When I visited Scandinavia via a cruise with my fiance last summer, we were both struck by the pleasantness of the Nordic people and how beautiful and well organized the country seemed to be. While we only spent a day or so in each country, it corresponded with everything I had read about their high rankings in all sorts of international metrics, from quality of life to good governance.
In a world with vast disparities between rich and poor, tens of billions of dollars worth of aid is exchanged between nations. Citing 2014 data from the OECD, an international organization comprised mostly of wealthy countries, The Economist provides an interactive map showing which governments are donating to the most countries and how much they give to each recipient.
Among the 41 donor countries that provided data in 2014 to the OECD, Japan leads as the broadest provider of support, sending development aid to 141 countries and territories. The U.S. is second, with 132 beneficiaries, though it donated the most overall (given that it is the richest country by a wide margin). Continue reading
The wave of populism sweeping across the world — particularly, but not exclusively, in the West — is largely product of widespread discontent among the masses. But the causes of anxiety and cynicism vary from country to country, with each society facing its own unique challenges or trajectories.
A recent poll of 25 countries conducted by Ipsos MORI, a leading market research group based in the U.K., uncovered the main issue that worries each nation and whether they think things are going on the right track. Here are the results, courtesy of The Economist: Continue reading
One of the earliest and most effective mass communications system ever developed was the “kalliu” relay system of the Neo Assyrian Empire in the Middle East. The Assyrians formed one of history’s first empires in the 10th millennium B.C.E., perfecting many strategies and institutional of imperial rule that set the standard for other empires. Chief among these was their mass relay system, which allowed the empire to span 540,000 square miles and last over 300 years.
Rather than have one trusted envoy to deliver a message through a direct route, Assyrian rulers relied on multiple riders to stop at purpose-built stations where they would pass the message to another rider who was ready with a fresh mount. The stations were carefully positioned at regular intervals along the imperial highway system. Mules were used for their sturdiness and speed in rough terrain and climates. The system was maintained by the military and used only by the state: about 150 officials known as “Great Ones” held a copy of the Assyrian royal seal — depicting the king fighting a lion — which they stamped on messages to identify their authority, since it was recognized throughout the empire. Only letters with this seal could be mailed.
Because messages did not require one rider who would need to rest, the kalliu system offered unprecedented communication speed at the time. One estimate suggests that a message traversing 430 miles through rough terrain would take less than five days. Little wonder that later empires like the Persians adopted this technique for their massive territory. Even the United States used it as the basis for the famed Pony Express in the 19th century. Indeed, the use of a series of anonymous messages along different relay systems remain the basis of modern postal systems worldwide — to think it all began with an Iron Age Mesopotamian state nearly 3,000 years ago.
The term “soft power” was first coined by American political scientist Joseph Nye to describe a country’s ability to exercise influence abroad without the “hard power” of military force, sanctions, and the like. It is an idea I had encountered often during my undergrad studies of political science and international relations, but its inherent fuzziness made it difficult to assess and measure; you can count tanks, troops, missiles, etc., but how do you determine something as categorically intangible as “soft power”?
To address the paucity of data on the subject, in 2015 London-based PR firm Portland teamed up with the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy to create an index of soft power: The Soft Power 30, the most recent update of which was released last month. Countries are ranked based on a combination of two sets of data: polls measuring how the countries are perceived abroad, and quantifiable variables such as the number of diplomatic missions abroad, the size of foreign-aid budgets, the number of intergovernmental organizations they are members of, and so on. Continue reading
Though they are in charge of an organization that represents virtually all of humanity, Secretary-Generals of the United Nations — described variably as the “world’s moderators” and the “chief administrative officers” of the U.N. — have never been household names. Not many could name or recognize the current officeholder, António Guterres, the former prime minister of Portugal, let alone any of his eight predecessors.
Yet one of these men, a self effacing and bespectacled diplomat from Burma named U Thant* not only served with distinction as a capable administrator — of what was then a young, bold, and largely untested institution — but true to his role as the “world’s mediator”, he saved humanity from one of its closest calls with armageddon: the Cuban Missile Crisis. Continue reading
South Korea is the only country in the world where all living former leaders (six in all) have either been convicted of corruption offenses, or are being tried or investigated for such crimes, including two former dictators from the 1980s and 1990s. Just last year, one of these leaders was unseated following what may have been the largest peaceful mass demonstration in modern history (and which received support from the legislature and judiciary). Three deceased leaders have also been touched by posthumous corruption scandals or investigations.
Observers once noted that corruption was a “feature rather than a bug” of Korean politics, yet the Korean people — less than two decades into being an full fledged democracy — are doing everything possible to change that. This isn’t to say that these actions are totally free from political self interest and the like — although it is worth noting that the vast majority of Koreans support these actions regardless of their political affiliation.
Korean voters have since elected, Moon Jae In, a refugee from the Korean War who was once jailed for protesting against South Korea’s dictatorship, and was a human rights lawyer before he went into politics. He is so famously “clean” that he avoids having any private or professional meetings with friends to avoid even a hint of corruption. He is subsequently one of the most popular leaders in the world, with over 70 percent approval.
Source: The Economist
According to a 2015 WIN/Gallup International global survey, which asked respondents in 64 countries whether they would be willing to fight for their country in a war, Japan had the fewest people willing to go to war (11%) while Morocco and Fiji tied for the highest (94%). The U.S. and Russia were at 44% and 59% respectively, while rising powers China and India were at 71% and 75% respectively.
Regionally, Europe had fewest people willing to fight a war for their country while Asia had the most.
A total of 62,398 individuals were surveyed globally between September and December of 2014, with roughly 1,000 men and women serving a representative sample for each country. Interviews were conducted in person, by phone, or online. I’d be curious to know how much the results have changed since 2014.
Of course, a willingness to go to war in the abstract does not necessarily mean that one will answer the call of war if it actually comes. I think Americans in particular are far more gung ho about war in theory — from which the vast majority are far removed from experientially — than in practice. (Tellingly, a lot of the higher-ranking countries in terms of willingness to go to war — such as Finland, Russia, and Turkey — have compulsory military service.)
Running an emerging global power and vibrant democracy would be hard enough without having one of the world’s most oppressive, erratic, and brutal states next door.
Yet South Korean leader Moon Jae In, less than a year into his presidency, has not only governed his prosperous country fairly well (if his stellar approval ratings are any indication), but he’s pulled off an amazing feat virtually no one though possible (much less any world leader): getting North Korea to tone down its bellicose rhetoric, suspend its nuclear program, and express willingness to participate in an historic summit between his nation and the North’s archenemy the United States — the two nations are even setting up a direct hotline between their leaders, which will not only mitigate the likelihood of an escalating conflict, but is a big symbol of the potential for normal relations (and one would hope, eventually reunification). Continue reading
Believe it or not, there is a lot to celebrate about the economy as of late, both here and elsewhere.
The U.S. stock market is going strong, with the S&P 500 at an all-time record. But the German and Japanese markets are up by more, and markets in the U.K., Canada, South Korea, Taiwan, and elsewhere are also seeing record growth.
While the U.S. unemployment rate is the lowest in almost two decades, Japan’s is also the lowest since then, with the U.K. and Germany seeing the lowest rate since the 1970s.
Although America’s GDP growth is above expectations this year, so is Japan‘s and the eurozone’s (the 19 European Union countries that use the euro). In fact, the eurozone grew faster than the U.S. economy, contrary to popular belief about its imminent collapse.
The point of this isn’t to make light of our well needed economic gains, but to point out that our success is part of a broader global trend, and that we depend on numerous other countries and trading blocs to stay afloat.
Without having global partners to serve as our suppliers, consumers, and labor force, we would not be doing so well, and our economy would not be as large and diversified in the first place.
Nowadays, all our biggest and most innovative companies are multinational in character, relying on talented people from across the world to design or create their products (if not run the companies entirely). In such a globalized era, diplomacy is paramount.