worldwide, prompted primarily by a surge in the use of maize within the United States for biofuels, and in other cereals to feed cattle for Indian and Chinese markets.

While Americans have the ability to absorb some of these price increases, the pressures of inflation from both food and oil price surges begins to add up over time. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that the consumer price index for “food at home”—essentially, grocery costs—grew by 4 percent in 2007. This compares to a 1.7 percent increase in 2006 and, according to a report by the Urban Institute, represents the steepest one-year rise since 1990. As recently as two years ago, 11 percent of American families were “food insecure”—meaning enough food for a healthy lifestyle was consistently unaffordable. However, we only have to look to the world’s developing nations to see a situation that is much worse.

Josette Sheeran of the World Food Program has called the rise in global food prices a “silent tsunami”: for the first time in 30 years, riots have erupted over food shortages and price hikes in countries that have experienced neither drought nor famine. The impact on the world’s poorest was described starkly by the Economist magazine:

The middle classes in poor countries are giving up health care and cutting out meat so they can eat three meals a day. The middling poor who live on $2 per day are pulling children from school and cutting back on vegetables so they can afford rice. Those on $1 per day are cutting back on meat, vegetables and one or two meals a day. Those that live on 50 cents per day face disaster.

World Bank President Robert Zoellick has also stated that world food prices rising by 20 percent could plunge back into poverty some 100 million people in low-income countries, thereby erasing much of the progress made over the past decade. The cause of all this misery is either improper distribution or trade distorting subsidies—and both fit squarely within the Doha paradigm.

What Doha Could Do to Help
When the Doha Development Round began, the primary reason for cutting subsidies to cash-crop farmers in rich nations (that artificially keep the cost of food-stuffs low), was to provide small-scale farmers in developing nations with a new opportunity to export their produce at a competitive price. Increased competition on agricultural goods within U.S. and EU markets were expected to marginally drive up the price of agriculture, thus allowing farmers from developing nations to earn a decent wage.

A successful Doha agreement would help tamp the spike in global food prices, by opening the doors to greater production and more efficient mechanisms for trade, reducing bottlenecks in global food supply, and allowing farmers—small and large alike—to continue to make decent profits. But how would this work?

The WTO has stated that the “key to alleviating the current food crisis is through better distribution of food on the global scale.” According to the Doha formula, trade would not only increase farming within developing nations, but would also lower restrictive tariffs that keep food from entering the global market. For instance, only 7 percent of the world’s rice is actually traded, while 90 percent of exports are controlled by five countries: Thailand, India, Vietnam, the United States, and Pakistan. The same is roughly the case for world wheat production. Only 16 percent of world wheat production is exported, and again 80 percent of exports are controlled by a few countries.

By removing tariff barriers, requiring countries that have an abundance of foodstuffs to share, and allowing more farmers to enter the supply chain, the price of food will not only come down—for those of us in the affluent West—but it will provide greater means and meals for the world’s poor. The World Bank has estimated that a realistic Doha agreement would bring 32 million people out of extreme poverty and raise a further 64 million out of the $2-per-day bracket by 2015.

A successful Doha Round will further change the relationship between wealthy and poor nations, bringing increased economic independence and social stability that will require less foreign aid, and possibly even less military assistance.

Increased trade would also help wealthy nations, allowing expanded access to developing economies and markets for goods and services beyond agriculture. The WTO has calculated that, in 2000, some 12 million jobs in the United States were supported by export relationships; jobs that involve some export component on average pay 13 percent higher than a purely domestic wage. Jobs in the global high-tech or knowledge economy—the workforce of the future—pay 34 percent more than jobs in less-skilled industries. Similarly, the Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC, reports that the U.S. economy enjoys $1 trillion in extra wealth every year thanks to previous trade liberalization measures and the resulting technological innovations and competitive gains. Doha, in short, promises a win-win scenario.

It should be recalled that the reason “development” was tacked onto the Doha Round’s name was to reflect a global effort of solidarity and goodwill between nations—rich or poor, but all members of the WTO—and thereby increase global security. In Africa alone, a new global tariff system could enable millions to take up work, instead of turning to arms.

At the same time, there is the potential threat from individuals within prosperous nations who have lost patience with the global imbalance. Harvard security expert John Henry Clippinger suggests that not only are we on the cusp of confronting continued violence and antagonism in the world, but we are moving to a new level of destructiveness that comes with the advance of sophisticated, compact, and relatively easy-to-use technology:

Technology is closing the distances between peoples, rendering them more interdependent, and hence, vulnerable to one another. Every privileged society has tried to contain their vulnerability to their poorer neighbors—the Romans with Hadrian’s Wall, the Chinese with The Great Wall, and the U.S. with its border walls with Mexico. Such barriers were but futile gestures, signifying a failure to comprehend and come to terms with their changed circumstances. At a time when expertise can circumnavigate the globe at the speed of light, when hobbyists can assemble a cruise missile from readily available consumer components, when college students can hack lethal, highly contagious pathogens, there are no secure “security perimeters.”

And as we can no longer build walls, we must now look to build relationships based on the mutual benefits borne of equitable trade. Doha is surely the best way forward. The challenge, of course, is how to ensure equitable conditions of trade, but necessity has provided a first step—or a shove— towards the establishment of greater global coordination and cooperation in the interest of security. The urgency for a successful Doha agreement now cannot be minimized.

Beyond Doha
Yet a very sober question still remains to be asked: What if the Doha Development Round, after seven long years of negotiation, collapses? What next?

The first priority must then be to help the world’s poor—those who would be most affected by a failed attempt at Doha—meet at least their basic food needs. This will require not only a more open and liberal marketplace, but a greater effort from wealthy nations to support and enable countries less well off to develop their own independent economies and means of sustenance. For this to work, however, wealthy nations must make a concerted effort to give back—in the form of infrastructure or education—as much as they take, and build viable, stable local economies.

With or without a Doha accord, we still must grapple with a number of global issues: from climate change to high oil prices to the crippling effects of the liquidity crunch within the banking sector. And as the world becomes increasingly interconnected and interdependent, it is beholden upon us to develop truly global solutions.

Our leaders, or the next generation of leaders, must advance effective and equitable mechanisms that can empower a greater portion of the world, and allow us to work collectively to address future crises. But this can only happen if we work to bring poor and developing nations into global economic, social, and security structures so that they, too, can begin to make a greater contribution. Such efforts will require the ability to adapt rapidly to change, to share knowledge and expertise across borders, and most important, they will require goodwill, on a very personal basis at every level of society and government.•

It’s essential that expectations be carefully managed, especially by world leaders, over the proposed meeting between the Chinese government and the top envoy of His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

While the China leadership recently announced that they would initiate a dialogue with the top envoy to His Holiness shortly after a meeting with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, western leaders should be aware that China has always been a willing partner in negotiation with Tibet on all issues apart from the question of territory and political independence. These issues particularly include the protection of ancient and sacred Tibetan culture.

The probability of success from these renewed talks, however, should be viewed as extremely low given the nature of the demands made by His Holiness as part of the “Middle Way Approach” that seeks to extend Tibetan political governance to “all Tibetan inhabited areas”–including the Tibet Autonomous Region and two adjoining provinces that make up approximately one-quarter of the entire Chinese landmass, the equivalent of United Kingdom, Portugal, Germany and Romania combined.

The Dalai Lama also told Reuters on April 10 that Tibetans should be in control of their own defense and foreign policy saying: “Tibet must have real autonomy. That means deciding defense and foreign affairs and maybe some other” issues.

As I recently wrote in Forbes.com, these statements appear to be inconsistent with more recent demands by His Holiness, who has previously sought cultural, spiritual and environmental protections for Tibet. The representatives of His Holiness have also provided a different description of the Tibetan political demands, stating that their aims are for “meaningful autonomy for the entire Tibetan populated area.”

Since November 2007, the LTB Foundation as part of its Globalization Platform has taken an active interest, as a neutral party, in developing a collaborative solution for the region.

I will be traveling to Beijing and Tibet this month to develop a proposal towards Tibetan cultural preservation with the Chinese government and Tibet Autonomous Region Party representatives and hope sincerely that His Holiness can also participate in this dialogue and the entire negotiating process.

While this latest round of protests has further threatened to tarnish the image of the Games themselves, we must not allow this to take us away from the fundamental issue at hand–the work needed to be done to develop a solution for the status of Tibet within China, while fostering the conditions for peace and stability between the Tibetans and Chinese, now and into the future.

We have to ask, why is it so important to work toward this solution now, rather than wait another two or three or five years? What makes this moment so vital? I would argue that it is not simply because of the added political leverage gained from the Beijing Olympics. Indeed, this reality is removing us from reasonable and rational dialogue on the issue. Remember, His Holiness has not called for a boycott of the Games. In the end, however, the far broader threat to Tibetan culture as a result of globalization, economic expansion and migration is real.

His Holiness has stated that neither he nor his government were responsible for the March 10 protests. This statement raises the question as to the extent of his authority over a younger generation of the Tibetan independence movement–one that is less willing to follow the route of non-violence as part of a “Middle Way” approach. We must avoid a turn to violence and radicalism from these groups at all costs. We cannot afford another Northern Ireland or Palestine.

Since these protests, two sets of demands have been made. First, from His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who has called for renewed dialogue with China on the basis of cultural preservation and cultural autonomy for all Tibetans, both inside and outside of the Tibetan Autonomous Region–this has been described as “meaningful autonomy” and not independence.

Second, from the Chinese, in particular Premier Wen Jiabao, who while responding quite forcefully to the protests has said the “door of dialogue still remained open,” on the condition that His Holiness renounces both his claims for Tibetan independence and violent political action. There also have been numerous calls from heads of state for renewed dialogue, most recently on April 9 from President Bush.

Taken at face value, both of these demands seem compatible–His Holiness has stated repeatedly that he stands neither for political independence nor for violence.

However, ambiguity appears to creep in when we look at the direct demands that make up the Middle Way, which were updated as recently as 2006 and call explicitly for the creation of Tibetan political institutions to govern all Tibetan populated areas within China, as opposed to specific demands concerning cultural protections. Taking this ambiguity into account, the restart of substantial negotiations between His Holiness and the Chinese is not a foregone conclusion.

While six meetings have taken place between the Tibetan Government in Exile and the Chinese government since 2002, none of these meetings has featured direct negotiation on key issues with His Holiness despite a request by the Chinese, nor have they resulted in any progress concerning the fundamental issue of the status of Tibet within China.

I believe that this lack of progress is due to unrealistic demands made by His Holiness as part of his proposal for “meaningful autonomy” that extends the reach of Tibetan governance far beyond the borders of the Tibetan Autonomous Region to apply to all Tibetan populated areas. This extension has been conveyed to me by both the Chinese government in a white paper on the Tibet issue, and in a recent letter received from New York Tibetan representative Tashi Wangdi. While protections for Tibetan culture and environment need to be created and economic opportunity given, these protections need to be both realistic and pragmatic.

Still, I remain convinced that substantial negotiation is possible if His Holiness directly engages the fundamental issues concerning Tibet. I am further convinced that His Holiness will find a willing and serious partner in negotiation with the Chinese.

Why do I believe this to be the case? As part of the mandate of our LTB Foundation and our Global Creative Leadership Summit and its platform, we have been in contact with the Chinese Minister of Information–now the current Minister of Culture–Cai Wu, who is directly involved in the Tibet issue.

In meetings and correspondence since last November, Cai Wu has indicated that China is willing to host serious negotiations with His Holiness, and to focus these negotiations on the preservation of a distinct Tibetan culture within a greater China. He has also indicated that throughout the previous negotiation process, invitations for direct talks with the Dalai Lama went unanswered, which I believe was due to the personal pain felt by His Holiness over Tibet. Our meeting with Cai Wu ended with an understanding that China would provide us with further information on its position regarding Tibet. Once we received this information on paper, we agreed that our foundation would reach out to His Holiness in an effort to renew a dialogue with the Chinese.

This proved to be more difficult than anticipated. Since June 2006 we have made numerous attempts to speak with His Holiness and to develop a working relationship with his representatives. The first attempt was in Petra, Jordan, where I was the guest of King Abdullah as part of a Nobel Laureates conference. There, our foundation was turned away by the representatives of His Holiness as we sought an audience. A second attempt was made immediately following my contact with the Chinese Minister of Information last November, to no avail.

Recently, in the wake of the March 10 protests, we have been able to make more substantial contact with his representatives and discussed the Tibet issue with them, but again failed to obtain an audience with His Holiness who we were told had a tightly booked schedule over the next months.

In the intervening months, it had become increasingly clear to me that China was making an investment in culture on a scale unlike any other in the world. Moreover, Wu told me that the Chinese people deeply regretted the Cultural Revolution and were doing their best to make amends. With this we can see that China places great importance on the role of culture within society. What does this mean in terms of Tibet? The Chinese have come to recognize the need for the preservation of Tibetan culture.

It is understandable that His Holiness might be reluctant to meet and be party to a direct negotiation process on the Tibet issue. After all, His Holiness only made first contact with the Chinese over this matter in 1978, some 19 years after his flight from Tibet into exile abroad. This is certainly an extremely difficult and delicate process where there is much fear, remorse and recrimination on both sides. But it is a step that must be taken.

Neuroscientist Joseph LeDoux has shown that fear has the ability to monopolize the brain’s resources, since it evolved as a defense mechanism against losing concentration in the face of a threat. Furthermore, fear is seen to be self-perpetuating and contagious among a population.

Clearly, there is much fear surrounding the concerns that have set Tibet and China at odds with each other, though lately there have also been signs of reconciliation. Still, if we let this window of opportunity for renewed negotiation and renewed action close, only further catastrophe for Tibetan culture will follow.

Renewed and substantial negotiations must be sought now because the threats to Tibetan culture are real. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has explicitly said that traditional and sacred Tibetan culture, as well as its delicate environment, are under threat from economic development.

Whether it is from Western tourists seeking spiritual solace in Tibet, or Chinese nationals moving to the region in order to open businesses (two-thirds of Lhasa’s population of 300,000 is now ethnically Chinese, owning much of the business and industry), Tibetan culture is being pressured from all sides. This pressure will only continue to mount unless protections are put in place.

We must work together to find a practical and realistic solution to the long-term preservation and protection of Tibetan culture. We must find a way to restore harmony to Tibetan society and defuse the resentment felt toward the Chinese. His Holiness the Dalai Lama must be a part of this process.

If the Dalai Lama cannot be part of this process or is unwilling to take part, then we must devise an alternative way to create protection for Tibetan culture and environment–which are as deeply threatened as Tibetan society at large.

With this goal in mind, the Louise T. Blouin (LTB) Foundation, through its cultural and globalization platforms, has been working toward developing a solution to create cultural protections for Tibetans in cooperation with international heads of state and the Chinese government.

Our aim is to be a neutral party in this ongoing conflict, but we recognize that the only way to change the situation and to bring about peace is to act in a positive way toward the preservation of Tibetan culture–both inside Tibet and internationally. (We have already sent a letter to the Chinese government outlining this exact proposal.)

One potential model, in a distant corner of the globe, was the project “Bring Back New Orleans.” For this project, the LTB Foundation sponsored research and brought together the right people in Washington to make the argument that culture is in the DNA of New Orleans and that the cultural restoration of the city is vital to its future growth and sustainability.

With this initiative, we were able to obtain a Federal Appropriation of $300 million to help with rebuilding efforts. We feel that we can be successful in launching a similar campaign for the promotion and protection of Tibetan culture.

But we cannot expect substantial talks for even such a first-step project to take place if China continues to be demonized abroad. Yes, China needs to be taken to task over its human rights record, but we must understand it is a nation in transition, incrementally moving toward greater openness. We cannot let the pace of these steps blind us from addressing, rationally and realistically, what is at stake in Tibet–and to take into consideration the fact that the Chinese are willing to work on the issue.

We can also recognize that human rights abuses are not only a problem in China, but also in Africa and Latin and North America. These abuses–and the loss of lives–are not acceptable in any region.

Furthermore, world leaders, including President Bush, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, need to be aware of several realities.

While protections of Tibet’s culture and environment are a necessity, the formal demands made as part of a “Middle Way” approach seek to establish Tibetan governance beyond the boundaries of the Tibetan Autonomous Region to include the provinces of Amdo ( Qinghai) and eastern Kham (western Sichuan)–a geography that represents approximately one-quarter of China. How different would this be from creating something called a European Union including such disparate states as Britain and Portugal, Germany and Romania?

We have also recently found out in an April 10 statement from His Holiness that this approach must also include Tibetan control over its own foreign affairs and military defense: “Tibet must have real autonomy. That means deciding defense and foreign affairs and maybe some others, but those themes that Tibetans can work [with] better.”

Are we to assume from this statement that cultural “autonomy” and the protection of Tibetan culture and environment advocated by His Holiness also require a Tibetan defense force? I have to admit that I am very confused by this statement since it was never included in the description of “meaningful autonomy” as expressed in a letter to our Foundation from New York’s Tibetan representative, Tashi Wangdi.

Yes, Tibetan culture needs to be protected and minority rights ensured. But this political process must be measured and realistic. Still, time is of the essence, and we cannot stand still while Tibetan culture and environment is further diminished by economic development, and the Tibetan movement becomes further radicalized.

Violence from both sides is not a viable and acceptable way forward. We need to encourage a renewed and informed dialogue, one that is based on flexibility, empathy and respect in order to ensure peace and coexistence not just for the present, but into the future.

This encouragement, however, must be well-informed. My plea is that world leaders prepare themselves thoroughly concerning Tibet to best address the various issues presented by both the Tibetans and the Chinese. We must not lose sight of the reality of the Iraq War–a conflict based on information that was deeply flawed. We can’t risk further destabilizing this situation in the heart of Asia by making rash judgment and decisions that lack sufficient foresight. We can’t risk a slide into catastrophe.

We also must work to ensure a successful Beijing Olympics, respecting both the Olympic “spirit” and the effort made by each individual athlete, representing his or her nation at these games.

[The following table represents the official political demands of the Tibetan Government in Exile as part of the "Middle-Way" approach, last updated in 2006; and from the Chinese government white paper provided to our Foundation on relation to the Tibet issue in 2007.]

This clash, Spielberg said, was due to China’s unwillingness to intervene in the conflict in Darfur, which has since 2003 claimed 200,000 lives. He noted: “Sudan’s government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these ongoing crimes but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more to end the continuing human suffering there.” This responsibility for China that Spielberg identified was due to China’s significant investment in the region in the petroleum industry and for its support of Khartoum.

Since then China has both objected to Spielberg’s announcement and, in fact, has made several conciliatory gestures to his demands. On Feb. 25, China went against its tradition of noninterventionist diplomacy and called upon Khartoum to allow a joint U.N., African Union peacekeeping force into the region, and for greater cooperation from both the Sudanese government and anti-government forces with the international community to resolve the crisis. Further, China has also agreed with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to resume broader talks with U.S. and E.U. partners on human rights.

While these actions can be seen as extremely positive, and a step in the right direction, I disagree with Spielberg for singling out China as the only culprit in the conflict and for the strong tactics that he has used. This approach is both unfair and unsound.

Unfair since while China does have financial interests in the region, it has only limited authority over Khartoum, and over the past months has actually been pressing the Sudanese government to do more to end the conflict. We also have to remember that the U.S. and E.U. have been unwilling to intervene in the region over the past five years, and that the U.S. has had greater diplomatic sway and involvement in the region than any other nation. Solutions to this crisis should be sought for closer to home.

Unsound, since there are other atrocities and political battles that Spielberg could be more effectively campaigning against. These include American foreign policy in Iraq, detainee rights in Guantanamo Bay, the use of water-boarding as an interrogation technique by the U.S. Military or the lackluster motivation by the U.S. trade representatives to finalize the Doha Round trade agreement–an agreement aimed specifically at bringing economic development to regions such as the Sudan, raising millions out of poverty, vulnerability and dependence.

Spielberg has instead used both his celebrity and the spotlight of the Beijing 2008 Olympics–an Olympics designed to show how far China has come in the last 30 years–to voice his complaints and the criticisms of Mia and Ronan Farrow.

More troubling is that this campaign has also begun to target Western companies involved in the 2008 Olympics such as Adidas (other-otc: ADDDY – news - people ), Coca-Cola (nyse: KO – news - people ) and General Electric (nyse: GE – news - people ). These companies are not only supporting Beijing’s bid for the games but will also help bring broader integration of the Chinese national economy with the global economy in the years ahead. This is an important dynamic, given that China’s growth and its link to the global economy is vital to the economic well-being of Western nations. These companies will also bring jobs and investments, and fill the development gap in Africa and South Asia, meaning that they should be viewed as potential allies rather than with enmity.

Yes, the situation in Darfur is dramatic and unjust, but we have to ask: What have broader American policies achieved in Africa over the last decade? While the Bush administration deserves credit for allocating $9 billion to be invested in development and humanitarian aid through 2010, little has been done to structurally alter African economies–enabling them to become more independent–or African governance, facilitating the Rule of Law and social justice. A long-term development effort is required for troubled African nations, and one that is different from the simple delivery of pharmaceutical drugs that work only as a band-aid solution.

What is required is an investment in infrastructure, Western expertise to create development capacities and the elimination of trade imbalances with the completion of the Doha Round, which offers to bring 32 million people out of extreme poverty by 2015.

Certainly the bloodshed in Darfur needs to be stopped, and the 2 million displaced Sudanese need to be given rightful shelter and security. But how can the situation in Darfur remain stable in the long term without viable economic prospects, sound governance and infrastructure that can be used to care for and educate the next generation of Sudanese? This kind of development requires more tactful diplomacy as well as commitment to real change in the long term.

We have to stop pointing fingers at other nations, making symbolic and hurtful gestures, while not looking first at our own governments, our own policies and our own national ethos. We cannot continue to judge without the expectation of being judged back, or in this case, to further alienate China from engagement in meaningful multilateral peace talks for the region. We also have to recognize that China will be needed by the U.S. and Europe when it comes time to draft a successor agreement to Kyoto. China needs to be brought into this process since it has recently surpassed the U.S. as the world’s greatest polluter.

Of course there are many exemplary policy initiatives that have come from the U.S., such as the intervention in Kosovo to stop the Bosnian war; the support of China, India and Russia over the last decade to transform their economies, setting 3 billion people on the road to greater financial stability; and more recently the success of nuclear disarmament in North Korea. Yet there are also initiatives that Americans are not proud of that stretch back decades, even before the prior Bush administration.

The same can be said about China. It, too, is not proud of many parts of its recent history. But with that said, China has also had to find a way to rebuild itself after the Second World War, move past the trauma of the Cultural Revolution and modernize its economy while alleviating the poverty of its 1.3 billion inhabitants. A tall task indeed, and one that is not yet complete.

It is important for us to remember how much China has accomplished over this period, and that while there is much more we should ask of China on the international stage, we also have to recognize that the harmonization of Chinese foreign policy with the traditions and principles of the West is an incremental process.

China in its development needs to be patiently supported, and in this support we will find willing partners to solve a number of these pressing global problems. We all have skeletons in our closets and we have to resist the urge to point fingers.

I, for one, will be in attendance to celebrate the Beijing 2008 Olympics. I hope to see you there, too.

Globalization has re-defined the scale of our problems. In response, the US needs to re-define the context of her politics. A sustainable solution for the persistent antagonisms within the Middle East, addressing the poverty of Africa, the global ramifications of climate change, the US’s place within a globalizing economy. These four challenges must be amongst those most likely to keep the next President up at night, yet they are not those that are most often being heard about by the electorate.

Of course defining the way in which the US plays a constructive and committed part in global issues is more a political bear trap than gold mine, but it is a moral imperative and – perhaps more influentially – is becoming a geo-political necessity.

_________

In a time of some, though perhaps not enough, soul-searching and analysis it is useful to remember the more successful of America’s foreign interventions: America’s leadership in rebuilding Europe during the post-war period, her spear-heading of the NATO campaign to end the Kosovo War and the support given to the development of the governments and economies of Russia, China and India over the last decade that has helped bring about reform and buoyed the emergence of a global market, setting 3 billion people on the road to some degree of financial stability. However, these positive moves can all be balanced by less successful ventures.

In the Middle East we see a long history of inconsistency; whether in Iran with the Shah, in Iraq with Saddam, or in Afghanistan where the US withdrew all support from indigenous Afghanis after defeating the Soviet army (support that Osama Bin-Laden and the Taliban were glad to provide). This “love me, love me not” policy set the historical backdrop to the Iraq war which further stimulates anti-US feeling in the region.

At the heart of this issue, the great challenge for the next President will be to meet the popular demand for resolution to the war in Iraq with a policy that does more than just satisfy a domestic need, but acts in the global interest. This should include equitable power sharing between Sunnis and Shia within the Iraqi parliament in order to stabilize the country in the long-run. It will also require that the US commit to a presence in Iraq to support rebuilding the nation and a strong and durable infrastructure. While a troop reduction and withdrawal are perhaps inevitable, they must not mean disengagement. There is a crucial need that the US invests to support the economy and trade, education and cultural understanding.

Looking at Israel we not only see a fractured landscape that still experiences the pain and displacement from the British Colonial era, but the deadlock over Palestinian borders, in particular the division of Jerusalem, that have been carried over from the 67’ war. While the Palestinians and Israelis have made many mistakes over the years, through violence and failed peace negotiations, we have to acknowledge that the landscape of the Middle East has changed. Iran has emerged as a major power broker, fueling anti-American sentiment amongst Shiites and Sunni alike, funding Hamas (allegedly) and Hezbollah, and extending their reach by building civil infrastructure in North Africa and Afghanistan. This means that injustices such as the continued confinement of the Palestinians in Gaza, deprived not only of economy and hope but basic necessities, will work not only to create greater radicalism amongst Palestinians themselves, but invite other actors within the region to operate on the their behalf. The chance for greater conflict throughout the world as a result of this perceived injustice is immense. Walls and violence are not solutions, trade and education are.

The US must also renew and maintain a dialogue with Iran in order to advance its cause against Iranian nuclear armament and Iran’s involvement in Iraq and Lebanon. This can be done only by working extensively at the international level, with a new level of equitable collaboration that both maximizes the impact of the UN, and brings Russia and China onside to pressure Iran. War must be avoided at all costs. The anti-US sentiment in the region drives the strength of those fringe groups that are the greatest threats to regional, indeed global, stability. A proper dialogue with Iran is in everyone’s best interest, including Iran’s whose own provocations cannot be ignored.

In Africa, while the Bush Administration deserves credit for the $9 billion invested in development and humanitarian aid allocated to the continent until 2010, the needs of Africa are long-term and structural. For Africa to become a true partner with the global community, it must be supported in its efforts to create strong independent economies and establish the rule of law. This is the only way to ensure sustained involvement from developed nations. Right now we are witnessing not only an unevenness in African development, but renewed competition for Africa’s natural resources with little return to Africans themselves.

The establishment of rule of law as well as economic growth would provide not only greater protections for Africans, but for those willing to invest there. This is a pre-requisite of convincing insurance companies to provide the support to allow companies to fully develop these economies. We also need to look to ensure that those who take the greatest benefit from investment in Africa are making contribution to ensure a solid infrastructure for the future. If – say – 5% of profits of those companies investing in Africa went back into developing the continent, we could make a significant change. The opportunity to commit to this challenge is one that would allow the US a chance to bolster its international brand, as well as cultivating new and valuable markets.

As the world’s second largest polluter – recently surpassed by China – there is a need for US leadership to ratify the successor agreement to Kyoto which is due for renegotiation in 2012. The US must commit to this process and in doing so provide a signal to businesses, communities and individuals that greater responsibility on emissions is required. It should also invest in substitutions and fuel alternatives that decrease a dependence on foreign energy. American leadership should provide incentive to the developing world, in particular India, China and Brazil, to become more pro-active in curbing greenhouse gases. This point is doubly important since the growth in the developing world has not only resulted in gains in industry and economy, but places 6.5 million new cars on the roads of China and India each year. Again, on this issue there is the opportunity for the US to offer the moral leadership appropriate to its contribution to the problem, as well as its potential to solve it. As just one example, a projected increase to 140 million cars in China by 2020 makes it even more pressing that the US sets the example.

In economic terms, it is undeniably global issues that will define the US future. The crises at Citigroup and UBS and the way that in both cases foreign investors steadied (even saved?) the ship points towards the true power shifts within the global economy. It is essential that the US diversifies to survive: investing in developing services and tourism, as well as adding new value to domestic products. Beyond this, the emergence of China and India, the booming economies of the Middle East, and the predictions of both population experts and economists all demand that the US develops new approaches to the realities of a new geo-economy. A geo-economy that no longer takes the pre-eminence of the US for granted but recognizes a greater truth: the hand that rocks the markets rules the world.

________

Addressing these issues will require not just a change in outlook, but a shift in management style. The US needs to be not only forthright and well intentioned, but multi-dimensional and able to work more flexibly with world leaders and global agencies. It needs to develop new means to create dialogue with other countries and to be empathetic and humble. Cultural understanding provides the greatest security of all.

This new style must also draw from advances in science and technology, in particular the communities of the internet and media, technological developments, and neuroscience, to provide a more informed and consistent appraisal of the political situation. It must encourage economic development rather than insisting on exportation of democracy, which for many is now a trademark of US imperialism. The careful and committed promotion of economy and trade, as we have seen, has lead to the most substantial gains in stability worldwide over the last decades. The conclusion of the current Doha round could not be more important in this regard.

It is delicate and incremental change, not insistent and seismic demand, which will define 21st century international relations. What is more, this is in America’s best interest. America must avoid the scenario in which it is required to divert huge funding into its military while the other major players invest in their economies.

A new geo-political approach in the US must makes good on its promises and offer long-term partnership. Whether in rebuilding Iraq or in developing the economy in Palestine, the US needs to be seen as a nation that stays the course. More broadly this requires the US to reconnect with old allies and create new ones. The threat from bio-weapons, combined with the profound possibility of connection and alliance provided by internet technologies, means collaboration should not be seen as a luxury, but a necessity.

Perhaps most of all, the new President must chart a new foreign policy path that works to provide hope and stability for generations to come. He or she needs to cultivate an understanding that properly dealing with global issues is at the heart of long-term national interest.

With both a vested interest, and a clear conscience, the new President must ask not what the world can do for America, but what America can do for the world.

I do not think Senator Clinton meant what she said. I do not believe this because what is being offered under the Doha initiative is not only “thoughtful and comprehensive,” but it creates an opportunity to help both the world’s poor and the environment.

We have to ask, what are the consequences of not doing Doha? And we have to ask political leaders: What will be the future consequences of not combating poverty throughout the world, or of not attempting to spur development in poor nations through trade, cultural understanding, education and technical assistance?

At the recent 2007 Global Creative Leadership Summit, Robert Hormats of Goldman-Sachs said it’s important to make Americans aware that an economically strong China makes a strong America; that a strong India makes a strong America; and that a strong Brazil makes a strong America. This is because of the great interconnection between these countries–and, indeed, the entire global economy–especially with respect to trade and industry.

In today’s world, we are truly interdependent, and we need to seek mutual benefits across national boundaries and borders. We need to make an effort to understand that, through globalization, poor people–those with different histories and from different cultures–are living with us, here, in our garden. We have to ask, how can we ensure that this relationship is one of harmony and peace, as opposed to antagonism and destruction?

The Doha Round is a positive and hard-fought step in the direction of mutual support and mutual benefit. It has to be acknowledged that World Trade Organization Director General Pascal Lamy, through his tenacity and deft touch, has woven together a trade document that includes agriculture, manufacturing, services and the environment; it will work to benefit all 151 WTO members.

The Doha Round provides a rare and valuable opportunity to establish a new global trade framework that has, at its heart, principles of development, poverty reduction and equality. It is an opportunity that cannot be missed.

While the Doha Round would decrease the amount of subsidies available to a quarter of American farmers–a difficult but bold political decision to make during an election year in the U.S.–it would open up markets and provide hope for millions of farmers in the developing world. The World Bank has estimated that a realistic Doha agreement would bring 32 million people out of extreme poverty by 2015, and raise a further 64 million out of the $2-per-day bracket in the same time frame. This is because 63% of the gains to be made by the developing world are in agriculture.

But the U.S. also stands to gain from a successful Doha Round. Think about the new market opportunities created for American exporters. With the U.S. now much more reliant on exports to generate growth than in the past, more trade actually means more jobs. Current and foreseeable high food commodity prices also make it possible for American farmers, who experience a decrease in subsidies, to further profit from their production.

I met recently with Kalmal Nath, the Indian Minister of Commerce & Industry. India is a key negotiator in the final stages of the Doha Round. He expressed optimism that the negotiations would be successfully concluded. India’s requests for Doha include a hard cap on U.S. farm subsidies at current 2007 levels–$10 billion to $11 billion, down from $24 billion in 1999–as well as the exemption of “special” Indian agricultural products including soy, corn, and rice. All these guidelines are acceptable within Doha framework, but they have drawn objections from U.S. officials.

This point of contention must not block the Doha Round. Without the gradual trade liberalization brought about by Doha, this failure would be felt not only in agriculture, but also in manufacturing and services, including where India is becoming a world leader.

Our near future is filled with threats and challenges–bio-weapons, cyber-warfare and environmental calamity brought about by climate change. We can choose to sit back and take care of our own interests first, or we can actively confront these problems, seeking solutions that involve and benefit the greatest number of people possible. It must be remembered that the Doha Round was initiated after Sept. 11, 2001, when there was a strong belief among member nations that greater collaboration and cooperation was necessary to avoid future catastrophes brought about by inequalities.

In response to Hillary Clinton, the Doha Round is the “thoughtful and comprehensive” trade policy for the 21st century she is looking for, and it should not be used as a political tool for the campaign trail. Doha provides us with a window of opportunity that will both decrease extreme global poverty by 96 million by 2015 and increase economic development for developing nations at the regional and global level. Developed countries won’t be left out either, since they will have access to available new markets for export, innovation and exchange.

We can no longer afford to leave behind those most in need. Doha presents us with a win-win scenario. Let us take this chance, together.

Louise Blouin MacBain is chairman of the Louise T. Blouin Foundation and the New Globalization Platform, part of the Global Creative Leadership Initiative.