Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad (r) meets with US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Damascus, Syria, April 4.

Democrats in Congress have been busy flexing their foreign policy muscles almost from the moment they took power in January, for the most part responsibly. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi crossed a line this week by visiting Syria, where she met with President Bashar Assad. She violated a long-held understanding that the United States should speak with one official voice abroad--even if the country is deeply divided on foreign policy back home.
Like it or not, President Bush’s policy has been to refuse to negotiate with Syria until it changes its behavior.
Pelosi surely knew that as speaker--third in the succession line to the presidency--her high-profile presence in Damascus would be read as a contradiction of Bush’s no-talkpolicy. No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.
Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif., who said the meeting was “only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit.“ That suggested Democrats are going beyond unobjectionable fact-finding and getting-to-know-you conversation into something closer to negotiations, undermining U.S. diplomacy.
If there’s any justification for Pelosi’s trip, it is that foreign travel by members of Congress is important. Many come to office with little knowledge of the world and soon need to make important decisions about it. This was starkly evident in December when the congressman Pelosi chose to head the critical House Intelligence Committee revealed that he didn’t know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites--knowledge critical to understanding Iraq and the war on terrorism.
The speaker presumably is better informed. Pelosi said she made the trip because the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urged greater engagement with Syria. That argument is strengthened by the fact that Assad also got visits this week from several House Republicans, who defied White House requests they not go. “I don’t care what the administration says on this,“ said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va.
But Wolf can travel to Syria virtually undetected. Pelosi has an international profile. That guarantees her heavy media coverage but multiplies the price of a misstep, which she quickly made when she created confusion about how eager Israel is to resume peace talks with Syria. Israel immediately clarified her remarks.
Pelosi’s office defended her trip by noting that the “administration’s cold-shoulder approach has yielded nothing but more Syrian intransigence.“ As true as that is, the place for Pelosi to make the case is not in Damascus. It’s not up to the speaker to unfreeze relations with Assad.
USATODAY.COM

With emerging evidence that US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed, many institutions and concerned US citizens are beginning to ask themselves “Why does the world hate us?“
This is a healthy development because US self-cognizance and self-examination in terms of how it’s perceived in the outside world are crucial to the role it plays in global peace and stability.
A public poll carried out by the International Strategic Research Center (USAK) in March 2005 underscores matters related to this. According to this poll, which dealt directly with Turkish-US relations, 74 percent of Turks see the Turkish-US relation as one of allies, while at the same time, 91 percent of Turks do not approve of US President George W. Bush due to his policies. The important point here is that Turkish people appear to hold the office of the president separate in their minds from the president who occupies it. For example, while such a high percentage of Turks currently do not approve of Bush, when Bill Clinton was in office, 49 percent of Turks supported him. Indeed 69 percent of respondents in the 2005 USAK survey signaled that “Clinton has been the best US president in terms of world peace and security.“
There have been some important changes in conviction in the meantime. According to a January 2007 BBC poll carried out in 25 countries with 26,000 people, one out of every two people said they were against US global policies. The portion of the BBC poll that concerned Turkey appeared to confirm the 2005 USAK poll: 76 percent of Turks find the presence of US troops in the Middle East wrong and destructive, while 90 percent said that US policies in Iraq were wrong.
One of the most important factors placing the US at the head of the list of unloved countries that follow seemingly incorrect policy according to global perspective is its military invasions. But this is not all. According to many, the US follows strategies that create conflict. In the BBC poll of people from 25 countries, 73 percent criticized US policy in Iraq, 67 percent criticized the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, 65 percent criticized the politics surrounding the Israel-Lebanon war, 56 percent criticized its stance on global warming, and 54 percent criticized its stance on the North Korea nuclear program.
Notably, polls taken in the US also point to these same results among Americans. Of US citizens, 57 percent do not approve of the politics guiding the country, while 89 percent did not support the role Washington played in the Israel-Lebanon crisis. It is quite clear that a majority of US citizens do not support US policy in Iraq. The poll said 60 percent of US citizens do not support the administration for its actions in Iraq, while 66 percent believe the Iraq policies are only encouraging warfare. It is important to note that criticism for US policies in the world is also coming from European countries. A full 74 percent of Germans openly say that they do not support US foreign policy.
The results of the variety of polls emerging over the last years underscores that almost no one is opposed to the American people or the country itself. In truth the categorical hatred of one people for another people is a very unusual situation. There are a number of factors that feed this hatred and enmity. Looked at within this framework, if there is anger regarding relations with the US it is linked to the policies followed by the administration. There can be no greater merit than when someone realizes the errors of his or her ways and then works to abandon them.
TODAYSZAMAN.COM

Having raised expectations for real political reform in Saudi Arabia, King Abdullah has instead announced that the time for change has not yet arrived. After reshuffling the cabinet, everything remains the same. The Saudi population, 50 percent of which is under 15 years old, will continue watching the same old princes on national TV, some who have been in office for forty years, symbolising the rot at the heart of Saudi politics. The paradox here is that as Saudi Arabia becomes far more active diplomatically in trying to sort out the problems and Iraq, it has become paralysed domestically.
This was not what ordinary Saudis expected. For the past year and a half, they were anticipating a cabinet reshuffle intended to enhance the king’s reputation as a keen advocate of reform. The symbolic significance of a new cabinet was expected to reflect its redefinition of the Saudi nation and its future. There was hope of inclusion of marginalised groups, such as a Shia minister for the first time in the Kingdom’s history, and action against corruption, represented by the removal of long-serving ministers.
Instead, a crippling malaise has engulfed the Kingdom, as Saudi Arabia’s peculiar inertia has produced idle talk of reform that cannot mask the realities of stagnation. The inertia goes beyond the cabinet reshuffle: the judiciary--with 700 judges--also remains unchanged.
The irony is that while King Abdullah has energetically taken on a leading role in the region’s turbulent affairs, he seems unable to respond to Saudi Arabia’s acute lag in democratic reform in comparison to neighbours like Jordan and the Persian Gulf states.
So why is Abdullah not exercising leadership? And why, despite international pressure and domestic desire, did he not appoint a successor to the ailing Crown Prince Sultan, for the tradition of the Saudi kings is to have not only the direct but the second in line to the throne known? Why are the Wahhabi clerics, the main opponents of reform and progress, continually indulged as the Kingdom’s de facto co-rulers?
These opposing forces within the Kingdom have created an almost insurmountable roadblock. With consensus seemingly impossible, formulation of any coherent policy to meet the nation’s needs is beyond reach. Instead the al-Saud princes and their Wahhabi partners live in wary co-existence, dominating different spheres of influence.
Reform in Saudi Arabia is in every sense a bizarre compromise between the opposing forces of the al-Saud’s prominent wings and the forces of the official Wahhabi religious establishment. One result has been pseudo-democracy. Municipal elections have taken place, but they were partial, heavily managed, and of no consequence. The Shura, or consultative council, is toothless: appointed by the king, it is unable to legislate and will remain un-elected for the foreseeable future.
The same is true of the “National Dialogue“ set up by Abdullah but not legitimised by the official Wahhabi establishment. Talks among representatives of Shia, Wahhabi-Ismaili, and other sects within the National Dialogue were recently televised, but this was pure theatre of reform, nothing more, and the Saudi population is no longer willing to suspend its disbelief.
Exposure to the outside world through travel, satellite TV, and the Internet has increased public demand for political rights, including the democratic representation that state paternalism has historically denied. The borders of the kingdom cannot be sealed to ideas and from the desire for change, with people avidly watching Al Jazeera--officially banned in Saudi Arabia--as it reports about elections in Kuwait and democratic debates in other Persian Gulf countries.
Denial is not a policy; it is a suicide pact.
Mai Yamani
DAILYTIMES.COM

As climate change becomes the No. 1 environmental issue around the world, it presents a new framework for evaluating--and gives greater urgency to--a host of other sensitive environmental issues, such as loss of biodiversity, desertification, natural disasters, and water scarcity.
Even as policymakers debate ways to limit global warming by decreasing the emission of greenhouse gases, there is a growing sense that no level of human response can completely forestall the effects of climate change in coming decades. That’s why adaptation is so critical.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release the second volume of its Fourth Assessment Report on global warming, titled “Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.“ An expected key finding will examine predicted water shortages--for 1.1 billion to 3.2 billion people, according to Reuters--and the options available to cope with them.
Water scarcity is not just a problem in arid regions; even in the lush tropics of Costa Rica, communities experience water scarcity due to deforestation and intensive agriculture. Water quickly becomes scarce when communities, industry, agriculture, and natural ecosystems all depend on the same source. That competition is expected to intensify as climate change affects precipitation patterns around the globe, potentially depleting natural water reservoirs.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that proven strategies already exist to manage this kind of water scarcity.
In the southwestern United States, climate research shows that temperatures are expected to increase. Predictions vary as to whether the Southwest will become wetter or drier. Despite the uncertainty of the amount of precipitation change, a greater variability in precipitation is expected, resulting in a higher frequency of extreme events such as droughts, high-intensity storms, and flooding.
An effective way to deal with water scarcity at the local level is to harvest a resource that is freely (if not always abundantly) available: rainwater. Rainwater is a resource we have neglected with the development of municipal water systems and storm-water systems that channel rainwater away. Instead of losing this precious resource, we can expand the use of harvesting techniques that capture rainwater on-site, allowing it to be infiltrated in landscape features or stored in cisterns for later use. Countries such as Australia and India are beginning to embrace this method. The American Southwest is, too.
In Tucson, Ariz., local consultants, small businesses, and nonprofits are leading water harvesting workshops that often have waiting lists--a healthy demand that’s further boosted by a state tax credit for rainwater harvesting. The nonprofit organization that I direct, Watershed Management Group, teaches individuals how to install cisterns and shape landscape to harvest water. In dryland regions such as southern Arizona, harvested rainwater is sufficient to meet all residential landscaping needs. In a state where residents use 40 to 60 percent of their municipal water supply on outdoor uses, that’s quite significant.
Water harvesting practices can benefit communities across the globe:
¥ When water is captured on-site, less rainwater becomes runoff--or storm water-- that carries pollutants into waterways and also causes flooding.
¥ In areas where surface or ground-water is contaminated, rainwater may be the cleanest source of water. Rainwater can be captured, stored, and easily treated to be suitable for drinking.
¥ It augments available water supplies. This is crucial for areas with dropping water tables.
¥ Simple landscape features, such as berms, check dams, and basins can slow and infiltrate water on sloped land, which reduces erosion and increases soil moisture to establish or enhance vegetation.
¥ Water harvesting techniques are easy to learn, low-cost, and do not require energy input.
To be effective, water harvesting must be coupled with water conservation. Conserve water in your home by planting native landscaping, installing water-efficient appliances, and using gray water. Gray water is water from your bathroom sink, shower, or washing machine, which can be used a second time to irrigate your landscape. Conserving water also saves energy, as water purification and water delivery consumes substantial energy resources.
These approaches aren’t a panacea for water scarcity. But they offer proof that each of us can take practical steps today to make our adaptation to uncertain climate change that much more certain.
Lisa Shipek
CSMONITOR.COM

In the last quarter of 2006 British companies were more profitable than they have ever been. Nor is it just Britain: in the rest of Europe, the US and in Japan, capital, as measured by profits, is taking a large share of output. Profit shares--one result of globalisation and technological change--are unlikely to fall any time soon. Governments need to respond through labour market reform and investment in education.
You do not have to look far to find the flip side of higher profit shares. The International Monetary Fund reports that labour’s share of gross domestic product has fallen by about seven percentage points in advanced countries since the early 1980s, while the world’s effective labour force has quadrupled in size, as China, India and ex-communist Europe joined the global trading system. The IMF thinks the workforce could double again by 2050.
That change in the distribution of GDP has consequences. Record corporate profits are a big reason for the 30-year-long bull market in US stocks. The especially large fall in Japan’s labour share of income is probably one reason why its domestic consumption remains sluggish. Higher profits tend to mean greater income inequality within countries as well.
Important reasons for higher profit shares are globalisation and technological innovation. Globalisation increases competition in labour markets; new technology, especially computers, has replaced a swathe of middle-income jobs. But the beneficial effects of these forces far outweigh any unhappiness about higher profit shares.
Globalisation has contributed to growth in the developed world: labour may get less of the national income cake, but it is a much bigger cake. In the developing world, meanwhile, the ability to grow by exporting manufactured goods to rich countries has lifted millions of people out of poverty.
Globalisation will continue for another generation at least, but if the wages of workers in rich countries stagnate as a result, their governments will face demands for trade protection. The IMF points to three measures governments can take to prevent that.
Flexible labour markets, which allow jobs lost through globalisation to be replaced elsewhere, are associated with a smaller decline in labour’s share of GDP. An adequate welfare safety net cushions the process of change. Most important of all, rich countries need to invest in education and training, so their workers can compete for highly skilled technical and managerial work.
The markets, meanwhile, should not assume that profit shares will continue to rise. Future new technologies may favour labour; globalisation will continue, but its effects will diminish as the largest countries are absorbed; high returns on capital will not continue indefinitely without causing a surge in business investment. Capitalists may be enjoying themselves now, but the party will not last forever.
FT.COM