International Institutions Archives

How hard do YOU work?

Filed under: International Institutions

The 30-member Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has published a report that surveys its members to see which ones work the hardest. The table above shows the results. The OECD's historical data indicate that the average American worker worked only 1,797 hours in 2006 compared to 1,825 in 1993 -- a drop of 28 annual hours or the equivalent of more than three additional days off. Many other countries in the group posted similar results, and nearly one-third of the group posted more annual hours than the United States (though the U.S. is still a bit above the group average).

Looking for Russia? Don't strain your eyes, it's not there. The OECD is a group that strongly espouses democratic values as a precondition of membership, and Russia has yet to qualify. OECD observers routinely condemn Russian elections as undemocratic and more recently have simply been denied access to the country.

Forbes has further details about the survey.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Kim Zigfeld · May 23, 2008 3:22 PM · TrackBacks (0)

If We're so Messed Up, Why are they Copying from our Paper?

Filed under: International Institutions

The New York Times reports that despite its alleged contempt for American attitudes and values, and its repeated claims that America is in decline, the world is falling all over itself to have us provide its education:

When John Sexton, the president of New York University, first met Omar Saif Ghobash, an investor trying to entice him to open a branch campus in the United Arab Emirates, Mr. Sexton was not sure what to make of the proposal -- so he asked for a $50 million gift. "It's like earnest money: if you're a $50 million donor, I'll take you seriously," Mr. Sexton said. "It's a way to test their bona fides." In the end, the money materialized from the government of Abu Dhabi, one of the seven emirates. The demand from overseas is huge. At the University of Washington, the administrator in charge of overseas programs said she received about a proposal a week. "It's almost like spam," said the official, Susan Jeffords, whose position as vice provost for global affairs was created just two years ago.

From business to engineering to computers, from China to the Middle East, the world says one thing and does another. It says it hates America, then it wears our blue jeans. It says it doesn't respect America, then it begs our teachers to come and shine their light. It applauds terrorist attacks, then it shudders when American purchases tail off and local economies head south.

When will they ever learn?

Kim Zigfeld · February 11, 2008 10:56 AM · Comments (9) · TrackBacks (0)

The Nobel X Prize

Filed under: International Institutions

'Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting over." -- Mark Twain

The fury that has erupted over Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his work lecturing the public about climate change shouldn't bewilder anyone. It is an honor that should be bestowed upon someone whose works and achievements for world peace have stood the test of certifiability -- years of time. Brokering peace between Russia and Japan (Teddy Roosevelt) is verifiable. Climate change is very much a current issue that is not only unsolved, but actually up in the air as to what extent it is actually the fault of humans and that anything can be done about it.

Whatever the reason, climates all over the world will continue to change. Some places have historically gotten warmer, others colder, but overall it has been a giant flux back and forth over the centuries. I can tell you for a fact that humans did not cause the Ice Age, for example. What is important, however, is to realize that while humans may not actually be able to control the climate itself -- talk about ego! -- we do have the ability to shape how these changes affect our lives. And not only our lives, but the lives of those who will be most effected by it: citizens of the impoverished developing world.

One of the greatest factors that the human race will have to deal with in regards to climate change is the availability of water.

Surely we in America use more than we should, whether it's leaving the faucet on while we brush our teeth or watering the lawn in the middle of a summer day. Then, one day, a drought hits and everyone gets pissy about municipal and state restrictions limiting consumption. It becomes a huge issue in the papers, everyone is talking about how unfair it is, and if the state handles the situation poorly then it won't bode well for election season.

Now imagine you're a cutthroat member of the northern Sudanese economic elite. All the forests have been decimated already, few more resources exist for expansion, and desertification has left the region arid and in some cases uninhabitable. You need resources and more than anything you need water, or everything you and your colleagues have built up through vast exploitation of all around you will be for "nothing".

Now imagine you're a refugee in southern Sudan. You're living in a UN camp because government-supported, renegade militias from the north have invaded and killed everyone you know. Life basically sucks and there is nothing you can do about it. What did you do wrong? Why are you being punished like this?

Well, you didn't do anything, but this is a story that has played out, is playing out right now, and will only continue to play out far into the future as long as the world's water supply continues to shrink. Wars are fought over this most precious of all resources that we tend to believe is free and ever-available. Much credible research has shown that the civil war in Sudan is even more about water and resources than it is an ethno-religious war. One of the reasons cited for the current condition is regional climate change (a continuous drought since the 1960s) as well as the total devastation of the environment.

In fact, the UN recently reported that water will be the main reason for conflict in Africa over the next 25 years. This will likely be true for the rest of the world as well. China is already making sure that it has access to Asia's water lifeline. Water-strapped Israel continues to hold the Golan Heights -- awash with it -- which is a major point of contention with Syria. One could very well say that water is the next oil!

The Norwegian Nobel Committee obviously realizes this, because if you took the time to read the reasons why they award Al Gore the prize, it was expressly for that reason.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 is to be shared, in two equal parts, between the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change. Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

The connection between climate change and the destruction of the environment with the world's contracting water supply is pretty clear, and I think the connections between those and the inevitability of wars over water are even clearer. The Nobel Committee obviously believes that Gore's work raising awareness over the issue in the developed world has mobilized action to find solutions for the developing world, thus helping to prevent major future conflicts.

Yet one cannot help but be unimpressed with this, when truly the door is still open on his major platform: global warming. I simply cannot fathom the idea of spending trillions of dollars in the hope that we humans can lower the temperature of the earth when those trillions of dollars can fuel research and technologies that, despite whatever happens outside our control, will improve the overall human condition regardless. I'm talking about technologies that can better conserve and distribute water and create more of it. It can also be invested in education. If we really have to water our lawns as often as we do (well, I live in Arizona now, where colored rock lawns have been popularized), could it hurt to let people know to do it at night? Can't we teach our children by example and just turn the faucet off?

So I must say that I must agree with Czech President Vaclav Klaus -- the reasons for giving Al Gore the peace prize for his work on global warming is unclear and indistinct. He has raised awareness of an issue that itself is rather unclear and indistinct when there are plenty of climate and environmental issues that can actually be solved without the need to put civilization on hold.

My suggestion is that the Nobel Committee, if it really wants to prevent future wars that occur because of climate change, the environment, water, or what have you, is to offer the peace prize up as much like the X Prize which has shot the space tourism industry into orbit. For example: the $1.5 million dollar prize will go to whoever can develop a new desalination process that is cheaper and more effective than those currently in existence. Trillions of dollars in economic losses due to Al Gore's prescription is ridiculous compared to the $1.5 million it would take to unleash human potential all over the world in developing new technologies to deal with these problems.

Offering up the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize and the $1.5 million dollars to the man who does that is a small price to pay for human advancement. Whoever can develop a way to make fresh, pottable water very cheaply and efficiently will do more to foster present and future peace than Al Gore's speeches and concerts ever can.

Robert Mayer · October 12, 2007 6:22 PM · Comments (3) · TrackBacks (0)

The Saudi Initiative - A Genuine Opportunity

Filed under: Egypt ~ International Institutions ~ Middle East ~ Palestine

The famous Israeli diplomat Abba Eban once quipped that "the Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity [for peace]." With Israel's refusal to-date to accept the recently re-tabled Saudi Peace initiative offering Israel peace with the entire Arab World, it seems that it may be Israel this time that is guilty of Abba's charge. For years there has been no substantive progress concerning the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The Israeli position has been that there is no "viable" partner from the Palestinian side to negotiate with. It seems as though the tide has changed in dramatic fashion over the course of the past few months.

Much of this is due to the assertion of the Saudis as the regional diplomatic powerhouse. In February, Saudi King Abdullah helped facilitate the Mecca agreement between Fatah and Hamas that put an end to the internecine factional violence between the two parties. The Arab League summit, hosted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, reinvigorated the previously inert Saudi Initiative.

This is a window of opportunity that Israel must seize; all 22 Arab countries are willing to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the Arab territories it occupied since 1967.

So what is the problem? Israel is not willing to negotiate with the new Palestinian Unity Government that includes Hamas because it has yet to meet the Quartet’s (composed of the E.U, U.N., U.S., and Russia) conditions (recognize Israel, renounce violence, respect all previous agreements). Furthermore, despite some positive pronouncements, Israel refuses to accept the Saudi Initiative because of clauses regarding the Palestinian refuges and borders.

This refusal is unwarranted because while the Initiative does call for a sovereign, independent Palestinian state with its capital in Arab East Jerusalem, it does so on the basis of the internationally recognized 1967 borders. In terms of the Palestinian refugees, it calls for a "just" and "agreed upon" solution to the refugee problem. Equally critical, the Arab League Initiative has stated that as long as Israel accepts the Initiative "In Principle", then everything is open for negotiations

Israel's refusal to negotiate is contradictory to American economic interests and Israeli security interests. By achieving regional peace, Israel can finally be fully integrated into the Middle East. The Palestinians will have their state and the Israelis the security they have been unable to achieve since Israel's establishment. One need only look at the Recent G.C.C. (the Gulf Cooperative Council) involvement in major economic outreach programs with Asian countries, such as India and China, to realize the economic potential of peace. Billions of dollars are flowing back and forth between the oil rich Gulf States and Asia.

Instead of exploiting the new opportunity for peace presented by the Saudi Initiative, for peace in the region and a new epoch of economic prosperity for all parties involved, Israel is sitting on its diplomatic hands waiting for the ever important "pre-conditions" to be met. The onus is often put on increasing weakness of the Olmert administration and its lack of political capital. Yet, a majority of Israel citizens desire a two-state solution. There is no other act that an Israeli Prime Minister could perform to galvanize more internal support.

For the U.S., a serious and meaningful role as an honest mediator in the peace process could repair its dwindled and demonized image in the Middle East and Muslim world, with all the attendant benefits of Arab cooperation on Iraq. King Abdullah is not calling for the Israelis to simply sign the Saudi Initiative. Negotiations are expected over the Palestinian refugees, East Jerusalem and final borders before a final agreement is reached.

Israel's continuous claim that it wants peace stands tested by whether it accepts the Saudi Initiative in principle as the framework for a regional peace agreement. The U.S. stands at a fork in the Mid-East and the path it chooses will have serious ramifications on its national security and future economic opportunities in the region. Using our influence with our number one ally in the Middle East to reconsider the Saudi Initiative is our best hope today for securing both our interests and peace.

Alexander Baldwin · May 17, 2007 5:43 PM · Comments (23) · TrackBacks (0)

Paul Wolfowitz Paying For Some Honey

Filed under: International Institutions

The Statesmen reports that Paul Wolfowitz, head of the World Bank, is embroiled in a nepotism scandal. Apparently his longtime girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a communications officer for godsakes, has been receiving some pretty large pay raises that haven't been approved by the ethics committee as they're supposed to be. By large, I mean an extra $47,300, bringing her up to $180,000, since Wolfowitz arrived. Then she got another $13,590 last year. Now everyone is wondering why these raises were ordered and bypassed around the ethics committee. Well, now we know.

At the risk of turning this into a tabloid, occurrences like this are particularly regrettable because it reflects on the entire organization. Wolfowitz went into the World Bank promising to clean up corruption and make it actually, you know, work so that its goals are achievable. Politicians and bureaucrats, especially at the international level, are all sleazy. It's no wonder that hookers line the streets of New York in force when political conventions and conferences come to town.

Speaking of which, wouldn't it be cheaper from the World Bank to get Wolfowitz one of those rather than boost his girlfriend's salary by over $60,000?

Robert Mayer · April 12, 2007 9:04 AM · Comments (16) · TrackBacks (0)