theglobaljournal.net: Latest activities of group #14

An Idea Worth Reviving: International Volunteerism in the 21st Century

2012-11-02T17:21:24Z

“There is nothing stronger than the heart of a volunteer.” These words, spoken by American Lt Col James Doolittle in April 1942, in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, are as true today as they were 70 years ago.

Whatever the circumstances, volunteerism has always demanded self-sacrifice above any consideration of material or financial gain. It teaches the volunteer patience, teamwork, how to deal with adversity, how to live in conditions of hardship, and, perhaps most importantly, volunteers gain a new worldview, respect for, and understanding of other cultures. In the country where they work, volunteers not only teach locals useful skills and provide humanitarian aid, but they often bring with them different mentalities, values and perspectives that help to destroy the boundaries, stereotypes and ignorance that exist between cultures. Additionally, international volunteerism, although comprising primarily apolitical programs, is an important instrument in spreading peaceful diplomacy between nations, and in ensuring the future success of global governance.

On 19 September, the European Commission (EC) announced plans to create a new humanitarian volunteer program – EU Aid Volunteers – aiming to establish 10,000 positions worldwide from 2014-2020, with a budget of €239.1 million. According to Kristalina Georgieva, EU Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, “EU Aid Volunteers will demonstrate our European solidarity by helping those most in need.” Volunteers will be sent to provide rapid humanitarian relief and aid in disaster areas. The EC proposal states that there is “significant potential for further developing solidarity among Union citizens with people in third [world] countries who are victims of man-made crises or natural disasters.” The EU notes correctly the power of volunteerism to serve as a bridge between cultures. Additionally, the creation of the program enjoys widespread popular backing, with 88 percent of EU citizens supporting the measure in a recent poll. Although a momentous step in the right direction, however, the program is limited to providing humanitarian aid and does not go far enough.

Text and Photography by Charles G. Spencer

To read the full report, subscribe or order a copy of The Global Journal.

The Great Internet Governance Swindle

2012-11-02T17:14:08Z

Could we see, beginning in Dubai in December, the end of the Internet as we know it? The 193 member states making up the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) are scheduled to meet next month to review the treaty that has formed the binding international framework for International Telecommunication Regulations for almost 25 years. While the scale of change is likely to be more modest, for some – most notably the United States (US) government and the powerful players it represents – any reform is seen as potentially disastrous. Read why we think the US government and its private affiliates should be seriously questioned, and why a reform is necessary.

The US is at war with the ITU, and despite the behind-the-scenes nature of the issues at the heart of the dispute, it is a war being waged in plain sight. Whether representing the government or private sector, each US anti-ITU speaker takes the floor to recite the same arguments. If the ITU assumes the lead on Internet governance, the web will never be free again. To prevent the disaster of an online world subject to a draconian form of censorship and control, Netizens should stand united and defend their freedom against an approaching UN plague. According to these white knights, the Internet requires no central control, no authority. The true heir to the counter-culture of the 1960s, it is a decentralized system, bottom-up, and rightfully beyond the reach of any governmental hands. ‘Multi-stakeholder-ism’ is the rule, indeed religion. Why change a status quo that works (almost) perfectly well? Notwithstanding the simple attraction of an ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ pitch, such a narrative demands some concerted rethinking. Let's first listen to what the US camp is angrily saying.

Back in May, a resolution passed by the US Congress expressed full opposition to international regulation of the Internet by the ITU. In his introductory remarks at a hearing of national experts, Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman, Greg Walden, insisted that “weakening the multi-stakeholder model threatens the Internet” – a model that had “served the Internet and the world so well.” Walden went on to remind his audience that the ITU was “originally formed in 1865 to govern international regulations of the telegraph,” and that even when the organization adopted the International Telecommunications Regulations in Melbourne in 1988, world telecommunications were still “dominated by voice telephony.” After insisting on the end-effect of that treaty – “transferring money to foreign companies run by governments” – in the process avoiding the fact that the agreement had paved the way for an integrated, open and regulated network of national telecommunications providers for the Internet, Walden finally delivered his bottom line: it would be inappropriate to ask an organization such as the ITU – a prehistoric relic – to regulate the vibrant and technologically diverse Internet. “The ITU ignores the technology of the Internet and the fact that [it] doesn’t work with national boundaries. Such international regulation would soon become unmanageable.” Are you smelling any 'mauvaise foi'?

All were presented as good reasons for the US to reject any international regulatory regime involving governments. Immediately after Walden finished, however, came the killer-quote from Russian President, Vladimir Putin, about December’s World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12) in Dubai: “international control over the Internet is one of the stated goals.” The UN, ITU, Russia, China, governmental authority, censorship – Congress seemed to have a Cold War revival on its hands. “When it comes to regulating the Internet, the answer is niet!” The witnesses that followed favored a less theatrical approach, grounded in clear expressions of US national interest. “What is at stake here is the creation of 231,000 jobs.” Members of Congress learned about “endangering net neutrality,” and “balkanizing the Internet.” But of all the arguments thrown in the face of the UN, its affiliates and members, one deserved special attention: the notion that the US government’s handover of control over the Internet to the private sector represented “one of the great success stories of American history.” A total irony, as we shall see.

Before going into this fascinating story, however, let’s first meet the witnesses present at that May hearing, which included Ambassador David A Gross – former US Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy turned lobbyist – who attended on behalf of the ‘WCIT Ad Hoc Working Group,’ an industry-led coalition counting AT&T, Cisco, Comcast, Google, Intel, Microsoft, News Corporation, Oracle, Telefonica, Time Warner Cable, Verisign and Verizon amongst its members. In effect, an informal grouping representing most major players with an interest in the Internet. No doubt, the friends of Ambassador Gross had sufficient resources to get their point across to the assembled congressional audience. With the deft skill of a seasoned diplomat, Gross first acknowledged that “the ITU… is extremely important to US national interests,” citing the “vital” role it played in spectrum policy, satellite management, telecommunications standards development, and as a cooperative forum for international experts from around the world. He also praised the leadership of ITU Secretary-General, Hamadoun Touré, in seeking to advance global uptake of broadband technology. While Gross went on to refer to – unspecified – countries seeking to use the ITU and its treaty-based authority for – unexplained – counter-productive purposes, he refrained from unnecessarily attacking or criticizing the ITU itself.

Another individual present was Vinton Cerf, who as a PhD student in the late 1960s witnessed the birth of some of the key concepts in computer science, and lived with many of the founding fathers of the Internet. Cerf attended the hearing as Vice President and ‘Chief Internet Evangelist’ at Google. While a number of industry counterparts have joined the ITU as non-voting members – as is their right – Google has never applied to do so, nor responded to the repeated invitations it has received from the organization. Cerf expressed his deep concern ahead of WCIT-12, but also recognized the challenge faced by developing countries to share in the “$4.2 trillion growth opportunity” referred to by the Boston Consulting Group in a March report.

“The very real concerns about the damage that ITU regulation could do to the Internet should not minimize the existing concerns that developing nations have as they try to keep up with the 21st century economy. We can and should solve problems of access and education without compromising the Internet’s essential open and decentralized character.” With approximately $8 trillion exchanging hands each year via e-commerce, this opportunity will be lost to developing countries if they do not cope with associated infrastructure, maintenance and investment costs. It is also a concern at the forefront of Touré’s speeches, himself a citizen of Mali. In economic terms, a May report from the McKinsey Global Institute noted that the Internet is integral to economic development and job creation, generating over 10 percent of GDP growth in the past 15 years in the countries under review. “With more than two billion users worldwide, the Internet still has enormous capacity for growth,” concluded Cerf.

Interestingly, many of the arguments presented by key witnesses at the hearing could also be found a few weeks later in a paper published by the Stanford Technology Law Review. The article’s author, Patrick Ryan, is a Policy Counsel at Google, as well as an Adjunct Professor in the University of Colorado at Boulder’s Interdisciplinary Telecommunications Program. He was kind enough to thank Cerf and other Google employees for assistance in writing the article, though maintained the content did not reflect the official views of Google. Why then, did Ryan quote the assessment of an unnamed colleague that the ITU’s regulatory proposals made “the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) – which threatened to grant new censorship and blocking powers to the US government – look like the equivalent of a bad hair day”? Such a view is certainly not grounded in fact. Ryan then turned to a sympathetic voice from the US government: “more to the point, Federal Communications Commissioner Robert McDowell recently described… the dangers of ITU involvement in Internet regulation, noting that a topdown, centralized, international regulatory overlay is antithetical to the architecture of the Net.” The alignment of rhetoric between Google, Stanford and senior government regulators gives one cause to pause.

What can be said with confidence is that private and public stakeholders in the US are strongly opposed to international regulation of the Internet. This raises the question of whether there is a legitimate basis to such reservations. Could the ITU be manipulated by rogue states or repressive regimes? Could the ITU exceed its own mandate? Could the ITU act without taking into account civil society stakeholders? Could the ITU provide a platform for top-down Internet censorship? None of these questions can be answered unequivocally in the affirmative. So what, then, is the reality behind all of the ardent speeches and public declarations from a US-led coalition of governmental and industrial players?

To read the full report, subscribe or order a copy of The Global Journal.

Click here to read the latest updates concerning the future of the internet.

(Photo © DR)

My Darling, Come Back To Me: Burma's Last War

2012-11-02T17:02:22Z

While the world’s attention is diverted by Burma’s tentative steps towards political reform, the plight of the country’s ethnic minorities remains an issue of enduring concern. Though some secessionist groups have managed to reach peace agreements with a junta-dominated civilian government, the Kachin have seen a shaky 17-year ceasefire come to an abrupt end. Wedged between the borders of India and China, a fierce military campaign continues to displace tens of thousands in a region rich with jade, gold, timber and hydropower potential.

It was a Friday night in Laiza and a few students had gathered for dinner. They were watching television, where a Burmese channel was broadcasting live a speech delivered by Aung San Suu Kyi at Yale University. The 1991 Nobel Peace Prize laureate spoke in the soft, yet determined and righteous tone that had made her famous around the world. She explained how she wished she had listened more carefully to her piano teacher, so she could have played better later, during her years of house arrest.

The students did not understand every word. Aung San Suu Kyi was speaking in English and they lived in one of the most remote parts of Burma, far away from Rangoon’s intelligentsia – indeed, much closer to China. But the sole fact that she could express her views freely in an American university symbolized the major changes Burma was undergoing. The Burmese have gained many new liberties in the last two years, a shift very few had expected from one of the world’s most repressive military dictatorships.

This sounded a little incongruous, however, to the students, as besides the voice speaking on television, one could also hear another sound that night. It was the impact of mortars falling just a few kilometers out of town.

While most of Burma is getting back on its feet, Kachin State has slid into a war that has now lasted over 12 months. After a 17-year ceasefire, fighting broke out last June in the country’s northernmost state, a place of remote hills wedged between the Chinese and Indian borders. The conflict has only intensified since, with Burmese troops making significant progress.

As of early October, the Myanmar Army was approaching Laiza, the capital of the insurgency. The Kachin Independence Army (KIA) was under enough pressure to move its general staff from a hilltop two or three kilometers away from the town to a more central location. The leadership was now based at the Laiza Hotel, officially, out of convenience. More likely, however, the group saw the Chinese border – only 30 meters away – as insurance against any artillery attack. Shooting – literally – at the border would have entailed heavy diplomatic repercussions. The room price was still displayed in the hotel’s main lobby – 185 yuans per night – but from the second floor there was no doubt this was a time of war, not tourism: sandbags were piled up in the corridor, in case of attack.

On the fourth floor, what was probably a ballroom in normal times had been converted into a national emergency room, with military maps covering the walls. A banner hung above the stage: “Lord is our victory. Victorious journey of our operations. Central command war office.” The colors matched those of the Kachin movement’s flag: half red, representing blood that had been shed; and half green, representing both the dense local forests, as well as the region’s jade mines. It could not have summed up local dynamics any better.

On a map, Maran Zau Tawng, the KIA’s Research Director, outlined the current situation: national forces were trying to open a route to take Laiza. To do so, they had first tried to push through Laja Yang, 12 kilometers west on the road in question. The enemy was launching 105 mm artillery fire on this small village from three different locations – west, south and north – to create space. “These weapons, they’re supposed to be used against foreign countries,” said another man. Hundreds of infantry troops were on the move from other parts of Burma by boat.

To read the full report, subscribe or order a copy of The Global Journal.

by Harold Thibault

An End to the Eurozone as We Know it?

2012-11-02T16:59:29Z

While the financial crisis continues to shake Europe, some economists are beginning to tout a miracle remedy: divide up the Eurozone to allow countries in difficulty, led by Greece, to reap the benefits of a devalued currency. Could the Eurozone be saved by a split? While all efforts remain focused on preserving regional unity, European elites are now pondering the question. Can we still hope for a happy ending?

“Leave the euro to the PIGS!” is the rather provocative advice American economist, Allan Meltzer, has offered to European political leaders. “Europeans keep throwing money at problems and insisting on short-term palliatives,” he noted sternly in the Wall Street Journal. “Europe’s responsible countries should establish their own new currency union.” A union limited, in Meltzer’s view, to those who adopt binding communal fiscal restraints. The new currency could float against the euro, allowing the European currency to be devalued and offering countries in difficulty – Greece, most obviously, but also Italy, Spain and Portugal – an increased ability to compete.

On the other side of the Atlantic, observers had not waited for Meltzer’s directive to start thinking about a multi-tier Eurozone. At the end of 2011, reports surfaced of “intense” discussions between France and Germany about resizing the Eurozone. “We need to move very cautiously, but the truth is that we need to establish exactly the list of those who don’t want to be part of the club and those who simply cannot be part,” a senior European official, who preferred to remain anonymous, explained. European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, Olli Rehn, immediately responded with an emphatic denial. “If the final goal is to safeguard the stability of the Eurozone, it is obvious that a fragmentation does not serve this objective,” reiterated his spokesperson. “Every proposal must be based on preserving the unity of the Eurozone.”

In the minds of the euro’s architects, however, the subject is no longer taboo. Otmar Issing, a highly respected former Chief Economist of the European Central Bank, has already caused a sensation by suggesting the Eurozone might only be saved at the cost of resizing. “Everything speaks in favor of saving the euro area,” he declared. “How many countries will be able to be part of it in the long term remains to be seen.” More categorically still, former President of the Federation of German Industry, Hans-Olaf Henkel, has urged Germany, Austria, Finland and the Netherlands to form their own monetary union. Concrete projects have even circulated publicly via the media – for instance, Markus Kerber’s ‘Guldenmark’. Kerber, a professor at Berlin’s Technical University, proposes authorizing countries that demonstrate a surplus in their balance of payments to introduce a parallel currency.

It would be an understatement to say the idea of a multitiered Eurozone has inflamed the German academic world in the last year. The issue has inspired some of the country’s most prominent economists, such as the President of the Ifo Institute in Munich, Hans-Werner Sinn, who, together with Friedrich Sell, suggests transforming the Eurozone into an “open monetary union.” The countries risking expulsion from the European monetary zone would be offered associate membership status, allowing them to adopt their own currency provisionally, but with the option to rejoin the Eurozone at a later date. “Countries would not be expelled from the club; their full membership would simply lie dormant for a couple of years,” explained Sinn and Sell in the Financial Times. “That would be a significant psychological factor making governments, and their electorates, more willing to persevere with painful economic reforms.”

To read the full report, subscribe or order a copy of The Global Journal.

by Guillaume Meyer

GLOBAL+5: The First Ever Festival of Global Governance

2012-11-02T16:49:37Z

It began with a question: which innovative projects and ideas could have the greatest global impact five years from now? On 9 October in Geneva, The Global Journal brought together a distinguished Jury, 19 project finalists, and a diverse international audience drawn from the private, public and non-profit sectors, to participate in the inaugural GLOBAL+5 competition. Speaking on behalf of his fellow Jury members at a packed awards ceremony, the former Prime Minister of Greece, George Papandreou, emphasized how difficult it had been to choose between the projects that made the final shortlist, as “every single one showed a spirit of hope, a spirit of optimism, a spirit of innovation, and a spirit of energy.”

The objective of GLOBAL+5 was to identify and support those individuals and groups committed to finding solutions to the most pressing global challenges. On the night, it was MANTRA, a sanitation program transforming rural livelihoods in eastern India, which won the GLOBAL+5 Grand Award. Receiving the award from Angela de Wolff, President of Sustainable Finance Geneva, MANTRA leader Joe Madiath expressed his surprise that a project focusing on the unglamorous issue of sanitation “could lead to such a big prize.” Three other exciting projects received prizes at the ceremony. The GLOBAL+5 Impact Award was won by The Working World, the GLOBAL+5 Innovation Award was presented to Deepwater Project, and the GLOBAL+5 Empowerment Award went to the social movement Russia Behind Bars. The Jury also used its discretion to highlight three additional projects deserving of a ‘special mention’: Discovering Hands, Sustainable Infrastructure Fund and Peace for Mexico – Mexico for Peace.

To read the in-depth profiles of the award winning projects, as well as further information about all of the other finalists in contention in Geneva, click here or order a copy of The Global Journal.

(Photo © Ziyoda Kurbanova)

When the Media Speak European

2012-10-29T18:59:58Z

European Identity: What the Media Say, Paul Bailey & Geoffrey Williams (eds), Oxford University Press £55.00.

This volume presents parts of the findings of the IntUne Project, a transnational quadrennial project questioning the idea of European citizenship in an ever closer Europe. As researchers across Poland, France, Italy and the UK analyze television news and newspapers, the reader learns that the European Commission appears overwhelmingly as the heart of EU governance; that Italian newspapers feature more negative representations of refugees and immigrants than UK newspapers; and that the idea of ‘European’ history remains multifarious and uncertain. Researchers used an innovative methodology combining quantitative (computer-assisted analysis) and qualitative methods (discourse analysis) that will be particularly exciting for academics in linguistics and media studies. Yet, the authors were also careful to write in layman’s terms for anyone interested in issues of European institutions, identity and governance. Although the linguistic plurality of the volume makes it original, one can regret the absence of Germany in the project. Similarly, the online evolution of news media, and more generally the material context of news production are not addressed. But European Identity provides a thorough overview of the language used by the media to represent Europe – and shows, dialectically, how the media contribute to constructing a certain idea of Europe.

-T. N.

Water

2012-10-29T18:56:56Z

Water, David L. Feldman, Polity $39.95.

Water is required by every living thing, yet a growing number of people face difficulties accessing it. Climate change, urbanization, pollution, energy use, agriculture, population growth, and migration, all contribute to water stress. With uneven distribution and unequal use, water management has become a major 21st century challenge. David Feldman’s book explores many facets of the issue – including distribution, use, climate impact, control and charges – and suggests how threats to freshwater sustainability might be prevented through international cooperation. Freshwater allocation and quality, as well as the extent to which other species’ needs are considered, varies greatly by country. These discrepancies can be explained by the wide-ranging values and moral principles of nations. Indeed, utilitarians tend to promote the general welfare of individuals with little regard for other species and future generations. Progressive conservationists, on the other hand, believe the obligation to care for natural resources is rooted in the intrinsic value of nature as a whole. Whether water is a human need or a human right also remains highly controversial. This can be seen in the contrast between the communitarian notion of rights in many indigenous communities and the property-based concepts of water rights held in more modern societies, as well as the opposed models of public and private water supply. Feldman concludes that while the environmental policies of sovereign states may vary, none can ignore the water needs of plants and animals, or those related to human health.

-A. S.

Between Ideology and Faith

2012-10-29T18:48:09Z

Islamism and Islam Bassam Tibi Yale University Press £20.00.

Bassam Tibi, a prominent Islamic Reformist scholar has decided to conclude his 40 year academic career with an attempt to explain a significant distinction between Islamism as a highly political and ideological movement, and Islam as faith. In Islamism and Islam, Tibi provides an engaging interdisciplinary discussion about the incompatible nature of Islamism and Islam. To support this argument, Tibi opens with the assertion that Islamism “is based not on the religious faith of Islam, but on an ideological use of religion within the political realm.” He proceeds to make the bold statement that Islamism is totalitarian, undemocratic and anti-Semitic, whereas Islam is the complete opposite. In other words, the post 9/11 world is being shaped not by Islam, but by a “politicized ideology.” Misunderstanding this may have serious consequences for grasping the new global “challenge of irregular warfare,” and as a result for preventing the expansion of fundamentalist ideology. Although the book is highly controversial, and is likely to face substantial criticism from target audiences in the West and members of the Ulema, there seems to be a light of hope that the arguments presented may spur “inter-civilizational” dialogue between the West and liberal-civil Islam in setting the global security agenda. However, Tibi’s somewhat naïve attempt to bring the world’s bipolar constituencies together in dealing with Islamism – the inherently alien ideology to Islam – still remains unclear.

–Z. K.

Make a Difference, Feel Good!

2012-10-29T18:45:58Z

The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of Post -Humanitarianism Lilie Chouliaraki Polity £55.00.

Your alarm clock rings but you can’t get out of bed so you click the snooze button. Thanks to the snooze application, you can now pledge 25 cents to a non-profit part of the LetGive network whenever you oversleep. Instead of feeling bad for not managing to wake up, you can actually feel good by contributing to a charity. This sounds like a great example of how digital technology can foster new and creative ways to engage in global solidarity. But which ethics of solidarity lie behind this form of donation? Or, in other words, what do the new communication strategies of humanitarianism tell us about the kind of solidarity promoted in our global age? This is the core question that drives Lilie Chouliaraki’s latest book. As one of the leading researchers on humanitarian communication, she argues that we are witnessing a shift from traditional humanitarian campaigns – centered on the plight of the ‘Other’ – to what she labels “post-humanitarianism.” According to the author, at the heart of post-humanitarianism is a “selforiented morality, where doing good to others is about ‘how I feel’ and must, therefore, be rewarded by minor gratification to the self.” A perfect example is the Kony2012 campaign, which consciously promoted the empowerment of its donors – using a slick, youth oriented aesthetic based on social media, celebrity and dub step music – rather than those the charity sought to help in the first place (former child soldiers abducted by the Lord’s Resistance Army, as well as those still under Joseph Kony’s control). By analyzing appeals, concerts, celebrities and the news media, Chouliaraki traces the emergence of this post-humanitarianism, which combines the marketing logic of the corporate world and online technologies, and eventually weakens the very idea of global solidarity. Her analysis does not only constitute, however, an extremely powerful and critical appraisal of post humanitarianism. It also tackles a crucial issue resulting from this criticism, one that will fascinate anyone working in the NGO sector: how can humanitarian communication move beyond the pitfalls of both traditional humanitarianism (which can reinforce stereotypical images of helpless victims from the South) and of post-humanitarianism? Chouliaraki provides an alternative theoretical model based on theatricality, but the extent to which it can be enforced in practice remains to be seen. Indeed, this is precisely why her book – written with brio, depth and sensitivity – is so valuable, and deserves attention. The Ironic Spectator is a must-read for anyone professing to a level of social consciousness, and proves that academic debates can play a role in both fostering improved ethics in the context of a pervasive aspect of contemporary global life, as well as informing new humanitarian practices.

-T.N.

The Glamorous Side of Global Governance?

2012-10-29T18:37:30Z

Whenever one thinks of ‘Global Governance’, it appears it must be an impossible task. Such a vast challenge in starting with multiple, competing interests, before ultimately ending up with one single voice, agreement or rule. Based on what we learn every day, we can see that global governance should be understood as having a plural dimension. As I often put it, the French would express the concept using a rather different formula: les nouvelles gouvernances. It is English that transforms the plural into singular. Is this why, perhaps, that when considering the issue of governance, there seems to be a natural trend to concentrate power in a few American hands?

In this issue we stood in awe, after investigating the reasons for US uproar regarding the forthcoming review of the International Telecommunications Regulations agreed in Melbourne in 1988. Almost 24 years after the treaty was accepted with a large consensus amongst member states, through the UN’s oldest body, the ITU, it was long overdue for a revision. Since 1988, the telecommunications world has seen the fabulous birth and offspring of the Internet. Today, this world is faced with another massive change, as broadband slowly comes to life in many developing countries. If the first age of the Internet relied initially on phone lines, it is now pushing to a higher gear. This means significant investments for all countries to benefit from what is to be the new digital economic el Dorado. Will the system be set in a fair and equitable manner for all players?

While the Internet began as the result of great minds from the academic world wanting to connect each other computers, it was also largely funded by American governmental grants through the Department of Defense, NASA and the National Science Foundation. Since 1998, the founding fathers of the Internet – most of them academics – have been forced to give back the power over their creation to the US government’s friendly private hands, with strict conditions and rules of control and supervision. Speaking today of decentralized Internet governance is a fairy tale. There are many venues where users can express their views. This does not equate, however, to real power. There must be hard power behind the soft power when it comes to the Internet, and this is what our cover story delves into.

With the same fresh eyes, we have also been searching for solutions addressing major global challenges over the next five years. Why five years, not one or 20? Five years is roughly equivalent to a little longer than the usual average term for most elected politicians. Five years is the time horizon that many of our politicians can never reach to achieve whatever they have received a mandate to do. Five years is a cosmic distance for a politician, when it is tomorrow for big corporations (and when it is a ‘maybe’ for citizens). Nonetheless, we met about 100 project leaders with amazing vision and the will to act and change the world. All had the ability to find a way out of gridlock and bring hope for genuine progress at the global level. We should honor and praise them for their dedication and talent in achieving their vision – something we did when presenting 19 of these project leaders to our GLOBAL+5 Jury in Geneva on 9 October. It was a great moment of celebration, and some strong messages were sent around the globe.

In this issue our eyes also paused over Mexico, through the lens of a great photographer, David Kochkind. How can such a country, with such an esteemed northern neighbor, remain mired in violence and death? Our eyes also ventured to the forgotten and forbidden northern Myanmar, where our reporter Harold Thibault was able to reach Kachin State and observe – perhaps – Burma’s last war.

To push ahead with global governance, we need to keep our eyes open, at all times.