November 11th, 2014
07:20 PM ET

Why the 'Ignorance Index' matters

For more What in the World watch Sundays at 10 a.m. & 1 p.m. ET on CNN

By Global Public Square staff

Americans voted on Tuesday for big change. But did they understand the facts that they wanted to change? Not according to a groundbreaking new survey.

You see, Americans think the unemployment rate is much higher than it is, that there are many more immigrants and pregnant teens than there actually are, and that the population is much older than it actually is.

Now maybe this gap between perception and reality is because of American ignorance or hyper-partisanship. Except, we’re not alone.

In the first international study of its kind, the U.K. research firm Ipsos MORI highlights the political “ignorance” of participants across 14 countries. Here are some of the findings from Ipsos MORI’s quiz:

When asked what percentage of people are unemployed or looking for work, Americans guessed 32 percent. The U.S. unemployment rate is actually closer to 6 percent, of course. In fact, we could only find one country on the planet – Macedonia – which has had more than 30 percent unemployment in recent years according to IMF data. It turns out every country over-estimated its unemployment level. FULL POST

The dangers of neglecting inequality
November 10th, 2014
06:22 PM ET

The dangers of neglecting inequality

By Amina Mohammed, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Amina Mohammed is the U.N. Secretary General’s special adviser on Post-2015 Development Planning. This is the second in a series of articles from the World Economic Forum on the key challenges facing the world in 2015 as part of their Outlook on the Global Agenda. The views expressed are the writer's own.

Inequality is one of the key challenges of our time. Income inequality specifically is one of the most visible aspects of a broader and more complex issue, one that entails inequality of opportunity and extends to gender, ethnicity, disability, and age, among others. Ranking second in last year’s Outlook, it was identified as the most significant trend of 2015 by our Network’s experts. This affects all countries around the world. In developed and developing countries alike, the poorest half of the population often controls less than 10 percent of its wealth. This is a universal challenge that the whole world must address.

While it’s true that around the world economic growth is picking up pace, deep challenges remain, including poverty, environmental degradation, persistent unemployment, political instability, violence and conflict. These problems, which are reflected in many parts of this report, are often closely related to inequality.

The inherent dangers of neglecting inequality are obvious. People, especially young people, that are excluded from the mainstream end up feeling disenfranchised and become easy fodder of conflict. This in turn reduces the sustainability of economic growth, weakens social cohesion and security, encourages inequitable access to and use of global commons, undermines our democracies, and cripples our hopes for sustainable development and peaceful societies. FULL POST

Post by:
Topics: Economy
A delicate balance in the midst of a crisis
November 10th, 2014
05:56 PM ET

A delicate balance in the midst of a crisis

By Nicole Dow, CNN

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction – a fact that is just as true for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria as it is in physics. Now, as the Sunni militant group continues to try to expand its sphere of influence, its progress threatens to tip the delicate sectarian balance. Indeed, the ripple effects could transform the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East.

To understand why this is the case, it’s essential to understand the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia is an Arab state with a Sunni majority, while Iran is a predominantly Shiite, non-Arab state. Between the two countries is an ongoing tension that has been brewing at least since Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979.

"This is very much a conflict that is molded and shaped by the geopolitical competition between Saudi Arabia and Iran in the region," says Harith Al-Qarawee, a fellow at Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.

"The very idea of having Sunni countries fighting ISIS, and the tendency to exclude Iran from the conferences that occurred in the past…[suggest] Iran is not considered an ally in that conflict," Al-Qarawee says.

Al-Qarawee says one reason is that the United States and its allies believe that a military offensive is best led by Sunni governments as ISIS identifies itself as Sunni. “I think the Obama administration concluded that no one can face ISIS except Sunnis themselves. If you ally with the Shia or a Shia-dominated government, you are deepening the sectarian divide and it is also the case if the arrangements rely only on Sunni allies and exclude Shias.” FULL POST

Post by:
Topics: Middle East • Syria
November 9th, 2014
12:23 AM ET

Asia key to Obama's foreign policy legacy

Watch "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN

By Fareed Zakaria

Obama's biggest foreign policy initiative is powerful and intelligent – the pivot to Asia.

The greatest threat to global peace and prosperity over the next decades comes not from a band of assassins in Syria but from the rise of China and the manner in which that will reshape the geopolitics of Asia and the world. If Washington can provide balance and reassurance in Asia, it will help ensure that the continent does not become the flash point for a new Cold War.

But the Asia pivot remains more rhetoric than reality. Having promised a larger U.S. military presence in the Philippines, Singapore and Australia, there is little evidence of any of this on the ground...

...I know the world looks messy and the administration is now on the defensive. But recall what the world looked like when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were conducting foreign policy.

America was losing a war in Asia in which it had deployed half a million troops. The Soviet Union was on the march. Domestic opposition and troubles were mounting. Nixon and Kissinger had to initiate a major retreat but, as Robert Zoellick has pointed out, they combined this with a series of bold, positive, assertive moves.

Watch the video for the full Take or read the WaPo column

Post by:
Topics: Fareed's Take • GPS Show
November 9th, 2014
12:17 AM ET

Remembering the day the Berlin Wall fell

Fareed speaks with then-U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and a former top British foreign policy advisor, Charles Powell, about the fall of the Berlin Wall. Watch the full interview this Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN.

Why didn't the collapse of the Soviet Union result in bloodshed and war?

Scowcroft: Well, first of all, we didn't want it to, because what had happened before, every time there was any kind of an outburst in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union would crack down, kill the leaders and even be more repressive than before.

So what we wanted to do was to keep indications of violence and dissent underneath the Soviet radar, and we tried very hard to do that. And when the announcement about the Wall came, President Bush Sr. was told by his press secretary, you're going to have to talk to the press. Everybody is wondering about this. So I said, well, we don't really know what the facts are.

But anyway, the press came into the president's office and he described what was happening and how uncertain it all was. After he finished that explanation, one of the members of the press said, well, Mr. President, you don't seem very elated. I would think you'd want to go over and dance on the Wall. And he said, well, I'm just not that kind of a person. What we were worried about was that this event would force Gorbachev to violence and all of the hopeful signs would be destroyed.

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show
November 8th, 2014
10:24 PM ET

Is backing Syria rebels a mistake?

Fareed speaks with Joshua Landis, director of the University of Oklahoma's Center for Middle East Studies, about his proposal for addressing the Syria crisis. Watch the full interview this Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN.

So let's understand why you think that the solution that so many people keep urging, which is that the United States supports those rebels in the blue areas and that they will therefore win. They will establish control, create perhaps a democratic Syria. Why is that not going to work?

Well, it's not going to work because most of the blue area are dominated by the big rebel groups which are al Qaeda and the Islamic Front, which are jihadist, very anti-American groups. The pro-American militias just got wiped out in the northern blue spot, Jabal al-Zawiya. They just got pushed aside by al Qaeda. And so they're very small. They may own perhaps 1 or 2 percent of Syria today, the rebels that are being backed by the United States.

So to turn those 2 percent into winners, that would not only wipe out ISIS, but taking on al-Assad would be a gargantuan undertaking.

So they have to beat Al-Nusra and al Qaeda and Khorasan. Then they've got to beat ISIS. Then they've got to beat al-Assad.

Yes, it's not going to happen. And we've only – President Obama has given them half a billion dollars. Now, at the University of Oklahoma we have an endowment of much more than a billion dollars and we can't even pay the students to go for free.

So they're not going to build an army for that kind of money. This is just chump change that's there to satisfy, I presume, people who are criticizing the president.

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show • Syria
Why geostrategic competition threatens us all
November 7th, 2014
07:16 PM ET

Why geostrategic competition threatens us all

By Espen Barth Eide, Special to CNN

Editor’s note: Espen Barth Eide is managing director of the World Economic Forum. This is the first in a series of articles from the World Economic Forum on the key challenges facing the world in 2015 as part of their Outlook on the Global Agenda. The views expressed are the writer's own.

In the years following the Cold War, the prevailing view was that the world had moved towards a liberal, democratic consensus. The break-up of the Soviet bloc, the integration of Russia and China into the global economic system and a fresh wave of democratic transitions, from Latin America to Eastern Europe, led many to believe that superpower rivalries were finished. Globalization, the free market and the “interdependence” of countries would make wars less likely, while a greater role was forecast for multilateral bodies like the United Nations in responding to issues that put everyone at risk.

This did not relieve us of security concerns, but from the 1990s onward, the so-called new challenges were regarded as asymmetric. Rather than fearing strong, opposing states, we worried about state weakness, the breakup of countries, or the global reach of non-state, terrorist networks.

Today, however, renewed competition between key actors is a genuine concern. According to the Survey on the Global Agenda, both Asian and European respondents ranked the rise of geostrategic competition as the second most important global trend. While the old Cold War is not making a resurgence, recent developments have led to tectonic shifts in state interaction. Geopolitics – and realpolitik – is once again taking centre stage, with potential wide-ranging consequences for the global economy, politics, and society. FULL POST

Post by:
Topics: Politics
November 7th, 2014
05:59 PM ET

On GPS Sunday: Remembering fall of Berlin Wall, is Obama a Republican, and a Syria plan

Watch "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN

On GPS this Sunday: First, Fareed offers his take on the implications of the midterm elections and why he believes President Barack Obama still has time to do big things over the next two years – especially in foreign policy.

Then, it is 25 years ago this Sunday that the Berlin Wall began to fall – an event that too much of the world by surprise. Fareed speaks with then-U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft and a former top British foreign policy advisor, Charles Powell.

Then, the economy, immigration, politics...How well do you know your world? GPS will share some sobering numbers on just how little many Americans (and others around the world) really know. See how you fair on the quiz here.

And, Fareed speaks with Bruce Bartlett, an economics columnist, author and historian who argued in a recent article in the American Conservative that President Obama is actually a  Republican. He’ll explain why.

Also, the White House appears to have no real solution for the ongoing crisis in Syria. Nor does the Republican Party. But Fareed will talk to a man who says he does – and he has ideas that seem to make a lot of sense.

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show
November 7th, 2014
05:32 PM ET

What I'm reading: A growth pact for America

By Fareed Zakaria

“The list of potential policy actions that could benefit the United States – trade liberalization, comprehensive regulatory reform, and immigration and education reform, among others – is long,” writes Glenn Hubbard for Project Syndicate. “But only two policies are particularly promising for such a ‘Pact for America’: federal infrastructure spending and corporate-tax reform. Enactment of these reforms would generate a win for each side – and for both.”

“But such a bipartisan consensus requires removing both the left and the right’s ideological blinders, at least temporarily. On the left, a preoccupation with Keynesian stimulus reflects a misunderstanding of both the availability of measures (shovel-ready projects) and their desirability (whether they will meaningfully change the expectations of households and businesses). Indeed, to counteract the mindset forged in the recent financial crisis, spending measures will need to be longer-lasting if they are to raise expectations of future growth and thus stimulate current investment and hiring.

“The right, for its part, must rethink its obsession with temporary tax cuts for households or businesses.”

“For airlines, Asia's skies aren't terribly friendly. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, six of the 10 initial public offerings by airlines in Asia during the past five years are trading below their sale prices. Legendary investor Warren Buffett, who swore a decade ago never to invest again in the airline business following his losing $358 million bet on US Airways, is surely feeling vindicated,” writes Dhiraj Nayyar for Bloomberg View.

“India should stand out amid this grim landscape. Passenger traffic has grown rapidly over the last decade. At its peak between 2003 and 2009, traffic grew somewhere between 20 and 40 percent per year. Growth hardly slackened even after the economy stalled in 2013: Traffic that year was up 5 percent over 2012. Packed airplanes, however, have not led to profitable airlines.” FULL POST

November 6th, 2014
11:43 PM ET

Will Obama become a foreign policy president?

By Fareed Zakaria

Despite this week’s elections, President Obama has the time and scope to do big things over the next two years. But they will have to be in the world beyond Washington. Next week’s trip to Asia would be a good place to start. In fact, it’s odd that Obama has not already devoted more time, energy and attention to foreign policy. It has been clear for a while that there is little prospect of working with the Republican Party on major domestic initiatives. This is hardly unprecedented. Administrations often devote their last few years in office to international affairs, an arena where they have latitude for unilateral action.

If Obama wants significant accomplishments in foreign policy in his last years in office, he will first need the discipline with which he began his presidency. The incremental, escalating interventionism in Syria and Iraq — were it to continue — would absorb the White House’s attention, the public’s interest and the country’s military resources. It also would not succeed, if by success we mean the triumph of pro-democratic forces in the Syrian civil war.

Read the Washington Post column

Post by:
Topics: Fareed's Take
November 6th, 2014
01:32 PM ET

What Democrats, Republicans agree about on Facebook

For more Last Look, watch GPS, Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN

Despite the ugly discord of the recent midterm campaigning, it's heartening to hear that Democrats and Republicans share some surprising common ground, according to some new analytics from Facebook.

Facebook looked at everyone who “Liked” campaign pages of Democrats and Republicans running for governor, the Senate, or the House – and examined their other page "Likes."

Take a look at the graphics in the video. The more an artist or author or place is disproportionately "Liked" by supporters of one side or the other, the farther it appears to the left or right.

Republicans' taste in music skewed, not surprisingly, toward country artists, while Democrats (also not surprisingly) love the Beatles and Bob Marley. Members of both parties like Taylor Swift (as does my 6-year old daughter who as far as I know has no party affiliation). But I'm scratching my head over this one: the Empire State Building was disproportionately liked more by Democrats.

The destination both Dems and Republicans could agree on was the Jersey Shore – perhaps it was all that Christie-Obama bonding on the boardwalk after Hurricane Sandy…

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show • Last Look
November 4th, 2014
06:03 PM ET

What happened to trust?

Watch "Fareed Zakaria GPS," Sundays at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. ET on CNN

Fareed speaks with Paul Zak, a professor at Claremont Graduate University and the author of The Moral Molecule about why trust and confidence are at such a low. Watch the video for the full interview.

OK, explain what you mean by that.

So human beings have this unique ability among all animals to actually rapidly form relationships with strangers. So the only way you can do that is to have something in our heads that says Fareed is safe and Bob, next to you, is not safe. So this molecule we found is produced when you observe or are the recipient of a positive social interaction.

So we began examining trust first, but more generally, these positive social behaviors we call moral behaviors.

How do you do the test? How do you figure that out?

So this is an ancient chemical the brain makes. And we actually can see the reflection of what's in the brain by measuring blood. So we take blood before and after. People do tests in the laboratory and in the field. So our trust tasks, we tempt people with virtue and vice by putting money on the table.

So you have money, you can give it to a stranger, it will grow in size. But now that stranger controls it. The question is, if that stranger is someone you can't talk to, can't see, you're doing this by computer, why would you ever send him or her money?

It turns out that the more money you send that person, the more the brain produces oxytocin, and the more oxytocin on board, the more they reciprocate to you from this larger pie, even though they don't have to. FULL POST

Post by:
Topics: GPS Show
« older posts
newer posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,744 other followers