http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06kristof.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

March 6, 2008
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Good News: Karlo Will Live

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NUBA MOUNTAINS, Sudan

The farm families living in these rocky hills in central Sudan confront every disease imaginable, from leprosy to malaria, and perhaps one-quarter of children die by the age of five.

Yet this is a “good news” column. Karlo will live.

The number of children who die worldwide each year before the age of five has dropped below 10 million for the first time in recorded history — compared with 20 million annually in 1960 — Unicef noted in a report last month, “Child Survival.” Now the goal is to cut the death toll to four million by 2015.

Think about that accomplishment: The lives of 10 million children saved each year, 100 million lives per decade.

To put it another way, the late James P. Grant, a little-known American aid worker who headed Unicef from 1980 to 1995 and launched the child survival revolution with vaccinations and diarrhea treatments, probably saved more lives than were destroyed by Hitler, Mao and Stalin combined.

One of the lives saved this year seems to be that of Karlo, an 8-month-old baby boy who lives in a thatch-roof hut here. His older brother, Kuti, had died a few days before I arrived: Kuti was taken to the hospital and tested positive for malaria, but the doctor believed that he probably died from meningitis.

Then Karlo fell sick, and his mother was frantic at the thought that he would die as well. The father, Bolus Abdullah, was more fatalistic.

“Many children die here,” Mr. Bolus explained to me as volunteers with an American aid group, Samaritan’s Purse, drove the family to the nearest hospital over a fantastically rutted road. “But if that’s the will of God, then there’s nothing we can do.”

Yet there are things we can do — and that brings us to the American presidential campaign.

African children like Karlo may actually have more at stake in the outcome of the presidential election than children in the United States. Just imagine if the next president were to wage a serious war on malaria. At a tiny fraction of the cost of the war in Iraq (or a war on Iran!) such a campaign would save millions of lives and be a huge boost to African economies whose productivity is sapped by diseases.

The hospital to which we took Karlo is run by an aid group, German Emergency Doctors, and is run by a husband-wife team of physicians, Karl Eiter and Gabi Kortmann. The hospital, whose “wards” are thatch-roof huts with no electricity, is perched on a rural mountainside to protect it from aerial bombings by the Sudanese government. (Sudan’s main involvement in health care in contested areas like this has been to strafe hospitals.)

Dr. Eiter ordered a blood test for Karlo, and it came back positive for malaria. He gave Karlo a medication that is almost always effective against malaria here, artemisinin combination therapy, costing just 50 cents for an entire course of treatment.

Saving children’s lives in rural Africa or Asia, where millions die of ailments as simple as diarrhea, pneumonia or measles, is achingly simple and inexpensive. The starting point is vaccinations and basic sanitation.

“We never have all the vaccines that are required,” Dr. Eiter said.

For years, the rationale for opposing foreign assistance has been that it doesn’t work. It’s true that humanitarian aid is devilishly difficult to get right, money is squandered and the impact of aid is often oversold.

But President Bush’s record underscores that other policies are difficult to get right as well: Iraq is a mess, and social security reform and immigration reform both failed. Mr. Bush’s greatest single accomplishment is that his AIDS program in Africa is saving millions of lives.

That makes it all the more stunning that Mr. Bush’s proposed budget for 2009 cuts U.S. funding for child and maternal health programs around the world by nearly 18 percent.

Fortunately, all the candidates are saying the right things about malaria, AIDS and support for education in Africa (although John McCain is fuzzier about commitments). You can compare the candidates’ positions on global humanitarian issues at www.onevote08.org.

Voters should remember this: A president may or may not be able to improve schools or protect manufacturing jobs in Ohio, but a president probably could help wipe out malaria. Compared with other challenges a president faces, saving a million children’s lives a year is the low-hanging fruit.

Karlo, bouncing in his mother’s lap, underscores the hope. With the medicine, he recovered quickly and was sent home from the hospital after a few days. The news here is simple and giddy ... he’s alive!

Comment on this column on my blog at: www.nytimes.com/ontheground.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/glossary.htm#Rule-Set_Reset

Globalization The worldwide integration and increasing flows of trade, capital, ideas, and people. Until 9/11, the U.S. Government tended to identify globalization primarily as an economic rule set, but thanks to the global war on terrorism, we now understand that it likewise demands the clear enunciation and enforcement of a security rule set as well.

Globalization I, II, and III The history of globalization can divided into three parts, each governed by its own rule set.

Globalization I from 1870 to 1914, was ended by the start of World War I.

Globalization II from 1945 to 1980, was initiated by the United States at the end of World War II, and continued until the effective end of the Cold War.

Globalization III (1980 -2001) has been an era of relative peace and enormous economic growth around the world that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, but whose rule sets have now been challenged by rogue states and international terrorists, as exemplified by 9/11.

ten commandments for globalization":

(1) Look for resources and ye shall find, but...

(2) No stability, no markets;

(3) No growth, no stability;

(4) No resources, no growth;

(5) No infrastructure, no resources;

(6) No money, no infrastructure;

(7) No rules, no money;

(8) No security, no rules;

(9) No Leviathan, no security; and

(10) No (American) will, no Leviathan. Understanding the military-market link is not just good business, it is good national security strategy.

http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117981623&categoryid=19
To print this page, select "PRINT" from the File Menu of your browser.

Posted: Thurs., Feb. 28, 2008, 4:51pm PT
Al-Qaeda takes aim at Dutch filmmaker
Terrorists call for execution of Wilders over short
By IAN MUNDELL
Al-Qaeda Thursday issued a fatwa calling for the execution of Dutch filmmaker and politician Geert Wilders, who is producing an anti-Koran short.
Wilders expects to finish the 15-minute "Fitna" by the beginning of March, and will talk to broadcasters about airing it. None are yet on board.

But he insists "Fitna" (Arabic for discord) will be available on the website of his political party in the Netherlands and a dedicated site.

The domain name fitnathemovie.com has been registered with a U.S. service provider, implying that he wants to stop the Dutch authorities taking it down.

While the government has made no such threat, ministers did call Wilders in to discuss the film Wednesday. They warned him about the risks to the Dutch reputation abroad if it is shown. He accused them of intimidation.

Already, the Cairo Intl. Film Festival for Children announced it was dropping Dutch entry "Where Is Winky's Horse?" in protest at Wilders' film.

According to Dutch press agency ANP, fest director Fawzi Fahmi said the decision was a protest against everyone who intentionally and persistently insults and degrades monotheistic religion.

The Egyptian government has already voiced its objections to the anti-Koran film. Protests have also come from Indonesia and Iran. Earlier in the week Pakistan set off a global YouTube blackout when regulators blocked an online trailer for the film.

Read the full article at:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117981623.html

Like this article? Variety.com has over 150,000 articles, 40,000 reviews and 10,000 pages of charts. Subscribe today!
http://www.variety.com/emailfriend
or call (866) MY-VARIETY.
Can't commit? Sign up for a free trial!
http://www.variety.com/emailfriend

© 2008 Reed Business Information
Use of this Website is subject to Terms of Use. Privacy Policy

Last year, when I went to D.C to have Newt Gingrich taped for his 9-11 speech at the American Enterprise Institute, I was fortunate enough to have been granted an interview with Dr. Akbar Ahmed, former Ambassador from Pakistan to the U.S and the U.K along with a long list of diplomatic achievements, at his home across town in Baltimore.

The interview was such a great learning experience for me, as I sought an honest understanding of Islam and the middle east.

While there is so much nuance in global geopolitics, the one concept that began to evolve in my own thinking was this idea of the ‘soft tools of war’ . Those things that win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the people. This idea has gained momentum with great thinkers and leaders like General David Patraeus, and Scholars and grand strategist like Dr. Thomas Barnett.

One of the soundbytes that I have ingrained in my memory from my interview with Dr. Ahmed was his suggestion that the U. S President talk OVER the theocracy and dictators of the region to the people. The idea that it is ultimately the people who fuel the change in their own society.

I remember how courageous Dr. Ahmed was in his desire that the U.S be the moral and spiritual leaders of the world by bringing democracy to the Islamic world..., while he added, ‘not thru a daisy cutter or bomb’.

It goes along the lines of creating the maximum leverage of broadband connectivity both in economics and education that Dr. Tom Barnett talks about.

Sometimes it is necessary to use the ‘hard tools of war’. However in our increasingly globalize world, this kind of social networking has lethal power unlike anytime in human history to achieve expanded supply chains and the exploitation of resources in order to elevate people away from poverty and disease.

Christopher Hitchens in his OPINION piece below, talks about this very idea of talking over the ruling and corrupt theocracy of Iran to the people as a soft tool for change to a representative form of government which the Iranians desire with transparency and justice.

The link to this article is at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120338314589475783.html
Please note the several emphasis, and bold marks are from me. (it just helps me separate what stands out to me)

At any rate, enjoy.
Cheers!
Dan.

OPINION
Mr. President, Don't Forget Iran
By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
February 19, 2008; Page A19
Dear Mr. President: A few months ago, it became possible to hear members and supporters of your administration going around Washington and saying that the question of a nuclear-armed Iran "would not be left to the next administration." As a line of the day, this had the advantage of sounding both determined and slightly mysterious, as if to commit both to everything and to nothing in particular.

That slight advantage has now, if you will permit me to say so, fallen victim to diminishing returns. The absurdly politicized finding of the National Intelligence Estimate -- to the effect that Iran has actually halted rather than merely paused its weapons-acquisition program -- has put the United States in a position where it is difficult even to continue pressing for sanctions, let alone to consider disabling the centrifuge and heavy-water sites at Natanz, Arak and elsewhere.

Over the course of the next year, you will have to decide whether this question will indeed be left to become a problem for the succeeding administration. As matters now stand, the U.S. is in the not-unfamiliar position of appearing to be more bellicose than it actually is. The picture is complicated by the fact that, unlike Iraq in the past or North Korea today, Iran can boast quite an impressive "civil society" movement, which would like both to replace the current ramshackle theocracy and to adopt better and closer relations with the U.S.

In other words, Iran is running on two timetables.

The first one -- the gradual but definite emergence of a democratization trend among the young and the middle class -- is something that we can gauge but not determine.

The second one -- the process by which a messianic regime lays hold of the means to manufacture apocalyptic weaponry -- could move rather faster, and is partly designed in any case to insulate the mullahs from regime change.

Is it possible that these two apparently discrepant elements can be brought into a more, shall we say, synergistic relationship, and that the U.S. can regain the initiative that has (yet again!) been lost to it by the actions of its own intelligence bureaucracy? The answer is yes.

Consider our advantages.

To begin with, all visitors to Tehran report an extraordinary level of sympathy with the U.S. among the general population. On my own visit to the country, I was astonished by the sheer number of people who had relatives overseas, and who wished they could join them. Most especially among the young, pro-American cultural and musical "statements" are as common as they were in Eastern Europe before 1989.

We have removed from power the two most hated enemies, not of the Iranian mullahs alone, but of the Iranian people. It is true that many Iranians feel nervous about having American forces on their Afghan and Iraqi frontiers, but it is equally true that our ability to demolish the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein tyrannies has greatly impressed many Iranians.

Iranians are acutely aware of the backwardness of their country. Iran may be floating on a lake of oil, but still conducts much the same backward, rug-and-pistachio economy that it was operating when the mullahs seized power almost 30 years ago.

Changing my gear and tone a little, I want to mention another kind of advantage altogether. Iran is scheduled to suffer from a devastating earthquake in the very near future. Its capital, Tehran, is built on a cobweb of fault-lines: a predicament not improved by the astonishing amount of illegal and uninspected construction that takes place, thanks to corruption and incompetence, within its perimeter.

I want to underline what might be called a seismic imperative. A serious earthquake in Iran could wreak untold damage not just on the Iranian people but on their neighbors, and the clerical regime is doing nothing to prepare for this eventuality or to protect against it.

In the aftermath of the 2003 earthquake that rocked Bam, American search-and-rescue teams performed prodigies of valor and skill and became so popular locally that the news of their achievements had to be hushed up by the regime's less-than-perfect censorship.

Consider, then, the "public diplomacy" impact of a serious public offer to Iran, made through international media and from the podium (so often usurped by the clownish Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) of the United Nations.

The U.S. could propose the following: a commitment to help Iran protect its centers of population and its key installations against an earthquake. Along with the provision of expertise and advice would come a request for inspections of key facilities, especially those which might, if ruptured, pose a Chernobyl-type threat to neighboring countries.

At one stroke, this would make a strong appeal, on a matter of urgent material interest, to the general Iranian public. It would point a contrast between our priorities and those of the regime. And it would position us, before the fact, for something not unlike the well-improvised post-tsunami operation mounted by the U.S. Navy in Indonesia.

In the same speech it ought to be said that the U.S. and its allies -- committed as they are to assisting Iran to acquire a peaceful nuclear energy capability, and alarmed as they are by signs of a deceptive strategy in this regard -- would like to be sure that our negotiating partners truly represent the Iranian people. It could even be said that our intervention in Iraq, and the consequent liberation of the Shiites, will prove to have long-term positive consequences.

I have heard it argued that any carrot-shaped initiatives directed at Tehran constitute a reward for the regime's bad behavior, and might even encourage the harder-line mullahs to believe that their intransigence had paid off. But I don't think that this can be said for the proposals outlined above, which are directed at the Iranian people, and which in effect offer them considerable benefits in exchange for something that the majority of them appear to desire in any case, namely political and social transparency.

It's eternally fashionable in Washington (and elsewhere) to contrast "diplomatic" initiatives with "saber-rattling" ones. What this naïve dichotomy overlooks is the plain fact that without the known quantity of the American saber, few if any diplomatic movements would be possible.

If the moment comes when you, Mr. President, feel that a "Nixon-in-China" initiative is required, and an offer of direct dealing with Iran and the Iranians is warranted, it will be important for you to find some telling words in which to phrase an acknowledgment of those facts.

The current period of suspended animation cannot be protracted indefinitely. In our own current election, every serious candidate has stated that the outcome of a nuclear theocracy is simply not acceptable. It will indeed need to be decided, and in the lifetime of your administration, whether we aim merely to negate that intolerable ambition, or whether we have the ingenuity to make this the occasion for a wider and deeper engagement, consummating the progress made in Iraq and Afghanistan and confirming it in the keystone society that lies between them.

Mr. Hitchens is a Vanity Fair columnist. An expanded version of this article first appeared in the Winter 2008 issue of World Affairs.

See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal.

And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.