Creating a "Brain Gain" for U.S. Employers: The Role of Immigration

Source - Brookings

One of the strongest narratives in U.S. history has been the contribution made by talented, hard-working and entrepreneurial immigrants whose skills and knowledge created a prosperous new country. Yet today, the nation’s immigration priorities and outmoded visa system discourage skilled immigrants and hobble the technology-intensive employers who would hire them. These policies work against urgent national economic priorities, such as boosting economic vitality, achieving greater competitiveness in the global marketplace and renewing our innovation leadership.

In the long term, the nation needs comprehensive immigration reform. In the short term, policymakers should focus on reforms that are directly related to increasing the "brain gain" for the nation—creating new jobs and producing economic benefits—to produce tangible and achievable improvements in our immigration system.

	RECOMMENDATIONS
	Rebalance U.S. immigration policies to produce a "brain gain," with changes to visas that will allow employers to access workers with the scientific and technological skills they need to improve economic competitiveness, employment and innovation Tie immigration levels to national economic cycles to meet changing levels of need Use digital technologies to modernize the current visa system

Background

Immigrants are now one-tenth of the overall U.S. population—a situation that defies facile stereotyping. Immigrants have made significant contributions to American science and economic enterprise, most notably in the areas of high-tech and biotech.

• Immigrants’ productivity raises the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by an estimated $37 billion per year
   
• More than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering businesses launched between 1995 and 2005 had a foreign-born founder
   
• In Silicon Valley, more than half of new tech start-up companies were founded by foreignborn owners
   
• In 2005, companies founded by immigrants produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers
   
• Nearly a quarter of the international patents filed from the United States in 2006 were based on the work of foreign-born individuals (more than half of whom received their highest degree from an American university)
   
• Economists calculate that, as a result of immigration, 90 percent of native-born Americans with at least a high-school diploma have seen wage gains
   
• Historically, immigrants have made outsize contributions to American science and technology, with Albert Einstein perhaps the leading example. One-third of all U.S. winners of Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology were born in other countries Far from "crowding out" native-born workers and depressing their wages, well-educated, entrepreneurial immigrants do much to create and support employment for Americans.

In order to fully reap the benefits of the worldwide talent market, U.S. immigration policy must be reoriented. Current policy is significantly—and negatively—affected by the unintended consequences of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that made family unification its overarching goal. Although the law may have contributed to the high-tech boom by removing long-standing, country-specific quotas and expanding immigration from places with strong science and engineering education programs, its main effect was to enable immigrants to bring in family members, without regard for the new immigrants’ education, skill status or potential contributions to the economy.

Thus, in 2008, almost two-thirds of new legal permanent residents were family-sponsored and, over the past few years, the educational attainment of new immigrants has declined.

U.S. employers have a large, unmet demand for knowledge workers. They are eager to fill jobs with well-trained foreign workers and foreign graduates of U.S. universities—particularly those with degrees in the sciences, technology, engineering and mathematics—the "STEM" fields that continue to attract too few U.S.-born students. In 2008, the "Tapping America’s Potential" business coalition reported that the number of U.S. graduates in STEM had been stagnant for five years, and that number would have to nearly double by 2015 to meet demands.

Meanwhile, the United States is falling behind in the pace of innovation and international competitiveness. Evidence for the decline in innovation is the decreasing U.S. share of international patents. In 2009, for the first time in recent years, non-U.S. innovators earned more patents (around 96,000) than did Americans (93,000). Only a decade earlier, U.S. innovators were awarded almost 57 percent of all patents.

To date, Congress—for a variety of reasons, including partisanship—has stalled in addressing the problems of immigration and immigration policy. Unfortunately, this inaction extends to problems hampering the nation’s economy that, if remedied, could help the United States grow employment, pull out of the current recession more quickly and improve its position in the global economy.

Game-Changing Policy Reforms

Rebalance Fundamental Goals

The goals of U.S. immigration policy should be rebalanced to give priority to immigrants who have the education and talent to enhance America’s economic vitality, by stimulating innovation, job creation and global competitiveness. At the same time, it should decrease emphasis on family reunification (other than parents and children of U.S. citizens). Changing the composition of the immigration stream, even without increasing its size, would result in a "brain gain" for the United States.

Other countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, strategically craft immigration policy to attract skilled and unskilled workers, making the benefits easy to see and strengthening public support for immigration in the process. Canada, for example, explicitly targets foreign workers to fill positions for which there are not enough skilled Canadians. Applicants for admission to the country accumulate points based on their field of study, educational attainment and employment experience. Upon reaching the requisite number of points, the applicant is granted a visa. Some 36 percent of all Canadian immigrant visas are in the "skilled-worker" category, as opposed to only 6.5 percent in the United States.

An interesting by-product of this strategy—which is both clearly articulated and of obvious benefit to the national economy—is that Canadians see the benefits of the policy and, as a result, immigration is far less controversial than in the United States. In 2005 polling by The Gallup Organization, only 27 percent of Canadians wanted to decrease immigration, whereas 52 percent of U.S. citizens did. And, three times as many Canadians (20 percent) as Americans (seven percent) actually wanted to increase it.

An obvious place to begin the rebalancing process would be with the many foreign students who come to the United States for education in scientific and technology fields. They are familiar with our culture and speak English. Many would like to stay and build careers here. But, under current visa rules, most are sent home as soon as they graduate. A complete policy reversal is needed, with automatic green cards for foreign graduates of U.S. science and technology programs.

In fact, the United States should make it as easy as possible for these highly trained students to stay, since the expansion of job opportunities in India, China and other growth-oriented countries now offers them attractive options. Our current counterproductive policy, quite simply, puts the United States in the position of training our global competitors.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, in a December 2009 Meet the Press interview, said about immigration: "We’re committing what I call national suicide. Somehow or other, after 9/11 we went from reaching out and trying to get the best and the brightest to come here, to trying to keep them out. In fact, we do the stupidest thing, we give them educations and then don’t give them green cards."

Universities collectively invest huge sums in the development of these students. In addition, research suggests that increasing the number of foreign graduate students would increase U.S. patent applications by an estimated 4.7 percent and grants of university patents by 5.3 percent.

Another strategic policy change would be for the federal government to take U.S. workforce and economic conditions into account when setting immigration levels and annual H-1B visa numbers for scientists and engineers. Such a flexible approach would reflect labor market needs, protect American workers’ jobs and wages, and dampen public concerns about employment losses during lean economic times.

Revamp the Antiquated Visa System

Increase the Number of Visas for Highly-skilled Workers

Today’s visa programs for high-skilled workers are not large enough to fill the numerical demand for such employees and are too short in duration. For example, H-1B visas for workers in "specialty occupations" are valid for a maximum of six years. Between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, the federal government increased the annual allocation of H-1B visas for scientists and engineers to 195,000. The rationale was that scientific innovators were so important for the country’s long-term economic development that the number set aside for those specialty professions needed to be high. Since 2004, that number has returned to its former level, 65,000—only a third of the peak, despite rapid technologic change in almost every field, such as information, medicine, energy and logistics.

Most of these visas are allocated within a few months of becoming available. Even in recessionplagued 2009, applications exceeded the supply of visas within three months. Almost half of the visa requests came from U.S. employers, most of them in high-tech industries. Clearly the demand for visas is greater than the supply, and a minimal step would be to raise the set-aside for high-skilled workers to the previous, 195,000 level.

Only a small percentage of aliens with student visas and aliens with H-1B visas are able to change directly to legal permanent resident status—about seven percent of each category, according to a study published in 2005—although about half of H-1B visa-holders eventually become legal permanent residents. Such an uncertain path is not conducive to career (or employment) planning in a competitive environment.

Several additional small programs support talented scientists and entrepreneurs. These, too, could be aligned with economic goals, expanded or more effectively promoted:

• The O-1 "genius" visa program allows the government to authorize visas for people with "extraordinary abilities in the arts, science, education, business, and sports." In 2008, around 45,000 genius visas were granted. The clear intent is to encourage talented people to migrate to America. However, the current program is too diffuse to have much impact on the level of scientific and technological innovation talent in the United States.
   
• The EB-5 visa program offers temporary visas to foreigners who invest at least $500,000 in the nation’s rural or "targeted employment areas" or at least $1,000,000 in other areas. If the investment creates at least ten jobs, the visa automatically becomes a permanent green card. The program is authorized by Congress to offer approximately 10,000 visas per year, but it is significantly underutilized—about 500 EB-5 visas a year were granted between 1992 and 2004. In 2009, 3,688 people did become legal permanent residents under the "employment creation (investors)" category, a number that includes spouses and children.

According to a March 2009 report from the Department of Homeland Security, the causes of the persistent underutilization of this program include "program instability, the changing economic environment, and more inviting immigrant investor programs offered by other countries." The report makes a number of recommendations designed to streamline program administration and encourages greater efforts to promote the program overseas.

Update the Visa System Infrastructure

Aside from questions about the number of visas allowed, the infrastructure for considering and granting visas needs a major upgrade. Currently, the U.S. visa process requires people seeking entry to provide paper copies of sometimes hard-to-obtain documents. Often these are lost in the system and must be submitted repeatedly. Obtaining a visa can take months and, in some cases, years. Implementation of the USA PATRIOT Act has slowed the process even further.

The visa system should adopt digital technology to reduce both errors and delays. Further, if the nation’s immigration policy moves toward a more credential-based approach, any new electronic processes should be designed to minimize the potential that false documents regarding an individual’s education and experience will be accepted.

Tie Immigration Levels to National Economic Indicators

To ease U.S.-born workers’ understandable worries about job competition from immigrants, Congress should tie overall annual levels of immigration to the unemployment rate and growth in the Gross Domestic Product. Immigration levels can be adjusted up or down depending on the level of economic conditions. These fluctuations should occur automatically, triggered by authoritative statistical reports.

Political Hurdles to Immigration Reform

U.S. news reporting on immigration focuses heavily on illegality and largely ignores the benefits of immigration. Sadly, important news organizations follow the tradition set in the 19th century, when many journalists railed against groups of newcomers, such as immigrants from Ireland and China. Immigration opponents’ unfavorable media narratives, often widely publicized, have a discernible impact on public opinion and affect policymaking. The economic, social, and cultural benefits of immigration are rarely reported.

The State of Public Opinion

Immigration does not rank high on Americans’ lists of the country’s most important problems. In 2008, only four percent of Americans (mostly people from Southwestern border states concerned about illegal entry) thought immigration was the country’s most important problem. Even during 2007’s acrimonious national debate about comprehensive reform, 60 percent of Americans believed new arrivals benefit the country. But public opinion can shift quickly, which makes politicians wary. Fifty-seven percent of voters in the November 2010 mid-term election considered immigration a "very important" issue, ranking it 7th and on a par with taxes and national security/war on terror, according to the Rasmussen report.

The Need for Reform Follow-Through

Administration and enforcement of immigration laws and visa programs are complex, in part because federal, state and local officials are involved in various aspects and are overseen by multiple federal agencies. Aligning the goals of these different entities to put an emphasis on the brain gain can help build support for policy improvements.

As the report of a 2009 Brookings Forum on Growth Through Innovation pointed out with regard to promoting innovation more broadly, "while the actions we need to take are clear and reasonably simple to outline, our political culture erects insurmountable barriers to long-term planning, funding and implementation."

Achieving an Improved Immigration Policy

It will be difficult to achieve comprehensive, coherent policy reform in the face of many competing goals and interest groups and in the current polarized political environment. The task is made more difficult by the divided authority over immigration matters within Congress, involving several committees and subcommittees with competing interests and different political dynamics. Individual members of Congress tend to focus on local concerns, forestalling consideration of broad, long-term national interests.

In the past, elected officials have overreacted to specific episodes of problems related to immigrants or anti-immigrant sentiments in developing policy, rather than taking into account long-term national economic priorities. Just as deleterious, stalemate and inaction have prevented needed reforms, despite a frustrating status quo for employers who need talented scientists and engineers, and who could hire many more Americans if they could fill key slots with skilled workers they cannot find in their local workforce.

A spectrum of experts has suggested creation of a broadly representative, independent federal immigration commission that could develop specific policies under parameters set by Congress. Proposals for such a body have the common themes of depoliticization, insulating members from parochial political pressures and relying on technical experts. Given past missteps and the current policy stalemate, it makes sense to consider such proposals seriously, in the hope that all aspects of immigration—especially those that affect U.S. economic vitality—receive the thoughtful attention they need.

Conclusion

The immigration policy reforms in this paper focus on those that would have swift and direct positive impact on the nation’s economy. Clearly, these are not the only reforms the system needs. A fairer, more comprehensive immigration policy also would:

• Develop more effective and cost-effective border control strategies
   
• Strengthen the electronic employment-eligibility ("e-verify") system and add an appeals process
   
• Improve the immigration courts system and the administration of immigration law
   
• Work harder to integrate immigrants into American life and teach them English and
   
• Create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants with requirements that applicants learn English, pay back taxes, and pay fines.

Meanwhile, a number of the needed corrections to the system as it affects national economic goals, employment, innovation, and global competitiveness can be addressed, including:

• Tying visa and immigration levels to U.S. economic indicators, in order to assuage American workers’ concerns about threats to employment and wage levels
   
• Creation of an automatic green card for foreign graduates of U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics educational programs and other steps to make staying in the United States a desirable option
   
• Expansion of visa programs (especially H-1B for highly skilled workers) and making more effective the O-1 and EB-5 visa programs and
   
• Creating a modern, electronic visa system.

2011 Wars

Côte d'Ivoire

Côte d'Ivoire is on the brink of what may be a very bad 2011. After a five-year delay, Côte d'Ivoire held presidential elections on Oct. 31. A peaceful first round of voting was commended by the international community, but the runoff between incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and former Prime Minister Alassane Ouattara was marred by clashes and allegations of fraud on both sides. 

The international community, including the United Nations, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), former colonial power France, and the United States, has recognized Outtara as the victor, but this has not prevented Gbagbo, with the backing of senior military officials and the Constitutional Council, from taking the oath of office. Both politicians have named prime ministers and governments as tension mounts and protests occur in the streets. The United Nations has reported disappearances, rape, and at least two dozen deaths so far.

Worst case scenario: Gbagbo stays in power, armed conflict between the supporters of each side plunges the country into civil war. Best case scenario: Gbagbo succumbs to international appeals and steps down. But it's not clear how things could get better from here. The international community has already ratcheted up pressure, including financial restrictions and travel bans. And the United Nations renewed the mandate of its peacekeeping operation there, despite Gbagbo calling for its immediate departure.

It's very possible that Cote d'Ivoire will take a turn for the worse in 2011. Gbagbo and Ouattara both have heavily armed supporters who seem ready to fight for the long haul.

Colombia

At first glance, Colombia's prospects for 2011 look bright. The country's new president, Juan Manuel Santos, has surprised many former critics with his bold reform proposals, many of which are aimed at addressing the root causes of the country's 46-year civil conflict against leftist rebels. He has mended relations with neighbouring Venezuela and Ecuador, committed to protect human rights advocates, and proposed legislation to help resettle the country's four million displaced. 

The news is not all good, however. Despite a series of strategic losses in recent years -- from territory to key leadership -- the country's leftist guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), still maintain about 8,000 armed troops and perhaps twice that number of supporters. The rebels killed some 30 police in the weeks after Santos's inauguration, clearly to make a point. Meanwhile, new illegal armed groups have sprung up to capture the drug trafficking market, their ranks filled with former paramilitary fighters. These gangs are largely responsible for the rising incidence of urban violence; homicide rates have gone up by over 100 percent in Colombia's second city, Medellín, last year.

If these new armed groups are not contained, Colombia stands to regress in its long fight to finally root out the drug trade -- and the militancy it fuels. In such a scenario, FARC could see a comeback, restarting its campaign of terror in the country's major cities. As has been the case so often in Colombia's recent history, it would be the civilian population who would suffer most from such a return to conflict.

Yet the opposite scenario is equally likely in the coming months. Santos has worked with his counterparts in Venezuela and Ecuador to increase border surveillance, putting pressure on illegal armed groups holed up there. Under such pressure, FARC may even welcome the chance to start talks with the government about disarmament and reintegration. Much rests in this government's hands.

Zimbabwe

Keep an eye on Zimbabwe in 2011 as the country's "unity" government -- joining longtime President Robert Mugabe with opposition leader Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai -- will warrant its conciliatory name less and less by the day. The flashpoint next year? Elections. Both men want to hold them -- but they don't agree about what Zimbabweans should be voting on. 

Mugabe and Tsvangirai were never going to be fast friends. Since the two were brought together in February 2009, following a 2008 election that Tsvangirai won (but his opponent refused to recognize), Mugabe has continued to monopolize the real levers of power. Despite Tsvangirai's protests, it's Mugabe who still holds sway over the army, the security forces, and all the state functions that generate revenue.

Earlier this fall, Mugabe declared that he wanted the unity government to end in 2011. He wants full elections mid-next year, and his party, ZANU-PF, is giving every indication that it will employ the same coercive tactics used in elections past to deliver victory to Mugabe. Tsvangirai's idea of the 2011 ballot is quite different: he wants to pass a new constitution. 

The row over elections has pushed the nominal two-year truce between Mugabe and Tsvangirai toward the verge of collapse. Open violence could break out around the elections unless regional and international mediators negotiate a compromise and bring real pressure to bear on Mugabe to play by the rules.

Iraq

Iraq today is in far better shape than it was in 2007, when nearly two dozen Iraqis were dying each day in suicide bombings. But it's still far from out of the woods. And these days, it's not militants but the country's politics that post the biggest threat. The new government, formed in December after nine months of wrangling, is weak and lacks the institutions to rule effectively. Iraq's bureaucracies are nascent and fragile, and its security forces remain heavily dependent on U.S. training as well as logistics and intelligence support. Meanwhile, grievances abound -- from minority groups to repatriated refugees -- and it is unlikely that the state will be able to appease these many political demands. Sectarian violence resurfaces in fits and spurts, and is far from quashed entirely; approximately 300 Iraqis died in violence in November. 

Iraq's neighbors could exploit the country's ongoing political turmoil to gain influence and sway, particularly Iran, which has long supported Shiite militants. Insurgents also await an opportunity to capitalize on political discord. At the same time, U.S. troops will be largely -- if not entirely -- withdrawn by the end of next year. And lacking that safety net, it would take very little for the country to lapse back into conflict.

That course is not inevitable, however. More likely, Iraq will continue on its current trajectory, retaining enough stability to keep its citizens relatively safe, even if services remain deficient. But in a muddle-through scenario, it may be the best the country can reasonably hope for as it emerges from an 8-year U.S. occupation. 

Venezuela

Over the next 12 months, watch for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to take his brand of 21st-century socialism to the extremes. Having lost his majority in Parliament in September, Chávez has since been working hard to ensure that the new, opposition legislature will be irrelevant by the time it is sworn in in January. The Venezuelan president has consolidated control over the military and police, seized more private companies, and won temporary "decree powers" from the outgoing, pro-government National Assembly.

Chávez's power grab comes as the country's economic, social, and security problems are mounting. Violence has spiked dramatically in urban areas; there were some 19,000 homicides in 2009 out of a population of 28 million. In recent years, Venezuela has become a major drug-trafficking corridor, home to foreign and domestic cartels alike. State security forces have also been accused of participating in criminal activity. Meanwhile, Chávez has escalated -- rather than soothed -- the situation with fiery, partisan rhetoric that seems to egg on a violent suppression of the opposition. That message has an audience; government-allied street gangs in Caracas stand ready to defend his revolution with Kalashnikovs. 

Sudan

The fate of Sudan in 2011 will be set early, on January 9, when a referendum on southern self-determination is scheduled to take place, and which will likely result in independence for the south. Two decades of war came to an end in Sudan in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). But as the agreement enters its last stages, however, that delicate peace will be tested. While securing the referendum has been an international priority, the long-term stability of the region relies on the ability of north and south Sudan to forge a positive post-CPA relationship. 

If matters go well, the January referendum will take place smoothly, with its results respected by the government in Khartoum. This would provide the perfect platform for negotiations on post-referendum arrangements to be successfully concluded. But should the vote go poorly, we might witness the reignition of conflict between north and south and an escalation of violence in Darfur, all of which could potentially draw in regional states. At this point, nothing is certain.

Finally, there's the tricky matter of creating a new, independent Southern Sudan, which many are already dubbing a pre-failed state. The border remains undecided -- no small matter since the contested middle ground happens to sit on a large oil field. Meanwhile in Juba, the nascent capital, institutions and services would urgently need to be built from scratch. 

Mexico

It has been four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderón declared war on the country's drug lords. During that time, 30,000 people have fallen victim to the conflict, many of them along the northern border with the United States, largely as a result of in-fighting among rival gangs vying for control of trafficking corridors. Today, Ciudad Juarez, a border city near Texas, competes with Caracas as the most deadly city in the world. Over the last 12 months, the violence has spread to Mexico's economic and cultural hubs that were once considered immune from drug infiltration. To the north, Mexico's organized crime routes now reach into nearly every metropolitan area of the United States. 

In short, despite a $400 million annual aid package from the United States, and big boosts in funding for the military, it's far from clear whether the government of Mexico is winning -- or can win -- this battle.

During the last year in particular, Calderón has been criticized for the conduct of the narco war. Not only is it difficult to pinpoint clear progress, but for many, life has visibly deteriorated since the crackdown began. Twenty times more Mexicans have died during the last four years than Americans have in the entire war in Afghanistan. Two gubernatorial candidates and 11 mayors have been assassinated. The press is under increasing pressure to self-censor. One paper in Ciudad Juárez went as far as asking, in an open letter to the cartels, what it was that they were allowed to publish. 

"Winning" would require a hard look at the Mexican military and police, which have been credibly accused of committing flagrant abuses while fighting the drug gangs. The judicial system likewise needs strengthening to bring the guilty to fair trial. And, of course, much depends on Mexico's northern neighbor: America remains the largest market for drugs in the world, and so long as U.S. users demand product, the cartels will keep the supply flowing. 

Guatemala

Mexico's drug war is also sending shock waves throughout Latin America. Under pressure from the Mexican state, the most infamous cartels are seeking friendlier ground and finding it in Guatemala, where the state is weak and the institutions are fragile. In the worst-case scenario for 2011, Guatemala could be host to a perpetual turf war of attrition between these various cartels, all competing to control drug-trafficking routes -- and increasingly human-trafficking corridors -- to the United States. 

So far, Guatemala's best ally in fighting back has been the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), a tribunal-like institution set up to root out corrupt and cartel-tainted officials. But its star prosecutor recently resigned, claiming that the political leadership was thwarting his work.* Presidential elections are slotted for August, but early polls suggest a polarized nation, with around 20 candidates and no clear front-runner. That's just the sort of uncertainty that cartels are good at exploiting. 

Haiti

Nature had it in for Haiti in 2010, but it may be politics that batters the small island country in the coming year. The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere began the year with a devastating January earthquake that killed more than 300,000, a deadly cholera outbreak, and a tortuously slow reconstruction process, which remains way off the pace and beset with difficulties. A November 28 presidential election, which should have led to the election of a new, legitimate government, remains wedged in an impasse over allegations of fraud. The winner won't be decided until a run-off vote is held in January, but protests have already erupted over what some saw as the unfair exclusion of certain candidates in the second round. At least a dozen lives have been lost in the street clashes so far. 

Already, Haiti was on the verge of a social breakdown. Today, more than 1 million Haitians remain homeless in the ruined capital. The government, whose ranks and infrastructure were devastated by the earthquake, has no capacity to deliver services or provide security. And international aid groups and U.N. peacekeepers can only plug those gaps temporarily. Relief work has also been hampered by a lack of funding. Despite big promises from international donors, dollars have been slow to trickle into the country.

This precarious situation will make for an enormous challenge if and when a new government does at last come to power next year. The run-off election will mark a year since the earthquake, with little improvement in the everyday lives of Haitians, whose patience is running out. 

Tajikistan

Tajikistan, a land of striking beauty, grinding poverty, and rapacious leaders, could well become the next stomping ground for guerrillas -- Central Asians and other Muslims from the former Soviet Union -- who have been fighting alongside the Taliban for years and may now be thinking of returning home to settle scores with the region's brutal and corrupt leaders. 

Run since 1992 by Emomali Rahmon, a post-Soviet strongman, Tajikistan has been hollowed out by top-to-bottom corruption. A U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks has an American diplomat noting that "From the President down to the policeman on the street, government is characterized by cronyism and corruption. Rahmon and his family control the country's major businesses, including the largest bank, and they play hardball to protect their business interests, no matter the cost to the economy writ large." 

Not surprisingly in such an environment, most public services -- including the health system -- have all but collapsed. The economy survives on remittances from migrant laborers in Russia, and roughly half of the country's population lives below the poverty line. It is a dangerous brew for instability.

In recent months, the Tajik government has attempted to crack down against Islamist insurgent groups who have crossed the border from northern Afghanistan, but to little effect. There is rising concern in Washington that Tajikistan will become the new theater of operations for Islamic militants, and might offer a convenient route for insurgent penetration of other volatile or vulnerable parts of Central Asia -- first off, Tajikistan's desperately weak neighbor, Kyrgyzstan.

In the coming year, it's easy to imagine Tajikistan sliding further and further toward a failed state as the government quietly cedes control of whole sections of the country to militants. Even if the Afghan militants were out of the picture, however, Tajikistan's democratic prospects would look bleak. As the American cable put it, "The government is not willing to reform its political process."

Pakistan

It's hard to remember a time when Pakistan didn't seem on the brink of collapse. This coming year will likely be no exception. The country faces a humanitarian crisis in its mid-section where floods displaced 10 million people, a security threat from terrorist groups operating on Pakistani soil, and political instability from a weak administration still trying to wield civilian control over the all-powerful military. 

The most immediate priority is assisting the millions of people who are still displaced following floods in Pakistan's countryside. The cities could also use attention; 2010 saw the biggest spike in urban terrorist attacks since the war next door in Afghanistan started. Insurgent and terrorist groups now have strongholds not just in the northwestern tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, but in urban centers such as Islamabad, Karachi, Quetta, and Lahore. Yet despite the flurry of attacks on its heartland, Pakistan still seems reluctant to confront the insurgents with full force. So far, military operations against terrorist groups have vacillated between the extremes -- either heavy-handed and haphazard force or ill-conceived peace deals. Further, the criminal justice system has failed totally to preempt, investigate, and convict militants. Violence may well spike again in 2011. 

Meanwhile in Islamabad, the civilian leadership under President Asif Ali Zardari has grown unpopular and weak, plagued by corruption and an inability to maintain control of the military leaders. Civilian control over national security policy, in both the domestic and external domains, could help put the criminal genie back in the bottle. Stronger civilian leadership of the humanitarian agenda would also prevent the millions living in regions devastated by the massive monsoon floods of 2010 -- in the conflict-hit zones in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and also in the Pakistani heartland -- from becoming a soft target for militants. However, clashes between the judiciary and Zardari, and the military's propensity to destabilize elected governments, could result in the democratic transition faltering and even failing, with grave consequences for an already fragile state. 

Somalia

If Somalia keeps heading south in 2011, the entire country could fall under Islamist insurgent control. Up to now, the country's U.N.-backed transitional government has withstood attacks from Islamist insurgents only thanks to protection from an African Union peacekeeping force; it remains weak and divided, a national government in name alone. Further, the capital city of Mogadishu is under perpetual siege by militants, a reality that has sent millions fleeing from their homes in this year alone. When the government does make gains on the insurgents, they are counted in mere city blocks, captured one by one.

The largest and most alarming insurgent group is al Shabab, which professes to desire the creation of a strict, conservative Muslim state and portions of whose leadership pledged allegiance to al Qaeda in early 2010. The group already controls most of southern and central Somalia and is currently trying to capture Mogadishu. Meanwhile, Somalia's neighbors fear that al Shabab will begin to export terrorism, as it did for the first time last summer in a series of bombings in Uganda during the World Cup. 

That said, Somaliland in the country's northwest is an island of stability and democracy, and Puntland in the northeast is relatively peaceful, if troubled by Islamists and pirate gangs.

The best hope for Somalia is for its forces to exploit the divisions among the insurgency to recapture territory, particularly in Mogadishu. International support, already forthcoming, will help. But so would a lot of luck.

Lebanon

Still smarting from a war with Israel in 2006 that left a precarious balance of power between Christians and Islamic fundamentalists, Lebanon today is arguably more than ever on the brink. 

In the coming months, an international tribunal is expected to issue indictments against Hezbollah members for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a step that could spark sectarian strife throughout the country. Most alarmingly, the indictments could unravel a fragile inter-Lebanese power-sharing agreement reached in Doha in 2008. In that scenario, Lebanon could see a return to political assassinations, all-out sectarian strife, or attempts by Hezbollah to assert greater political or military control. None of these scenarios are far-fetched in the coming year; indeed, they have all happened in Lebanon's very recent past. The fact that it is so hard to imagine both how the current status quo may survive and how exactly it will unravel says volumes about the state of uncertainty and shakiness which afflicts the country. 

In addition to Lebanon's internal political unraveling, the country risks sliding back into war with Israel. Nearly five years after the 2006 war, relations between the two countries are both exceptionally quiet and uniquely dangerous -- for the same reason: On both sides of Israel's northern border, the build-up in military forces and threats of an all-out war that would spare neither civilians nor civilian infrastructure, together with the worrisome prospect of its regionalization, have had a deterrent effect on all. Today, none of the parties can soberly contemplate the prospect of a conflict that would come at greater cost to themselves, be more difficult to contain, and be less predictable in outcome than anything they witnessed in the past. 

But that is only the better half of the story. Beneath the surface, tensions are mounting with no obvious safety valve. The deterrence regime has helped keep the peace, but the process it perpetuates -- mutually reinforcing military preparations, Hezbollah's growing and more sophisticated arsenal, escalating Israeli threats -- pulls in the opposite direction and could trigger the very result it has averted so far.

Nigeria

Nigeria's 2010 was about as rough as they come: The country's president disappeared on medical leave -- and then died -- hundreds were killed in sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians in the country's middle belt, and a rebel amnesty in the oil-producing Niger Delta region completely unraveled, leading to a string of bombing attacks and kidnappings. 

And 2011 also looks rocky for Africa's most populous country. A presidential election is slated to be held in the spring; the last election in 2007 left international observers awestruck by flagrant intimidation and ballot stuffing. Voting in Nigeria has never been a pretty affair, and despite promises to reform the electoral system, the old habits of intimidation and vote buying die hard. After the polling does takes place, post-election turmoil is also entirely possible, particularly if one region or group is unhappy with the result. Nigeria's many regions -- north, south, west, east, and everything in between -- count on office-holders to pass out patronage and favors, so the stakes of losing are high.

Whoever it may be, Nigeria's new leader will have urgent tasks ahead. The rebellion in the Niger Delta is flaring up again, with militants promising to continue attacking oil facilities and government offices. A once effective anti-corruption commission has lost its momentum. And vast economic inequality is the order of the day, leaving oil wealth in the hands of a few while the majority of the country's 140 million people languish.

Guinea

Guinea enters 2011 on a hopeful path. In December, the West African country inaugurated its first-ever elected leader, Alpha Condé. After decades of strongman rule, followed by a 2009 coup, this new leadership seems nothing less than miraculous. 

Yet the back-story offers some sense of just how deep tensions run. After the country's president died in December 2008, a small group of military leaders took over, declaring themselves the new leaders of Guinea. So corrupt and ineffectual had the former president been that many welcomed the junta's rule. But it soon became apparent that the military president, Moussa Dadis Camara, was equally inept. The pinnacle of that failure came in September 2009, when his troops massacred over 150 peaceful protestors in a local stadium.

International condemnation flooded the country, putting pressure on the junta to hold elections. Meanwhile, Camara was shot by a fellow junta member and sent to Morocco for treatment. His successor, Gen. Sekouba Konate, appointed a civilian interim leader and organized the recent election. 

But throughout the junta's brief reign, the military took the opportunity to enrich and entrench its role in the economy, a fact that remains today despite the nominal civilian leadership. Guinea's military now has a strong stake in controlling mineral wealth -- the country is the world's largest producer of bauxite -- and other major industries. In the past, it has used strong-arm tactics to get its way, economically and otherwise, and this old habit will surely die hard. Having tasted the fruits of power under the junta, the military may not so easily return to its barracks.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

Years after the official end of the Second Congo War, which raged from 1998 to 2003 and was responsible for up to 4.5 million deaths, whole swathes of the enormous Central African country remain in upheaval. In the eastern Kivu provinces, an undisciplined national army battles with rebel groups for territorial control. Amid the frenzy of violence and rape that follows in their path, the world's largest U.N. peacekeeping force is at a loss to protect even those civilians that live close to its bases. 

Lurking behind the conflict is Congo's vast natural wealth, the very embodiment of the so-called resource curse. Government, militants, private corporations, and local citizens all angle to tap the gold, cobalt, copper, coltan and host of other minerals under the country's soil -- which are focused in the east and south of the country. Meanwhile, the central government lies nearly 1,000 miles to the west, separated from its eastern provinces by impenetrable jungle, a different language, and ethnicity. Rebel groups still roam the eastern border regions, exercising their authority with impunity and cruelty. Neither the government nor rebel groups have the strength to win, but both have the resources to keep fighting indefinitely. 

Adding to the misery are appalling humanitarian conditions. Only a third of Congolese in rural areas have access to clean water, an estimated 16,000 children die each year before ever reaching the age of five, and life expectancy has actually fallen by five years since 1990.

Unless the Congolese and regional governments try different tactics, there is no end in sight to Congo's troubles. In an ideal world, military campaigns in North and South Kivu provinces would be suspended until better-trained troops can be deployed -- troops than can carry out targeted operations while protecting civilians. Meanwhile, governments in Africa's Great Lakes region should convene a summit and negotiate agreements on economic, land, and population-movement issues. A worst-case scenario would see more of the same: a mosaic of armed groups in eastern Congo continue to fight indefinitely, with civilians paying a terrible price.

Source - Foreign Policy

Southern Sudan: starting from scratch

Southern Sudan's secession presents a delicate mix of risk and opportunity for both the government and its people.

As expected, South Sudan has voted overwhelmingly for independence from the north. The new state will face huge challenges quite apart from the disputed areas, southern Sudan already has some of the world's worst indicators for health, education and social welfare, and much of the population is already dependent on outside food aid. Some have already suggested it could be the world's first "pre-failed state".

But pre-judging the country is unfair, says Wol Mayer Ariec, secretary for political and social affairs at the new government of South Sudan diplomatic mission to the UK.

"Why do people talk about us being a pre-failed state when so many supposedly developed countries are currently having to be bailed out due to the financial crisis? Do we describe them as failed states?" he says.

"Of course we recognise that we face tremendous challenges across the board, but surely we shouldn't be pre-judged, before we've even had the opportunity to start. We have begun to establish institutions and provide basic services, but we really are starting from scratch. After decades of war, destruction and neglect and the mass displacement of entire populations, this is essentially Year Zero in terms of development for south Sudan".

"Given the opportunity of peace and stability, the resolve of our leadership, the support of the people of south Sudan and the continued generous assistance of the international community, I am sure that we can overcome these challenges."

However, Ariec is clear that he does not want southern Sudan to become dependent on aid, and wants the country to "stand on our own feet" as soon as possible. He believes it to be in "everyone's interests" to ensure a peaceful separation of Sudan that leaves two viable new states that are economically successful.

"With peace, security and stability, we will be able to prioritise our agricultural economy and intend to use our future oil revenues to assist rural productivity. We need to invest in developing our people's capacities by improving education and health services, communications and rural infrastructure so that we can achieve agricultural self-sufficiency.

"Our entire emphasis is on development, and we are eager to attract inward investment to help us realise our full potential. We are rich in land, people and resources and there are tremendous opportunities for those willing to invest in the world's newest emerging economy. We hope that the donors understand what we are trying to do and will continue to support our efforts."

It is indeed true that south Sudan is resource-rich, and oil will perhaps be the most thorny issue to be thrashed out between the new government and Khartoum. Three-quarters of Sudan's oil reserves are likely to end up in the new southern Sudanese state. As Madeleine Bunting wrote earlier this month, a new oil revenue-sharing agreement will now need to be negotiated, and it appears the south will be pushing for a greater share of the wealth.

"Clearly we are going to have to come to an agreement over future share of oil revenues. The government of south Sudan's budget is almost entirely dependent on oil receipts - some $2bn a year. We pay the same amount or more to Khartoum each year. We are not greedy but the people of South Sudan expect a greater share. The pipeline and refineries are in north Sudan so their people will continue to share the benefits of our oil, but these benefits need to be proportionate. We can't be expected to continue paying half our revenue to Khartoum."

And Ariec rejects any suggestion that Khartoum's estimated $35bn debt should be shared equally with the south. "Personally I don't believe we owe debts to anyone but the people of south Sudan. We owe them peace and security, accountability, good governance and development; we owe it to them to end hunger and poverty. How can we repay them if we also have to repay the debts incurred by Khartoum? How can we be expected to stand on our own feet if we have to repay the costs of decades of war waged against us?"

Ariec accepts that the months ahead will not be easy, but he remains optimistic.

"There are still several issues to be resolved, including the status of Abyei and the contested areas of South Kordofan and Blue Nile, as well as border demarcation, citizenship and future sharing of resources. There is a framework agreement for discussion of post-referendum issues but exact details still need to be worked out. We hope the NCP will continue to apply the same generous spirit that they have shown in allowing the referendum to take place on time and will help us resolve all the outstanding issues before July, in accordance with the comprehensive peace agreement."

He adds: "Although we are now poised for secession, we realise that this historic moment is just the first step in the long process of achieving freedom, reconstruction and prosperity for the people of south Sudan. It is a new beginning but we know we have a long road ahead of us.

Peter Moszynski

Source - Guardian

Will no-one shed a tear for Belgium?

A country that doesn’t exist anymore doesn’t need a government anymore either. Is the Belgian political crisis a portent of the shape of things to come in Europe? asks the FAZ.

Dirk Schümer

For over 200 days now Belgium’s politicians have been trying in vain to put together a new government. Can the country do without a central authority? Amid the ongoing euro crisis, can Europe easily ride out a power vacuum in Brussels of all places? Or will the monarchy valiantly leap into the breach? Actually, none of the above.

Even the wiliest negotiators around can’t seem to come up with a mutually acceptable compromise anymore to unravel the old Gordion’s knot of power-sharing between the central government and the Flemish and Wallonian parts of the country. The situation has reached a total impasse. Not only experts in constitutional law, but even hardened Belgian citizens are asking what elections are held for in the first place if those elected can’t even form a functional administration.

Embittered Belgians relish the prospect of two new nations

Given the choice, many would prefer the pugnacious voting system depicted in Asterix in Corsica. In the comic book take on the Mediterranean island, the ballots are thrown into boxes, which are promptly flung into the sea. Then there’s a punch-up and the toughest pugilist gets to be chief. Such a democratic free-for-all would probably be necessary if the Flemish employers association were to have their heart’s desire: a strong government with a mandate to reform the state so as to secure sound economic policies, a balanced budget and workable solutions for the future of the job market, unemployment benefits and pensions.

Most Belgians would probably only snigger sardonically at this wish list. The fact is the infighting political establishment is so far from addressing any of those issues that they have long since openly begun talks to split up the two parts of the country for good.

More and more embittered Belgians relish the prospect of two new nations at Europe’s administrative core, while the neighbours are rubbing their eyes in disbelief. Hasn’t a nation whose French speakers let its Dutch speakers bankroll them on a mammoth scale, even while brazenly ignoring Flemish culture and history, lost its raison d’être?

EU bears a striking resemblance to Belgium

How to run Europe’s capital – an historically Flemish and now mostly French-speaking city wedged in between Wallonia and Flanders – in nuts-and-bolts terms of transport, schools and urban planning: that is the subject of the most convoluted passages in the various draft compromises, all of which have foundered on the privileges of the French-speaking community.

Looking at this Kafkaesque muddle, it’s hard to believe suchlike trifles could end up tearing apart the lively capital of a multilingual, multicultural economic zone stretching from Lapland to the Canary Islands, from Ireland to the Danube Delta. How can Europe consider itself a bastion of linguistic pluralism and cultural openmindedness when militant Francophonie is banging away at its ideological drums on the EU capital’s borders? And how are Cypriots and Turks, Irish and Britons, Catalans and Castilians, Basques and Frenchman, South Tyroleans and Italians, Hungarians and Slovaks, Latvians and Russians ever to come to terms if the Belgians bury the great diversity project after nearly 200 years?

Without any real democratic mandate, Belgium handled its turn at the EU presidency [second half of 2010] like clockwork – what with a Belgian, Herman van Rompuy, in pole position as European Council president. And that’s no coincidence. With its inscrutable federal power-sharing and language accords, the country has bred a species of administrators who are savvy, infinitely patient, and quite at home in the ginormous engine rooms of the EU deal-making factory. In a way, the EU bears a striking resemblance to this Belgium.

Apparently the EU doesn’t keep strong nation-states together, but wobbly constructs, as can be observed in real time in fast-eroding countries like Greece or Ireland that are now run de facto by EU cost-cutting committees. Does that go to show that, in this age of automated administration, a weak state doesn’t need a government anymore, just some transfer payments? Are politicians nothing but limelight hogs for the show business of electioneering and press conferences?

The government deadlock actually jeopardises the economy, not the functioning of federal power-sharing systems that were put in place long ago. Ultimately, the disintegration of this model European state now only hinges on the medium-term costs of a breakup. In emotional terms, no-one sheds a tear for this Belgium anymore.

With the EU currently vetting new candidates for accession, namely Iceland and Croatia, and with its single currency crumbling before its very eyes, all this also goes to show that everything is in flux on this malleable continent. Nations are not eternal, though languages and traditions turn out to be extremely resilient. In a globally networked economy, every now and then one state or another can indeed become superfluous. Politics in present-day Belgium, at any rate, seems to be reduced to a mise-en-scène of symbolism and spectacle.

Translated from the German by Eric Rosencrantz
Source - Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Frankfurt

Albert II

The most powerful monarch in Europe

The last three and a half years of institutional chaos in Belgium have turned Albert II into “the only king with wide-ranging powers in Europe”, considers El Mundo. In the absence of a permanent government seven months after the elections, King Albert II recently asked caretaker prime minister Yves Leterme to cut the 2011 budget deficit. This “unprecedented gesture” coincides with increasing market pressure over Belgium’s inability to handle its high public debt, but in the country’s long-running political crisis the king had previously “mediated between political groups, named transition cabinets, given instructions to acting politicians and convinced leaders to continue negotiating”. El Mundo explains Albert II “already had experience in reigning without government”, because in 2007 it took Leterme nine months to become prime minister, but now “the missions he entrusts are more precise and more political”. The Spanish daily concludes that the Belgian king “has seen his powers reinforced in practice by the paralysis of a country unable to negotiate conciliation between the Flemish and French-speaking populations”.

Why the U.S. Should Cheer Tunisia's Dangerous Revolution

What are we to make of the tumult in Tunis? Few uprisings in recent memory have materialized as suddenly and produced results as swiftly as Tunisia's Jasmine Revolution. Just one month ago, former President Zine el-Abdine Ben Ali and his clan luxuriated in the kind of outrageous fortune that only two decades of U.S.-backed, kleptocratic rule can buy: beachfront villas, pet tigers, ice cream flown in from St. Tropez. Now they can't even keep their rooms at Euro Disney. The fall of such a corrupt and repressive dictator has set off celebrations among activists throughout the Middle East. Even the White House found itself cheering the ouster of a man it once considered a reliable ally. "Tunisia's future will be brighter," President Obama said, "if it is guided by the voices of its people.

Maybe. But the euphoria in Tunis has been short-lived. The forty-eight hours following Ben Ali's abdication were marked by riots, gun battles, prison breaks and not one, but two, changes of government. The collapse of authority has encouraged the country's security forces to settle scores on their own. It's possible Tunisia may eventually transform itself into a stable, representative democracy. But the country is likely in for a period of chronic upheaval and political strife - the conditions in which militants and strongmen thrive.

And so the Tunisian revolution should give us pause. For a time after 9/11, the U.S.'s foreign policy in the Middle East was guided by the "liberty agenda": a belief that implanting democracy in the Arab world would help combat Islamic radicalism. Historic, free elections have indeed come off in places like Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories - and yet radicalism remains. If anything, democracy has made anti-Western forces more assertive, not less, and exacerbated political tensions rather than resolving them. As a result, foreign-policy realists - including many in the Obama Administration - tend to treat events like the Tunisian revolt with caution. In their eyes, further democratization in the region could destabilize traditional U.S. allies, like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, at a time when Washington needs their help to root out al-Qaeda and contain a rising Iran.

And yet the velocity of the Tunisian revolution suggests that anti-establishment forces in the region may be stronger and more pervasive than many in the West had assumed. Ben-Ali's overthrow also shows that the support of the United States is no longer sufficient to protect Arab strongmen who lack popular legitimacy. Whether the U.S. likes it or not, Tunis-style clashes between young, restless Arab populations and their sclerotic, Western-backed leaders are bound to become more common.

So whose side should we be on? Perhaps the biggest mistake made by advocates of the liberty agenda was their claim that democratization would reduce the threat of terrorism. In fact, allowing people to vote in elections has little impact on whether or not they will become terrorists. The frustration that fuels militancy in the Arab world has less to do with politics than with the region's stagnant growth relative to the rest of the world - the result of outdated education systems, gender inequality and underinvestment in industries other than oil. Finding solutions to those problems is critical to the life prospects of tens of millions of Arabs. But doing so will be impossible so long as decision-making power remains in the hands of the same ruling clans who allowed their societies to fall so far behind in the first place.

The reasons for seeking freer and more democratic Arab societies have less to do with our future than with theirs. At this point, the U.S. can't openly stump for democracy in the Middle East. Our influence is at a low ebb. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Washington's strong support for Israel have tarnished our image in the region. Among Arabs, the most admired world leaders are those who most consistently stand up to the U.S. and Israel. But simply because our name is mud doesn't mean democracy's must be too. Tunisia's revolutionaries, after all, didn't need our endorsement to throw off the yoke of despotism. The experience of the last decade has convinced Americans that we shouldn't be in the business of imposing democracy at the point of a gun. But it's never been in our interests to stand in the way of democracy either.

Lending moral support to activists in Tunis or Cairo or Riyadh won't on its own make the U.S. any more secure. But it would provide an opportunity for us to realign our policies with our ideals and, perhaps, earn some trust with a generation of Arabs yearning to seize control of their destinies. "I can't believe my eyes!" one Bahraini blogger tweeted about Tunisia. "An Arab nation woke up and said enough!!!" It's time that we did too. (Comment on this story.)

Ratnesar, a TIME contributing editor-at-large, is a Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of Tear Down This Wall: A City, a President, and the Speech That Ended the Cold War. His column on global affairs appears every Monday on TIME.com.

The Tunisia Effect: Will Its "Hunger Revolution" Spread?

By Angela Shah / Dubai Sunday, Jan. 16, 2011

No group is watching the events unfold in Tunisia more closely than fellow Arabs, most of whom live under autocratic governments and are feeling the same economic pinches of bleak job prospects and high food prices. Ali Dahmash, an activist who runs a social media agency in Amman, called it a "hunger revolution." Says Dahmash, "This is not just about politics and having a kind of freedom of speech or religion. This came out of despair. It was because of the economy."

Mishaal Al Gergawi, an Emirati commentator and businessman, agrees. "Tunisians and Algerians are hungry. The Egyptians and Yemenis are right behind them," he wrote Sunday in a Dubai newspaper column. He referred to the young Tunisian vegetable seller who immolated himself in the town of Sidi Bouzid several weeks ago to protest police preventing him from doing business, thus setting off the revolt. "Mohamed Bouazizi didn't set himself on fire because he couldn't blog or vote. People set themselves on fire because they can't stand seeing their family wither away slowly, not of sorrow, but of cold stark hunger."

Over the weekend, the social networking site Twitter exploded with posts from both the Arab world and its disapora in English, French and Arabic. They cheered on the Tunisian protesters and speculated which Arab leader might be the next to go. Posts quite openly called for the ouster of Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak or Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. "Algeria is even worse than in Tunis. The police will actually go ... well, it's very vicious," Dahmash says. "In Egypt, the president has been there for 27 years in a [perpetual] state of emergency. With that, they can do anything in the country."

Like Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt have economies plagued by high food prices and a lack of jobs. On Sunday, protests broke out in Libya despite a speech by Gadhafi that rebuked Tunisian protesters for impatience, saying they should have waited for Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to step down in three years, as he had said he would. At the Tunisian embassies in Amman and Cairo, protesters gathered to express their frustrations while supporting the movement in Tunisia. One twitter poster even advised Queen Rania of Jordan that she should go palace-hunting in Jeddah — the coastal Saudi city is where Ben Ali fled Friday night after fleeing the country.

Still, for all the demonstrating in Arab capitals and candor on social websites, some Arabs are still reluctant to speak publicly of regime change in the Arab world. "The leaders are all genuinely paying close attention to this," says a Syrian executive who lives in Dubai. "They're thinking, 'Holy moley, how are we going to manage this?'"

Dahmash agrees. Ben Ali fled Tunis on Friday, and by Saturday morning, Dahmash says, food prices in the Jordanian capital had decreased by about 5% — probably upon orders of the government. More than the number, the reduction "is a sign of fear, in my opinion," he says.

Expatriate Tunisians like Walid Cherif are watching events unfold at home with a mixture of excitement and disbelief. "If you had asked me a week ago, none of us would've even imagined this happening," he says. "I'm very proud of it." He's not sure, however, that events in Tunisia will lead to revolt in the rest of the Arab world. Tunisia has always been different from its Arab siblings, he says. "Tunisia is known as one of the most progressive Arab countries in the world," We're the only country where polygamy is illegal in the Muslim world. Did that happen in other Arab countries? No.

In the meantime, Tunisia is still searching for a new person to lead it. Since gaining independence from France in 1962, the country has had only two leaders. During the past weekend, it had three. The army has imposed a dusk-to-dawn curfew, and there have been reports of violence. Fires in two prisons have killed dozens. Despite the current chaos, Dahmash says he thinks the revolt will lead to a stable, legitimate government. Unlike much of the Arab world, Tunisia, he says, "has well-developed institutions. The people are mature and well-informed.

That should help what's being called the "Jasmine Revolution" to flower, compared to the unrest and violence that has plagued Iraq since U.S. soldiers forced Saddam Hussein from power. Cherif, who grew up in Tunis and left North Africa in 1996 to study for an M.B.A. at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., says he believes the events of the weekend are the start of a peaceful, more inclusive future for his country. "We're sure we're never going to have a dictator in the future, because whoever is going to come as president knows the power of the people," he says. "If they want to be a regime in total control like before, they'll have to think about it twice."

Source - Time (UK)

Польські волонтери зібрали майже 10 мільйонів євро для хворих дітей

Варшава – Варшавську неурядову організацію «Оркестр святкової допомоги» називають польським феноменом. Сьогодні вранці ця організація побила свій власний рекорд із попередніх років: упродовж доби вона зібрала на добродійні цілі майже 40 мільйонів злотих, тобто приблизно 10 мільйонів євро. На зібрані по всій країні гроші «Оркрестр святкової допомоги» придбає дороге медичне обладнання для дитячих лікарень.

Учора вся Польща вже вдев’ятнадцяте розцвіла червоними сердечками. 120 тисяч волонтерів «Оркестру святкової допомоги» вийшли на вулиці польських міст і сіл, аби збирати у перехожих гроші на допомогу важкохворим дітям. Кожен жертводавець отримав від волонтера червоне паперове серце, що символізує милосердя. Таких сердечок волонтери роздали майже 30 мільйонів.

Шоумен Єжи Овсяк, незмінний лідер «Оркестру», пояснює успіх свого проекту тим, що люди максимально поінформовані про те, на що саме організація витрачає зібрані пожертви. Він каже, що здебільшого поляки нескупі, та вони набагато охочіше дають гроші тим організаціям, котрі вміють донести до широких мас населення інформацію про цілі та результати своїх благодійних проектів. За словами Овсяка, саме у такій максимальній прозорості використання коштів полягає секрет успіху «Оркестру святкової допомоги». Процес підрахунку зібраних «Оркестром» грошей та їхнього використання постійно висвітлюється у польських медіа.

Малюків рятували шарф Далай-лами та кубик від самого Рубика

Аби заохотити поляків до благодійності, «Оркестр святкової допомоги» організовує по всій країні харитативні концерти, під час яких популярні співаки й актори закликають до милосердя та щедрості.

Учора в Польщі відбулося 800 таких концертів. Цікаво, що значні суми вдається зібрати під час оригінальних аукціонів. Причому речі для продажу на добродійних польських аукціонах надають не тільки поляки. Скажімо, цього року на аукціон потрапили шарф Далай-лами, кубик Рубика, підписаний його винахідником Ерно Рубиком, а також теніска футбольного клубу «Барселона» з автографами найкращих футболістів світу. Під час дотепних аукціонів можна було придбати вечерю в товаристві популярної співачки, або ж відреставрований літак з 1930-их років.

Характерно, що до організації цього добродійного заходу охоче долучаються органи державної влади та місцевого самоврядування. Цього року свою допомогу в збиранні грошей запропонував навіть голова Європарламенту Єжи Бузек. За організований Бузеком дводенний візит до Європейського парламенту один із польських добродіїв заплатив на аукціоні понад 4 тисячі євро.

Організаторів масової добродійної акції охоче підтримують учасники різноманітних товариств, що пропагують здоровий спосіб життя. Скажімо, жителів Кракова до щедріших пожертв заохочували члени клубу зимового плавання, так звані моржі.

«Процес збирання грошей був вдалим, атмосфера була гарячою, наші серця підігріли воду у Віслі аж на пів градуса. Ми збирали гроші для «Оркестру» вперше, та будемо це робити до кінця світу, а навіть на один день довше», – розповіла одна з членів клубу.

«Оркестр» милосердя стає візиткою Польщі

Учасники цьогорічної акції милосердя, організованої «Оркестром святкової допомоги», звертають увагу на її особливий настрій. Втомлені минулорічними потрясіннями поляки охоче єдналися навколо радісного процесу збирання грошей для хворих дітей.

«Цьогорічна акція – вияв того, що ми не сваримося, а єднаємося. Після минулого року, що був для поляків суцільною травмою, така акція, як фінал «Оркестру святкової допомоги», усім нам була дуже потрібною. Ми вкотре продемонстрували, що діяьність «Орекстру» – послідовна, вона є візиткою Польщі», – каже член клубу.

Про це ж говорить один із організаторів акції милосердя в місті Білосток, ректор Вищої школи публічної адміністрації Єжи Копаня. За його словами, у збиранні грошей в Білостоці, окрім поляків, взяли участь молоді люди, які приїхали на навчання до Польщі з-за кордону.

«Студенти-іноземці здивовані, бо виявляється що ми, поляки, вміємо єднатися не тільки навколо сумних подій, але й радісних. Вміємо бути разом тоді, коли потрібно домомогти людям у їхньому нещасті», – каже ректор Копаня.

Загалом, за 19 років своєї діяльності «Оркестр святкової допомоги» придбав на зібрані гроші 22 тисячі дорогих медичних приладів, які передав дитячим лікарням. Крім того, як наголошують польські оглядачі, ця феноменальна неурядова організація виховала покоління поляків, котре охоче, без примусу й зайвих нагадувань займається добродійністю.

Автор - Ростислав Крамар

Джерело - Радіо Свобода