The Global Slavery Index

The Global Slavery Index provides a ranking of 162 countries, reflecting a combined measure of three factors: estimated prevalence of modern slavery by population, a measure of child marriage, and a measure of human trafficking in and out of a country. The measure is heavily weighted to reflect the first factor, prevalence. A number one ranking is the worst, 160 is the best.

The Walk Free Foundation asserts there are 30 million slaves suffering today.

How much military is enough?

The U.S. once regarded a standing army as a form of tyranny. Now it spends more on defense than all other nations combined.
Between 1998 and 2011, military spending doubled, reaching more than seven hundred billion dollars a year—more, in adjusted dollars, than at any time since the Allies were fighting the Axis.
The decision at hand concerns limits, not some kind of national, existential apocalypse. Force requires bounds. Between militarism and pacifism lie diplomacy, accountability, and restraint.

21st Century Slavery

Today, 27 million men, women and children are held, sold and trafficked as slaves throughout the world. In Slavery: A 21st Century Evil, Rageh Omaar embarks on a worldwide journey to uncover the truth about the flourishing 21st century slave trade. Episode by episode, his investigation will expose the brutal reality of modern slavery and unpick the reasons why this age-old evil persists.

Check out this series and the accompanying web archives from Al Jazeera

A Nation of Racist Dwarfs: Kim Jong-il's regime is even weirder and more despicable than you thought

Unlike previous racist dictatorships, the North Korean one has actually succeeded in producing a sort of new species. Starving and stunted dwarves, living in the dark, kept in perpetual ignorance and fear, brainwashed into the hatred of others, regimented and coerced and inculcated with a death cult: This horror show is in our future, and is so ghastly that our own darling leaders dare not face it and can only peep through their fingers at what is coming.

Hitchens reflects on a trip to North Korea in Slate

One World Under God?

For all the advances and wonders of our global era, Christians, Jews, and Muslims seem ever more locked in mortal combat. But history suggests a happier outcome for the Peoples of the Book. As technological evolution has brought communities, nations, and faiths into closer contact, it is the prophets of tolerance and love that have prospered, along with the religions they represent. Is globalization, in fact, God’s will?

Read on from The Nation

The World is Bumpy: Deglobalization and its dangers

In the 1990s and early 2000s, nations around the world witnessed the sweep of globalization–the growing integration of economies, societies, and political systems–and the democratization of trade, migration, technology, and information. In many developing nations, governments threw their countries’ agriculture, resources, and services open to global competition and slashed subsidies for their domestic producers to force them to compete in global markets. Many countries provided incentives for the poor to migrate from farms to cities, where they began to manufacture goods for export to the West.

Many economists believed this global integration had become so deeply rooted it could never be undone. They were wrong. As the global financial crisis deepens, the world is undergoing exactly the reverse of the 1990s–a wrenching period of deglobalization in which governments throw up new walls and the ties binding nations together rapidly unravel. Nations like the United States, Japan, and Germany may suffer, but they will survive, as will powerful developing nations like China or Brazil that have large cash reserves, diversified economies, and enough political clout to protect their industries. On the other hand, poor and trade-dependent countries that remade their whole economies to take advantage of globalization will be devastated. Having opened up, these nations are now highly vulnerable to global financial currents, without the cash on hand to weather the storm. Perhaps even worse, these financial shifts are likely to spark massive social unrest and could take down one government after the next. If you thought globalization was destabilizing, just wait to see what deglobalization will do.

More from the New Republic

Learning to Live With Radical Islam

The militants are bad people and this is bad news. But the more difficult question is, what should we-the outside world-do about it? That we are utterly opposed to such people, and their ideas and practices, is obvious. But how exactly should we oppose them? In Pakistan and Afghanistan, we have done so in large measure by attacking them-directly with Western troops and Predator strikes, and indirectly in alliance with Pakistani and Afghan forces. Is the answer to pour in more of our troops, train more Afghan soldiers, ask that the Pakistani military deploy more battalions, and expand the Predator program to hit more of the bad guys? Perhaps-in some cases, emphatically yes-but I think it’s also worth stepping back and trying to understand the phenomenon of Islamic radicalism.

Read on from Fareed Zakaria and respond to these Qs

Opposing Perspectives: The Impact of the Collapse of the USSR on the Global Balance of Power

The Breakup of the USSR Makes the US the Leader of the World (Elliot Abrams)

The Breakup of the USSR Signals the End of US World Leadership (Zoltan Grossman)

Write a 1-2 page, single-spaced position paper which adheres to the following:

I. Short Intro with a Thesis (specific, complex and refutable)
II.  Summarize the ideas of the author with whom you do NOT concur and explain why his ideas are disagreeable (clearly demonstrate that you have read and understood this author’s ideas). Do not feel compelled to disagree with this author entirely as there surely is some truth to his argument.
III.  Summarize the ideas of the author with whom you DO concur and explain how his ideas are superior to the other author (clearly demonstrate that you have read and understood this author’s ideas).
IV. Conclude by restating your thesis and exploring the significance thereof.
Please bear in mind that your goal is to illustrate that you have read BOTH documents and that you have thought about them. Be prepared for a healthy debate in class.

European Union Reading

You should not read too much into the EU. Despite its state-like attributes, it is far from being a state, since it lacks the monopoly over the legitimate use of force in its territory that most political scientists argue makes a state a state. What’s more, the shift toward a more united Europe is not occurring at an even or steady pace. It has evolved in a series of fits and starts in which bursts of growth have been followed by longer periods of doubt and criticism. That holds whether you focus on the EU’s broadening (adding new members) or deepening (adding new powers). Similarly, the organization is more “advanced” in some policy areas than others. Thus, the EU itself has the authority to make and enforce much economic policy over the wishes of the member states, including virtually everything involving international trade and, now, monetary matters. Such supranational powers are nowhere near as well developed in other policy areas, including the adoption of broad new policy initiatives, There, as we will see in more detail below, the member states continue to hold most of the power.

Read the article  here and please be prepared to discuss the reading in class. Taking notes and creating discussion questions would be appreciated. It’s your final assignment.

Why Do They Hate Us?

To dismiss the terrorists as insane is to delude ourselves. Bin Laden and his fellow fanatics are products of failed societies that breed their anger. America needs a plan that will not only defeat terror but reform the Arab world

To the question “Why do the terrorists hate us?” Americans could be pardoned for answering, “Why should we care?” The immediate reaction to the murder of 5,000 innocents is anger, not analysis. Yet anger will not be enough to get us through what is sure to be a long struggle. For that we will need answers. The ones we have heard so far have been comforting but familiar. We stand for freedom and they hate it. We are rich and they envy us. We are strong and they resent this. All of which is true. But there are billions of poor and weak and oppressed people around the world. They don’t turn planes into bombs. They don’t blow themselves up to kill thousands of civilians. If envy were the cause of terrorism, Beverly Hills, Fifth Avenue and Mayfair would have become morgues long ago. There is something stronger at work here than deprivation and jealousy. Something that can move men to kill but also to die.

Read the rest of the Zakaria piece here and respond to these questions

Does the Future Belong to China?

Fareed Zakaria reminds us (warns us?) that China, “is a country whose scale dwarfs the United States. 1.3 billion people, four times America’s population. For more than a hundred years it was dreams of this magnitude that fascinated small groups of American missionaries and businessmen. 1 billion souls to save; 2 billion armpits to deodorize, but it never amounted to anything. China was very big, but very poor. All that is changing. But now the very size and scale that seemed so alluring is beginning to look ominous.”

Read it here

Respond to these questions