To protect populations more effectively, promote sound governance and generate greater economic opportunity over time, leaders should instead embrace a new doctrine: The Responsibility to Participate.
I may be wrong, but it is appearing that President Obama's push for retaliation against Syria for the use of chemical weapons is not likely to fly. And when that happens, what should he do?
As a result of President Obama's decision to ask Congress to support his call for "limited" strikes against the Assad regime, we find ourselves in the throes of a much needed, but still incomplete, national debate on the wisdom of U.S. policy toward Syria.
I'm baffled by what Obama is doing and have been for more than a week. If he had determined to attack, which I think is highly questionable strategy, he should have done it right away, fast and hard. The U.S. Navy had the ships on station to carry out the strikes.
It breaks my heart that I want to help and just don't know what I can do to effect change. So I'm plucking out words on my Mac, keyboard activism at its finest, because it makes me feel like I'm at least doing something, even if I'm not doing something.
Doing nothing about Syria is not a moral choice. But neither is a military strike that would do more harm than good. The world must put all of its energy behind the only viable choice, a robust diplomatic effort that brings together all of the key players in the conflict.
Anyone who believes limited strikes will not escalate into larger scale commitment is underestimating the complexity of the conflict. And besides, the United States isn't even committed to a regime change.
In recent years, we have developed an unhealthy habit of blaming the borrower, but there are two parties in every financial contract -- and the lender is almost always the more experienced, more sophisticated, and more powerful of the two.
There is nothing on the horizon to indicate the ripening of a "Grand Bargain" or even of a settlement among international, regional, and local players...
Masha Gessen believes that it's time for Russian LGBT people to flee the country to escape what she says has now become "all-out war" against LGBT people in Russia. And she's calling on the United States to allow political asylum for LGBT Russians.
Obama is no Bush, but his administration squandered public trust by insisting on the need for an immediate, aggressive response to the Damascus regime before United Nations inspectors had any chance to gather evidence from the scene of the chemical attack.
If the Syrian government has used chemical weapons to massacre large numbers of people that is a real problem -- not only a dastardly act, but a clear violation of international law. But will the U.S. lobbing cruise missiles into Syria provide a solution to the problem?
It's a clear sign Putin is doing everything within his power to prevent a massive social controversy from occurring. In the end, it will be a surprise if all the political maneuvering and rhetoric has any effect on the Olympics.
Since President Putin has held office, there have been a number of changes in Russian law so that any criticism directed at either Putin or his security force allies can be sentenced to jail.
Who's up for stopping a war? This is the time, as the next war strains to be born, amid the same old lies as last time, amid the same urgency and ps...
If the government was serious about valuing the input of civil society -- and it should be -- it would amend the anti-NGO law and create a safe space for civic organizations to do what they do best.