Adam Blenford/Flickr/Creative Commons

Few Westerners have had the chance to witness what China is building in Africa. From Angola to the Sudan, the Middle Kingdom’s reach throughout the continent is growing by the day. And, for several years, Swiss journalist Serge Michel got the chance to document Africa’s relationship with its new patron.

In the current issue of FP, Michel shows firsthand what happens when a budding superpower meets the poverty, corruption, and fragility of Africa. It’s a fascinating look at what China has been able to accomplish in a place other powers have all but abandoned—and a glimpse into what happens next. But it’s also one that raises as many questions as it answers. Luckily, Serge Michel will respond to your questions next week. So read “When China Met Africa,” and send your questions to letters@ForeignPolicy.com by Sunday night. We’ll send the best on to him. Don't forget to check back on May 30, when we'll post his responses.

JUSTIN SULLIVAN/Getty Images

It's that time of the year again, when the steady stream of "year's best" lists start to trickle into your favorite papers and magazines. In case you missed it over the weekend, though, the New York Times released one of my favorites, their "100 Notable Books of 2007."

FP's book review section, In Other Words, looks only at works that have not yet been published in the United States, allowing us to discuss important political and literary conversations outside America's borders. But it's also important to look back at the new U.S. books on foreign policy that have been stirred debate, inspired new ideas, influenced policy, and made people think.

The Times list highlights a few of these from 2007: FP contributor Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes, Ishmael Beah's Long Way Gone, Helen Epstein’s The Invisible Cure, and FP contributor Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City, to name just a few.        

But, with so much material this year, it's little wonder the Times couldn't fit all the best books on international affairs in its list. In my humble opinion, there are quite a few excellent foreign-policy books that also shined in 2007:  

• Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East: 1776 to the Present, by Michael B. Oren

• Curveball: Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War, by Bob Drogin

• The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War, by David Halberstam

• Monstering: Inside America's Policy of Secret Interrogations and Torture in the Terror War, by Tara McKelvey

What were your favorite foreign-policy books this year? How about the most overrated? Best from outside the States? Send us some suggestions, and we'll put a list together of Passport readers' books of the year. It should make for easy holiday shopping for your favorite student, wonk, or politician.

Our November/December cover story, "The War We Deserve," has provoked a good deal of controversy about who bears responsibility for the war on terror and its offspring in Iraq. Arguing that the political demands Americans make of their government—low taxes, limited military engagement, an all-voluntary Army—inevitably lead to the kind of war Americans find themselves in today, Roberts questions the very relationship they have with their government.

Now, it's your turn to ask the author about his article. Do you agree that Americans have sacrificed too little and asked for too much in this age of global terrorism? Do you believe the real fault for any mismanagement of the war on terror lies with the administration that pursued it? Send us any questions you have for FP author Alasdair Roberts by 6 p.m. this Thursday, November 15, and we'll post his answers at ForeignPolicy.com on Tuesday, November 20.

This is your chance to join the debate. Don't miss it!

ROSS KINNAIRD/Getty Images Sport

Quick moves, right? But some Islamist fundamentalists also apparently see the British soccer star and the American singer as beloved cultural symbols whose deaths would bring the West to its knees. It's a tactic Joseph Stalin apparently tried to pull more against another powerful American symbol more than 50 years ago.

As legend has it, Stalin threatened to assassinate the Duke in an effort to silence the ardent anti-communist and deal a crushing blow to the American cultural machine against the backdrop of the Cold War. This being the new millennium, though, Beckham and Timberlake were threatened not by the Soviets but by Islamist radicals with Internet access and a grievance against Western cultural imperialism. The threat came in the form of a video posted on YouTube. According to several Web sites following the story, it was a British al Qaeda-linked group tied to exiled cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed that posted the video.

Watching the video, though, it doesn't exactly seem like the most sophisticated of plots. There's a shot of Eminem in a newspaper with the headline, "This Is the Way to Hellfire." There's a photo of 2-Pac underneath the words, "Servant of Shaytaan." And a smiling Beckham is juxtaposed with the question, “What Made u Among the Losers?” In the end, it looks more like a low-budge PSA than a serious wake-up call to Western civilization.

Worse yet for the would-be killers, this over-the-top exchange from Fox News suggests they made have made another monumental miscalculation: "Isn't this an instance where you might be rooting for the terrorists?"

Like all the candidates in the expanding field of presidential hopefuls, Rudy Giuliani is reaching out supporters, friends, and acquaintances, asking them to help fund what will likely be the costliest election in U.S. history. "America's mayor" is staking his campaign on counterterrorism and national security issues. And who better to relate to the threat of Islamist extremism than Israel? Which is why "JoinRudy2008.com" donation letters are popping up in the in boxes of readers of the Jerusalem Post:

Dear Friend,

As a longtime friend and staunch supporter of Israel during my entire public life, I want to share with you my deep concern for the Jewish state and ask for your support as I campaign to become the next President of the United States....

I promise you that if elected President, I will make sure this country remains on offense against terrorism. But I need your help and support to get there. Will you consider giving $1,000, $500, $250, $100 or $50 to my campaign?...

I stand by Israel and I'll never embrace a terrorist like Arafat, a tyrant like Ahmadinejad, or a party like Hamas.

Giuliani's stand against terrorism is commendable. But campaign contributions from foreign nationals are against U.S. elections laws. True, the Jerusalem Post is distributed in the United States as well as in Israel and online, and has many U.S. readers. Yet it seems a bit distasteful to appeal directly to readers of a foreign newspaper—even from a U.S. ally as close as Israel—for money. Put it this way: Imagine the reaction if John Edwards or Barrack Obama sent a plea to readers of Le Monde asking for support to strengthen ties between the U.S. and France? I'm guessing it would prompt a bigger outrage than a $400 haircut. 

The U.S. military has seen the enemy, and it is Web 2.0.

Explaining a ban on 13 popular websites, including MySpace, YouTube,  MTV, and Pandora, Gen. B.B. Bell, head of U.S. Forces Korea, complained that the popularity of these "Web 2.0" sites "impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge."

Those are certainly valid concerns, but blocking access to soldiers' social sites hinders the communication between troops and their families and friends back home that is vital for morale. And in a larger sense, the Pentagon might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater with this move. Too often, the military and the White House complain about the lack of positive stories coming out of Iraq, whether because of liberal media bias, or just the plain news value of bombings over new schools. Yet here's an organic opportunity to air the accomplishments, and yes, struggles, of those in the battlefield with the entire world. And they're shutting it down?

Of course, this kind of transparency shouldn't come at the cost of national security, and locations of troop movements ought to be off-limits. But that's the kind of thing to be handled case by case. After all, even President Bush has sung the praises of personal blogs and social networking as a source for positive news from Iraq. Maybe the military could take a cue.  

AFP/Getty Images

There's no doubting the importance and urgency of economic development that meets the needs of the world’s poorest people without harming the planet. In fact, it may be one of the defining issues of our time. Which makes it all the more ridiculous that the world's most important body is handing over the chair of the U.N. Committee on Sustainable Development to ... Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

It's an African country's turn to head the rotating position, and Western efforts to block the appointment have thus been met with criticism by many African countries and rejected by the Zimbabwean delegation. Even if this committee weren't dealing with economic issues, the notion that today's Zimbabwe is fit to lead anything at the United Nations is somewhat ridiculous. But this is a country with 2,200 percent inflation, where the leadership is rationing electricity to four hours a day. That's less than in many parts of Iraq.

Inclusive opportunities for all the world's peoples and nations ought to be at the forefront of the U.N. mission. But so should principled and pragmatic leadership. Apparently the U.N. learned nothing from Sudan, Libya, and Cuba's embarrassing stints on the Human Rights Commission.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Despite efforts to stem the global trade in narcotics—indeed, often because of them—new trade routes are emerging around the world, posing challenges to authorities and local populations alike. In this week's List, FP takes a look at the newest battlegrounds in the global war on drugs.

They include new transit points for cocaine bound for the United States and Europe, such as Venezuela and West Africa, new production locales for methamphetamines in Mexico, and a familiar foe that's using the heroin trade to regain a foothold in Afghanistan. All these new fronts are leaving a trail of addiction and violence in their wake. And all exemplify one of the most frustrating dilemmas of international counter-drug efforts: Just as one area seems safe from the cartels, another battle is always around the corner. Check it out.

While the world watches stock markets from Shanghai to Chicago cautiously rebound from Tuesday’s deep losses, public health officials have their eyes on a new futures market: the Avian Influenza Prediction Market, or "bird flu index," run by the Iowa Electronic Markets project at the University of Iowa.

It works like this: A select group of public health officials and pandemic experts are given about $100 a year to place bets on the likelihood of bird flu's projected path. (Fortunately for those of us who aren't steeped in epidemiology, people who might otherwise profit from the sale of, say, flu vaccines or masks aren't invited to participate.) The bets are simple and specific. One current market asks "traders" to bet on the likelihood that the dreaded H5N1 strain will infect a human in Hong Kong by July 1. Right now, a share in a "yes" vote is running at 43 cents, which indicates that the market sees a 43 percent likelihood of infection. By contrast, the chances of the flu infecting a human in North or South America are running at 5 cents.

Though the project is not without controversy, it's garnered far less outcry than the terrorism futures market that the Pentagon briefly introduced a few years ago. Which might mean the American public has more faith in the collective predictions of the public heath sector than the DoD. More likely, though, it could mean that, after years of hearing dire warnings about the threat of bird flu, people just want the medical community to put its money where its mouth is.

STR/AFP

Diplomats from five capitals emerged in Beijing this week with what appears to be a  long-awaited deal with North Korea. The trade-off? In the first 60 days, North Korea would give up its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon in exchange for roughly 50,000 tons of fuel oil, or its equivalent in economic aid (Passport will have more on the specifics later today). The agreement comes exactly four months and four days after North Korea's groundbreaking nuclear test. Chief U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill, who seems to have won over some fans in China, called the breakthrough "a very solid step forward."

Not everyone sees it that way. John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has been the most vocal critic, saying that he would be the "saddest man in Washington" were President Bush to follow through on the agreement. To Bolton, among others, the deal is nothing more than a reward for Pyongyang's intransigence, a Pyhrric victory that comes three years, eight nuclear bombs, and one nuclear test too late.

So which is it? For this week's Seven Questions, we asked Robert Gallucci, dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service and the diplomat who signed the 1994 accord with North Korea, to weigh in with his thoughts on this very early agreement. His take? 

We now are in a situation where we’re saying, “OK, we’ll go step by step with [North Korea]. We’ll provide some of the benefits you want, and you’ll provide some of the restraint that we want.” So we are on a track now that could lead to the ultimate dismantlement of their nuclear weapons programs. It’s a new and better position to be in.

Check out the entire interview here.

Half of them are [Mahdi Army]. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night. People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."

-1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division, referring to the infiltration of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army in the Iraqi Police forces and Army.

(Hat tip: Newsdesk.org)

With news of car bombings and sectarian violence dominating news out of Iraq every day, 32 deaths wouldn't even seem to make a dent in the toll there this year. But 32 journalists have died in Iraq since January 1, according to a Committee to Protect Journalists special report. That makes 2006 the deadliest year for journalists in any country the organization has ever recorded. What's more, the New York-based organization reports that most of these deaths are murders, not just accidental, caught-in-the crossfire deaths. 

It's more than just a troubling sign of the downward spiral in the country. It's a sign that the most important stories—good and bad—will be reported less thoroughly and adequately. Take the lengths CBS News reporter Elizabeth Palmer (no relation) recently said she and other correspondents have resorted to:

We now have the 15-minute rule: We never stay anywhere longer than 15 minutes."

Not even the best journalists can do their jobs properly with only that amount of time. The Columbia Journalism Review's November/December issue tackles the issue in depth, asking 47 reporters who've covered the country for their take on being a journalist in the most dangerous country for their profession this year. For a first-hand account of telling the story of the war, take a look at "Into the Abyss: Reporting Iraq 2003-2006: An Oral History." Here's a grim preview from The Guardian's Ghaith Abdul-Ahad:

So this debate accusing the media of not conveying the good news is such a — I mean do those people know what we are digging through when we go to Iraq? Just flying into Baghdad, driving, just doing the simplest, the basic, simple things, just being in Baghdad, existing in Baghdad is one of the most dangerous things you can do in your life, let alone covering it. So the effort we put into writing a story, any simple story, is enormous. And none of us, I don’t know any journalist who accepts taking such a risk just to manipulate the truth or write the bad news because you have this hidden agenda. People are getting killed on a sectarian basis. People are leaving their neighborhoods. Militias are roaming the streets; despots are functioning in Iraq. People are getting kidnapped; people are getting killed. Everyone’s getting killed: barbers, bakers, professors, officers, insurgents, Americans — everyone’s getting killed. So what are you going to write?

If you're anything like us, you've been glued to your computer and television for poll results, press conferences, and high-level resignations for several days now. What a convenient time to release bad news or sweep unfortunate events under the rug. Here's some of what you missed when you were watching Anderson Cooper and Chris Matthews:

-Russia decided to weaken proposed sanctions on Iran for its nuclear program.

-Israeli bombs kill 20 in the Gaza town of Beit Hanun. Israel defends the action, calling it "preventative." Hamas calls off the cease-fire.

-Iraq's government extends a state of emergency in the wake of continuing sectarian violence in the country, including the deaths of eight soccer players.

-The European Union puts Turkey on notice for human rights issues and its role in Cyprus or risk ending accession talks.

-The UN adopted a resolution condemning the U.S. embargo of Cuba.

Ok, there's no evidence whatsoever that any of this is tied to midterm elections in America. In fact, it's probably not. But with campaign season finally over on the Hill and issues from Iranian nukes to Iraqi security on the agenda, it's time for congress to get back to work. 

Carolyn O'Hara

• America's Anchors, by Maureen Dowd, Rolling Stone - Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert give the Times columnist a dose of truthiness. Someone please send me a Stewart/Colbert '08 T-shirt.
• Neo Culpa, by David Rose, Vanityfair.com - Neocons play the blame game.
• YouTube? It's So Yesterday, By Zephyr Teachout and Tim Wu, Washington Post - Technology in future elections will do much more than put the latest campaign spots at your fingertips. Get ready for Politics 2.0.

Mike Boyer

• Field of Dreamers, by Craig Crawford, Congressional Quarterly (subscription only)
  
• Count to Six, by Kirk Victor, National Journal
• Time for Rumsfeld to Go, Editorial, Army Times

Jeff Marn

• WaPo's new, expanded World section A stand-alone section with feature stories from some of the Post's foreign correspondents

Aditya Tiwathia

• Empire Falls, by Niall Ferguson, Vanity Fair - Ferguson argues that the relative power of the West has declined because of the rise of Asia.

Kate Palmer 

• Time for Us to Go, Washington Monthly - Several prominent conservatives, including Christopher Buckley and Bruce Bartlett, argue that the GOP has overstayed its welcome in congress.

• After the Amnesty: 20 Years Later, by Luis Andres Henao, Christian Science Monitor - Twenty years after the most significant U.S. immigration measure to date, the Monitor catches up with six of the immigrants granted amnesty through that bill.  

There are just a few days left in one of the tightest U.S. Congressional elections in recent memory. With foreign-policy issues at the forefront of voters' minds, this week's List takes a look at where the people asking for votes actually stand on issues of vital importance to American foreign policy. From Iraq to immigration to trade, this is how the candidates stack up. 

Plus, don't miss the Web Exclusive on ForeignPolicy.com where FP's editors canvass some of the leading political journalists, policy experts, and Washington insiders for a look at how American foreign policy would change if the Democrats were to take Congress. With so much at stake on November 7, it's worth a read.  

It looks like Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has another reason to hate the United States. According the DC-based Institute of World Politics, several American bloggers are responsible for the breakdown of a $630 million deal in which Chávez was to buy military aircraft from the Spanish firm EADS CASA. The company is claiming that it would have lost money on the deal, but several bloggers who have been following the story, including Professor J. Michael Waller at Venezuelastan, are being credited with forcing EADS CASA to reconsider. SecureTheHomeland.org, for example, initated a letter-writing campaign so U.S. citizens could express their distaste for the deal, even helpfully spelling out some of the negative consequences it perceived the purchase would have for Americans. According to that blog,

Here’s why doing business with EADS CASA is bad for the United States:

It would reward EADS CASA for ignoring US national security interests.

It would reward EADS CASA for circumventing our nonproliferation laws and breaking our military embargo.

It would pump billions of American tax dollars into a foreign company whose largest shareholders are the governments of France, Germany, Spain and Russia.

It would help keep that company afloat as takes business away from American aircraft companies.

It would inject cash into a jobs program for the ruling Socialist Workers Party of Spain, at the expense of allies who have stood by the United States and at the expense of American workers and companies.

It would subsidize the profitless sale of aircraft to Hugo Chavez."

The campaign appears to have worked. Waller is calling the reversal "another example of the New Media's impact on international politics." (It's a phenomenon Dan Drezner and Henry Farrell documented in this FP article two years ago.)

For now, Chávez can be added to the venerable list of names thwarted by investigative bloggers. That is, at least until he finds some other country to sell him planes. A country that's perhaps less inclined to bend to American will. I'm sure he'll think of something.  

This summer, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Paul Salopek traveled to Africa to report about culture and history in the Sahel for National Geographic. Instead, he wound up becoming a (reluctant) symbol for international press freedom. In this week's Seven Questions, FP spoke with him about the Darfur crisis and about being detained for 34 days in one of the most dangerous places on Earth.

Forgotten amid the chaos into which Iraq has descended during the past three years are some of the more brutal tactics Saddam Hussein employed. Of course, much of it seems somewhat irrelevant now. As awful as some of the strongman's crimes were, the potency of discussion about his regime often fades when compared to the dire situation on the ground today.

And then you read about something like this:

Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq wanted foreign cash to build thousands of concrete bunkers to bury dead Kurds, an Australian inquiry into abuses of the UN oil-for-food program heard Friday."

The Australian firm that stands accused of sending money to Saddam isn't looking so good in the final days of its sensational nine-month inquiry. Take a look at this excerpt of one of the company's internal e-mails, which was presented to the probe's panel:

The bunkers will have cement walls and floors so they are actually designed for burying the Kurds ... the mind boggles as to whether they are fumigating insects or any other pest that pisses them off.... On a serious note they will have cement flooring."

The inquiry is expected to hand down its decision on November 24. We'll keep an eye out for any more disturbing details.

HT: Newsdesk.org 

The furor over leaks from the National Intelligence Estimate on the war on terror--and the Bush administration's desire to keep much of the report's status classified--is topic A in Washington these days. But there's another hot report (excuse the pun) that's getting much less attention amid the infighting. According to a report by Jim Giles in the journal Nature (subscription only), the Bush administration is blocking a study that describes the positive correlation between global warming and stronger hurricane activity.  

The report, produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, was supposed to be released in May, but was deemed too "technical" for public consumption by the Commerce Department, which oversees NOAA. I can think of a few cities in Florida and Louisiana that would probably disagree. Given the administration's noted skepticism of the dangers of global warming, as well as the perception of an inadequate response to the devastating Hurricane Katrina, the blocking of this report at the very least sends the wrong message. 

Seed Magazine is reporting that the NOAA has not taken an official stance on the issue. We'll follow this case to see what happens if and when it does.

If you're Hungarian, your prime minister has been caught on tape admitting that he's lied and his administration "screwed up," and protestors demanding his ouster are descending on the capital city in violent riots, what's your first move? 

Join the protestors? Take a long trip to Prague? How about secure the rights to Web domain "elkurtuk.hu," "WeScrewedup.com" in Hungarian? Three Hungarians are duking it out over ownership rights to the newly fashionable address, possibly to post the video of the prime minister's unfortunate admission. Probably to profit from the traffic that is certain to follow, assuming the Hungarian agency charged with handing them out will even allow it.

It's good news that Hungarians are fully embracing the benefits they might garner from postcommunist free markets. May the best capitalist win!