The Current Discussion: How can we reduce our vulnerability to risks posed by global interconnectedness - from swine flu to financial contagion to terrorist threats? What risks do you see on the horizon?

We are often reminded that we live in a fragile world. At any moment, any of the nuclear armed countries could simply destroy all that is known to exist for humankind and take us back into the Dark Ages. That remains the greatest threat to human progress and determines how nations, societies and people make decisions. The pressure on countries seeking nuclear weapons has increased, but the willingness of existing nuclear states to seek disarmament has decreased.

The moral argument that some states are mature to possess nuclear weapons and others are not is nothing but social snobbery and conceit. We should actively seek total disarmament from nuclear weapons for ALL states. As Utopian as that may sound, the presence of nuclear weapons has actually increased limited wars and conflicts since 1945. Armed conflict has engulfed societies in a more fundamentally damaging war of attrition between nations, societies and religions. This battle for the minds of the next generation is being fought not on the streets and in the trenches, but on the Internet through the quiet subtle manipulation of the minds of young people. This has brought more intolerance to the world, whether right-wing fanatics in the U.S. or Israel or Kalashnikov-toting fanatics in Afghanistan, Pakistan or many countries in Africa.

Continue »

The Current Discussion: Are Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama on a collision course over Iran and the Palestinian problem? What would be the consequences of a breach between the United States and Israel?

One of the assurances that Israel has always had is the unwavering support of Washington, both when Israel is harmed and when it acts to harm others in response to its own perception of threat. President Obama, it would seem, is taking a slight detour from this established principle of U.S. foreign policy; keeping Israel as the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East, but effectively seeking a dialogue with Iran and at the same time wanting to push both Israel and the Palestinians to work out peace. While on the face of it there is nothing new in this approach, look at it in the rhetorical context of how past American administrations have handled Middle East policy. President Obama's approach is more open-minded and more interesting. His call to lead the world through example and deeds rather than simply by bullying has resonated well with many countries.

Continue »