You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.
123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999
(123) 555-6789
email@address.com
You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab. Link to read me page with more information.
The world feels increasingly dangerous these days. Terrorism and an uncertain economy have greatly heightened our sense of insecurity. The dangers that make us feel insecure are obvious. Less obvious, but perhaps as dangerous, is the world's heightened susceptibility to bad ideas.
What if Saddam Hussein fully complies with the United Nations' resolution, avoids a war and retains power? His past behaviour, the Bush administration's eagerness to get rid of him and the huge room for accidents and provocations that can spark a war have persuaded many that this is an improbable outcome. Moreover, even those who think Mr Hussein may comply with the UN demands - he appeared to take a first on Wednesday - assume that the inspection process is bound to destabilise his regime and eventually lead to its demise.
What a difference a decade makes. During the first half of the 1990s, it seemed as if all economy ministers from emerging markets were using the same PowerPoint presentation. When they gave a talk, in Washington or London, they appeared to use the same slides with the same messages and, at times, the same graphs. The similarities were eerie, considering one minister might be from, say, Russia and the other from Ghana or Mexico.
What led American executives to think they could get away with hiding billions of dollars in corporate losses or invent staggering amounts of non-existent revenues? Greed, arrogance, dishonesty and other human frailties are obvious answers. But they are not the most interesting. After all, hubris and corruption among the powerful are as old as the Bible.
As soon as the results of Brazil's presidential election next month become known, George W. Bush should invite the winner to his ranch in Texas and propose a bilateral economic treaty that Brazil's new leader cannot refuse.
Lucio Garcia, a gardener in Merrifield, Virginia, speaks daily to his family in a remote town in Bolivia using a prepaid phonecard that costs him a few cents a minute. Edie Baron Levi, a Mexican congressman, commutes weekly from Mexico City to Los Angeles, where he and his constituents reside. Iqbal Farouqi, a Pakistani waiter working in Milan, has used the money he earns to purchase two small trucks in Karachi that he rents to relatives and manages via the internet.
In the past decade the world was regularly taken unawares by domestic financial accidents that spread to other countries at great speed, following surprising trajectories. Today, we are regularly startled by political incidents that also spread internationally at great speed, on trajectories that are equally surprising.
In January 2000, Ecuadoreans took to the streets and forced Jamil Mahuad, their democratically elected president, to resign. A few months later, Peruvians did the same to Alberto Fujimori. Last January popular protests in Argentina drove out President Fernando de la Rúa. Three countries, three differing sets of circumstances and three presidents with contrasting personalities; yet there is a telling common thread to events.
Current levels of world poverty are unacceptable. More money for development is needed. The approaches and institutions that guide foreign aid should be overhauled. It is hard to disagree with these conclusions. Certainly, the heads of state who met in Monterrey the other week did not. As a result, they will make more money available to fight world poverty and vigorously explore ideas for spending it more effectively.
What country, other than the US, allows an Enron-class company to go under? An Enron-class company is a dominant and innovative global player in a highly sensitive market and is funded by influential blue-chip banks and by thousands of small investors. More importantly, an Enron-class company is a political powerhouse whose influence runs deep and wide, with close allies in the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government and a network of well fed supporters in the ranks of academia, journalism, interest groups, sports clubs and myriad charities.
What does al-Qaeda have in common with Amnesty International and Greenpeace? All three are loose networks of individuals united by a shared passion for a single cause, and, thanks to cheaper communication and transport, each can project its influence globally. Their funding comes from small contributions made by thousands of sympathisers and from large sums given by a few big donors. Their effectiveness derives from the single-minded devotion of their idealistic activists.