On the latest Global Pulse episode, host Erin Coker examines media coverage of the evolving relations between China and the US. Watch the episode below and share your thoughts!

While this week’s Global Pulse, called “Chimerica,” looks at what the two nations share, there are plenty of points of friction between them. The U.S. regularly criticizes China’s human rights record, and now China has published a report equally critical of the U.S., for “destabilizing the world economy and meddling in other countries' affairs.”

The United States is in a tricky situation. On the one hand, the U.S. wants to encourage human rights and increased democracy in China; on the other hand it fears alienating China, its most prominent trading partner, which holds upwards of $800 billion of American debt. So how has the U.S. walked this delicate tightrope so far? Not very well.

Perhaps the best recent example of the awkward U.S.-China relationship is the controversial meeting between President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama. Most in the west see the Dalai Lama as a man of peace who dares to stand up to the might of the Chinese government. Not surprisingly, China considers him to be a threat to a unified China, due to his advocacy for the independence of Tibet. They also see him as a pawn of western nations bent on embarrassing the Chinese government. Even some western media sources have criticized the motives of the Dalai Lama. In an editorial from the UK’s Guardian, Brendan O’Neill describes the Dalai Lama as a poseur who “once auctioned his Land Rover on eBay for $80,000 and has even done an advert for Apple.” He also charges that the Dalai Lama “has [been] used as a battering ram by western governments in their culture war with China.”

But celebrities like Richard Gere and Sharon Stone are prominent followers of the Dalai Lama who advocate his return to Tibet, and American Buddhists have made some of his books pop-religion best sellers in America, so there was tremendous pressure on Obama to meet with the Dalai Lama. Although the meeting was carefully planned to try to not offend either side, it ended up offending both. Initially Obama refused to meet, citing the need to meet with China’s Hu Jintao first: human rights activists and western media called it a snub. When the meeting finally did happen it took place in a closed room without cameras. The Chinese were angry that the meeting took place at all.

Whether this and other rights issues are geat walls that will ultimately divide the two nations, or just side roads on the long march to cooperation remains unknown.

On the latest Global Pulse Episode, host Erin Coker examines media coverage of rising obesity rates around the world. Watch the episode below and share your thoughts!

I, like many (well, most) Americans have had issues with my weight. After going off to college in 2004, I noticed my weight beginning to climb until I started feeling unhealthy. I tried dieting and adding more exercise to my daily routine, but the extra weight stayed on. Then something miraculous happened: I left the country. During my year of study abroad, my waistline shrunk. Was I beating myself up about keeping to a certain number of calories a day? Did I take up an intensive exercise schedule? Not at all. So, what explains the weight loss?

In a word, culture. Although diet, exercise, and body chemistry are the critical factors in determining body weight, there is evidence that one's culture plays a huge role (pardon the pun) when it comes to obesity. While America is known worldwide for obesity problems, it isn't technically the most obese nation on earth. According to Forbes, that distinction goes to the tiny island nation of Nauru with a remarkable 94.5 percent of its population overweight. In fact 8 out of the top 10 overweight nations are located in the South Pacific. Part of the reason for this may be genetic, but part of the cause is the widespread poverty on these islands and the dependence on imported foods. Highly processed foods imported from the west are a cheap sources of calories; unfortunately they're also the unhealthiest. Cultural factors, including, "[the] notion that 'bigness' is a sign of wealth and power" also contribute to a culture of obesity which has left the South Pacific the fattest region in the world. Is America, like the South Pacific, a victim of having a culture of obesity? We certainly don't equate 'bigness' with wealth and power - quite the reverse, if our celebrities and icons are any indication.

Which brings me to France, the country in which my weight-loss miracle occurred. While the United States and the South Pacific are two of the world's fattest regions, France is championed for its low national obesity rate. How do the French, with a diet rich in carbs, fats, and oils, stay so thin? Researchers have called this the French paradox.

But the French paradox really isn't much of a paradox at all. When it comes to how French citizens stay thinner than Americans, both the quantity and quality of food consumed makes the difference. French consumers typically eat less processed food than their American counterparts, and when they do indulge in fats and sweets, they generally eat smaller portions. In my personal experience, I found processed junk foods to be more expensive in France than fresh fruits and vegetables - where in American supermarkets, the situation is often the opposite. America also has a 24 hour fast food culture with opportunities to eat just about anything at anytime, anywhere. In France, the majority of supermarkets are closed by 9PM - and you can't get a decent burrito anywhere.

So do I really attribute my weight loss to a geographical change? In many ways, I do. When I was surrounded by a culture whose values about food and eating promoted a healthier way of life, I found myself behaving like those around me. Think of it as positive peer pressure. This is not to say that all is perfect in the land of foie gras and baguettes. The French, like many cultures worldwide, are beginning to grapple with their own obesity problem as the fast-food culture spreads.

So how is my weight now that I'm back in the US? In 1.5 years, I've gained back most of what I lost in France. I can't blame America, though. In France I was able to change my lifestyle so I could eat fresher, smaller, and more slowly. I learned the right way to eat, but I just started to get lazy once I returned to a culture where it's a little harder to do so. Oh well, I gotta go... the pizza delivery guy is here.

In this week’s special edition of Global Pulse, host Erin Coker reviews 2009 news stories that will matter in 2010. Watch the episode, and share your thoughts, below!

Between the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an upsurge in violence in Pakistan, Iran’s political upheaval and the global financial crisis, 2009 has been tumultuous to say the least. Even for someone immersed in global media, it was difficult at times not to hit the cheap (and the not-so-cheap) wine just to get through the daily barrage of bleak news.

Which is why I took it upon myself to drum up 10 of the year’s more positive stories. Some were widely reported, others warranted only a fleeting mention, but all stand out as bright spots on an otherwise challenging year. A good reminder that even in the darkest of times, a silver lining can be found if you look hard enough. I’ll drink to that!

1. A Different Kind of Hotel Rwanda
Following the instability and brutal civil war that plagued the central-African nation in the late-1990s, tourists are returning to the country to marvel at its mountain gorillas and lush landscapes. Tourism revenues rise 11 percent in the first quarter of 2009, compared to the same period last year. Even better, the Cartagena Summit on a Mine-Free World announces that Rwanda is officially “landmine free” – a distinction that is doubtless welcomed by tourists and residents alike.

2. Afghanistan and Pakistan Get More Schools
Non-profit activist Greg Mortenson and his Central Asia Institute (CAI), continue to build schools in rural Pakistan and Afghanistan, even in Taliban areas. Because CAI schools rely heavily on community involvement, militant groups have largely avoided destroying or damaging what are perceived as locally-backed projects.  To date, the CAI has built 130 schools in the two countries. To learn more about CAI or to get involved, visit www.ikat.org.

3. Aceh Rebuilt
Five years after the Indian Ocean Tsunami devastated communities in Aceh, Indonesia, rebuilding efforts in the hardest-hit province are wrapping up. In November, aid group CRS announces that it has met its reconstruction goals in Aceh.

4. Karadzic Faces the International Criminal Court. Sort of.
Although the alleged Bosnian Serb war criminal boycotts the opening of his trial, claiming that he did not have sufficient time to examine the evidence against him – 10 years on the lam wasn’t enough time? – Radovan Karadzic does appear in court on November 3. The trial is expected to resume in March of next year.

5. Kidnapped Aid Workers Released
After being seized by Somali gunmen in Kenya, three aid workers with Action Against Hunger are released three months later. In a similar bit of good news, assailants also free kidnapped aid workers snatched in Sudan’s Darfur region.

6. U.N. Demands Halt to Rape as War Weapon
Unanimously voted in, resolution 1888 reflects the 15-member body's "demand for the complete cessation by all parties to armed conflict of all acts of sexual violence with immediate effect." Plans are in the works to create a special U.N. post to front the effort.

7. Detained Journalists Freed in Iran, Iranian Writers Honored
Following domestic and international protests, jailed U.S./Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi is released from a Tehran prison. Saberi had been originally sentenced to eight years in prison for “having collaborated with a hostile state.” Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari is also released after being held for nearly four months following Iran’s June elections. In November, Human Rights Watch honors four Iranian writers with prestigious Hellman/Hammett awards for their courage in the face of political persecution.

8. Latin America Takes Steps Towards Equality
Mexico City backs a gay marriage bill, making the city the first in Latin America to legalize gay marriage. In another first, Uruguay passes a same-sex adoption bill, granting same-sex couples the right to adopt children.

9. Zimbabwe Slowly (Very Slowly) Improving
Following political instability, runaway inflation and a devastating cholera outbreak, Zimbabwe is making some inroads to recovery. HIV prevalence rates continue to fall and inflation is dropping. After months of fruitless negotiations, Zimbabwe’s rival leaders reach an agreement on commissions for human rights, election and the media, possibly putting an end to ongoing political deadlock.

10. Child Brides Take a Stand
A Saudi court rules in favor of an 8-year-old girl seeking to divorce her 47-year-old husband. Soon after the decision, the Saudi justice minister announces plans to enact a law protecting young girls from marriages. In rural India, young girls follow the lead of Rekha Kalini, who attracted widespread attention after refusing a forced marriage.

For more news highlights from 2009, catch the Global Pulse year-end special Once and Future News 2009-2010.

In this week's Global Pulse episode, Obama's Nobel War and Peace Prize, host Erin Coker asks whether the Norwegian Nobel Committee made the right choice in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama. Watch the episode and share your thoughts below!

Following the unexpected announcement in Oslo last week, much of the domestic press attributed Obama's Nobel win to his international appeal, particularly in Europe.  The Christian Science Monitor notes the award indicated "a particularly European appreciation" of the U.S. president, while an AOL News headline reads "Obama's Nobel Reflects Europe's Approval."

"The puzzled and heated domestic reaction…is only the latest instance of a gulf in perception between the two sides of the Atlantic," writes James Graff. "The Nobel Committee's decision is a European vote of confidence on the way this particular American president is setting the global agenda."

There is little doubt that Obama is popular among Europeans. A recent Pew Research Center Global Attitudes Survey reported that 93 percent of Germans and 86 percent of Britons said they had confidence in Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. Similarly, 91 percent in France rated Obama favorably -- a dramatic shift from 2008 when only 13 percent of French expressed confidence in George W. Bush.

However, even the U.S. president’s transatlantic supporters were baffled and perplexed by the win, calling the award premature and, like their U.S. counterparts, questioning what Obama had actually done to warrant such an honor.  
 
"It used to be the rule that the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to politicians if they could point to tangible political successes," writes Claus Christian Malzahn in a Der Spiegel editorial. "Awarding him the Nobel Prize now is like giving a medal to a marathon runner who has just managed the first few kilometers."

The U.K.'s Times Online took the criticism even further, calling the decision to award the prize to Obama "absurd," and accusing the committee of making a "mockery" of the award.

So if not an endorsement from Europe, what was behind the Nobel shakeup?

Some international media outlets point to former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjorn Jagland, appointed earlier this year to head the Nobel committee, as the driving force behind Obama's win. The Christian Science Monitor's global news blog notes that Jagland "has an activist vision for the Nobel as a prize that can spur peace, rather than simply reward its achievement."

France's Le Monde was even more blunt: "The former Nobel Committee president would have never nominated Obama."

Regardless of the politics behind the award, the reaction to Obama's Nobel is a reminder that action, not vision, will be most crucial in the president's long-term success at home and abroad.

In this week's special behind-the-scenes episode, Inside Global Pulse, host Erin Coker gives viewers an inside glimpse of what goes into the making of a Global Pulse Episode, particularly the role of international news outlets. Watch this episode below!

Since the conclusion of the Cold War, and particularly in the last decade, U.S. coverage of international news has significantly declined. While U.S. news outlets briefly ramped up overseas coverage immediately following 9/11, in recent years international stories have once again dropped off in favor of nationally focused pieces. In 2008, foreign news coverage was at a record low.

Strained budgets and sinking ad revenues have further altered the global media landscape, forcing the closure of U.S. foreign bureaus from Paris to Bangkok, with foreign correspondents in the traditional sense becoming increasingly obsolete.

Ironically, news outlets broadcasting in English have exploded in the last decade. Such newly emerging global news channels include Russia Today, China’s CCTV, Al Jazeera English, France 24, and Press TV from Iran, to name a few.  

Why the news invasion? Some experts point to a desire to offer a unique country-specific perspective on a world media stage dominated by CNN and the BBC. A jab, perhaps, at "Anglo-Saxon imperialism." Others see the phenomenon as propaganda by non-democratic governments like China, attempting to skew the facts. Al Jazeera English is still reviled by many Americans as promoting anti-western bias at best, and as a mouthpiece for dangerous extremists at worst.

Regardless of one's position on these international outlets, the majority of Americans are unable (or unlikely) to tune in. In a Foreign Policy editorial, Cyril Blet, author of Une Voix Mondiale Pour un État, (A World Voice for a State), a book profiling the state of world news, notes that unlike in Europe and elsewhere, international channels in the U.S. are available only via special cable or satellite packages, if at all. The lack of easy access to international news channels, he says, puts Americans at a disadvantage.

"When American viewers can't access international news, their ability to take part in global conversations suffers greatly," argues Blet. "The average U.S. television-watcher doesn't ever see the diverse interpretations of any single event that filter in to most TVs across the world."

With the Internet making international programming more accessible than ever, this may change in the coming years. But perhaps less important than specific broadcast platforms in international news distribution, is the belief in the value of these global conversations.

For this week's Global Pulse episode, Swine Flu: The Vaccination, host Erin Coker asks, Will you get vaccinated? Share your thoughts and watch this episode below!

When I first learned of swine flu, I dismissed the general reaction as unnecessary panic over something no more threatening than – well, catching the flu. Inconvenient and uncomfortable, but hardly the second coming of the 1918 influenza pandemic.

Then I caught the H1N1 virus myself. After being diagnosed, I took comfort in the fact that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the estimated 1 million Americans believed to have been infected with the virus between April and June, only about 593 have died. To provide a bit of perspective, seasonal flu can result in up to 500,000 deaths worldwide each year. So if you do get swine flu, chances are it will not kill you, or even result in serious symptoms. I am living proof, although there were times over the last week when I wasn’t so sure.

"Uncomfortable and inconvenient" is an understatement. I am a generally healthy young person, but I was immobilized by a high fever, chills, severe muscle pain and fatigue. I would be dishonest if I said that there weren't a few scary moments when I felt compelled to inhale deeply to make certain my lungs were still working. The normally benign shadows on my ceiling took on a menacing hallucinatory quality. Would ever feel like myself again?

Six days of bed rest, fluids and the antiviral Tamiflu later, I am starting to feel better. So, have my feelings about swine flu changed? Yes and no.

As ABC News reported earlier this week, thousands of people have contracted swine flu in recent months and have made a full recovery. Global mortality rates to date are lower than those associated with seasonal flu -- the World Health Organization (WHO) reports 2,837 H1N1 deaths worldwide -- but health experts have noted that H1N1 may cause more severe illness and death in younger adults and children than does the seasonal flu. Reuters reported that the WHO has also warned of a severe strain of swine flu that can cause acute respiratory illness in otherwise healthy young people.

More disturbing is the potential threat to developing countries, which often lack the resources to produce vaccines. A recent report released by a UK-based global risks intelligence firm (PDF) notes that while Western nations may be at the greatest risk of spreading H1N1, they also have significant resources to contain the proliferation of the virus. In contrast, Sub-Saharan Africa stands out as the area least able to contain an influenza pandemic. Underdeveloped health facilities and the difficulty of accessing doctors in rural areas could pose further risks to vulnerable populations.

Nonetheless, as I read recent reports warning of a more aggressive second wave of H1N1, or speculations of a deadly mutated super virus, I recall what Indian blogger Hariharan Krishnamurthy wrote in mid-August after a swine flu outbreak killed 20 people in Mumbai and in the western city of Pune: "There is a mass hysteria about the swine flu... The news channels are adding fuel to the fire... and newspapers showing only the negativity... I am not trying to undermine the seriousness of the issue but also so much panic is also not at all required."

A good reminder that prudence and preventative measures are best combined with a healthy dose of perspective.  Take it from one of the latest statistics.

Do you have a health care story? Visit Link TV's Real Conversations webcam site and tell us about it.

Health care reform is the hottest topic in U.S. news media this summer. One question that arises in this debate is whether the government should spend the money to overhaul the old system, or use the money to pay off federal deficits?
 
As one of the 47 million uninsured Americans, I think that the health care system in the U.S. is terrible. I earn barely enough to cover my expenses, and at the end of the month, I am left with very little extra cash to spend on something as important and necessary as health insurance.
 
I looked into buying insurance, and since I’m very healthy with no prior medical conditions, I expected to see insurance premiums of $50 - $85 a month. I was shocked to find that the lowest premiums started at $150 - $200, excluding dental or vision!! There was no way I could afford those prices.
 
Fortunately, I live in San Francisco, a very conscious and progressive city, where two years ago the City and County introduced a program called "Healthy San Francisco." This program covers primary care for all city residents, and the pay structure is based on income. I have now been with this program for one year and, although it doesn’t include major medical care, I’m happy.
 
But I began to wonder what would happen if I broke my leg. Would I be able to afford the hospital bills, or would they bankrupt me? A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation [PDF link] found that: "Every week, thousands of Americans file for bankruptcy related to medical costs [and] 42% of adults report having problems accessing health care due to cost." I definitely favor a system of health care that benefits everyone, especially those that cannot afford it. After all, the rich will always be able to afford health care whether it is universal or not.

Here’s a cartoon that says it all.
 
How do other developed countries manage their citizens’ health care? PBS Frontline’s "Sick Around the World" website describes how five of the world’s developed nations go about taking care of their sick.
 
A completely socialized health care system might not work in the U.S., but universal care with regulated options that are based on fair-market values just might work. While providing access to all, it will create motivation for insurers and providers to offer the best service they can.
 
In this week's Global Pulse episode, Health Care: America and the World, host John Hamilton asks for your health care stories. Share your thoughts at Link's Real Conversations site!

For this week's Global Pulse episode, Mr. Clinton Goes to Pyongyang, host Erin Coker asks the question: Did Kim Jong Il win this one? Share your thoughts and read our blog post, "Bill Clinton's Unique Position as U.S. Humanitarian and Diplomat", below!

Bill Clinton's Unique Position as U.S. Humanitarian and Diplomat

Did Kim Jong Il win this one? After being held in North Korea for several months, two American journalists finally returned home, thanks to Bill Clinton's deft negotiations with Kim Jong Il. Ultimately, the release of the two young women served the interests of both of these poweful men on the international political stage. 
One question that remains is whether it should have been the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, negotiating the return of U.S. citizens. An article on CNN's website commented that, "Former presidents are used as envoys and undertake humanitarian missions all the time," and, "Hillary herself has said she considered her husband a trusted adviser and could even consider using him where appropriate." In the world of international diplomacy and humanitarianism, acheiving the goal is more important than who achieves it.

Bill Clinton might be the perfect candidate to create an opening on the crucial nuclear issue. As a former president and husband of the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, he is in a unique position to be a humanitarian ambassador. He also has charm and recognition that allow him to gain access to the most difficult of places.

The video below, from Al Jazeera English, outlines the U.S. media debate sparked by the visit. Not surprisingly, the Obama administration is calling it a humanitarian mission, while former Bush administration officials say Pyonyang is using the reporters as "pawns" to "enhance [the] regime's legitimacy." You decide:  

Countries all over the world continue the push to explore the final frontier: space.  In the post-Cold War era, India, China and Japan have entered the race. Why go to space? Are there not enough expensive problems on Earth? National pride and security seem to be the obvious reasons, and the lure of untapped mineral resources.

In an article on NPR’s website, Roger Launius, the senior curator in Space History at the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C. says, "The moon was just another place for the Cold War to play out... We really went to the moon because of the geo-political rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union -- a competition on a broad front between two superpowers over control of the world."

Now that the Cold War has ended, the need to travel and explore space has grown more complex. The space race is no longer confined to the Moon; it includes establishing space stations, satellites for telecommunications and exploring planets, asteroids and meteors as well. Increasingly, the role of exploring space is driven by a need to augment knowledge about the physical universe in order to support the Earth. India, a developing country that has shown significant advancement in space technology, has been launching satellites that have been playing a supporting role in agriculture, water resources, urban development, mineral prospecting, environment, forestry, drought and flood forecasting, ocean resources and disaster management, according to an article on CNN’s website. India's space program founder, Vikram Sarbhai, said 60 years ago, "We are convinced that if we are to play a meaningful role nationally, and in the community of nations, we must be second to none in the application of advanced technologies to the real problems of man and society."

On the economical side of things, there are many mineral rich regions on the Moon and possibly other planets that could supplement the Earth's energy needs, therefore leading to a large economic boost for countries that hold rights to these resources. An article on Wikipedia says, "The Moon is thought to be rich in Helium-3, which could one day be used in nuclear fusion power plants to fuel future energy demands in Asia, which harbors over 60 percent of the world's population and is among its fastest-growing economies." As a result, China has been focused on sending its taikonauts to the Moon. Another article on NPR's website reported Ouyang Ziyuan, the lead scientist with China's Lunar Exploration Program, saying that the aim of China's space program is clear: to advance the country's economic and scientific development. Ouyang says, "We could meet the whole world's energy needs with a hundred tons of helium-3 a year. That means we could supply the Earth with enough energy for 10,000 years."  This is a significant finding, in view of the world's current energy crisis, such as the dwindling oil supplies and increasing climate overload.

Considering the reasons above, the quest for newer resources of energy outside our planet might be a justifiable expense. The International Space Station is a good example of cooperation between nations. Here, space travelers from many different countries work together in cooperation, while governments on Earth continue their rivalries and wars. As Carl Sagan, an American astronomer and popular science writer said, "A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet. One of the great revelations of the age of space exploration is the image of the earth finite and lonely, somehow vulnerable, bearing the entire human species through the oceans of space and time."

This week’s Global Pulse examines hackers disrupting government websites. But governments are themselves hackers.
 
The Electronic Frontier Foundation describes how the U.S. National Security Administration and AT&T teamed up and “engaged in a massive program of illegal dragnet surveillance … of ordinary Americans.” Most analysts say China keeps track of its citizen’s computers through the “Ghostnet”, and by spying on communications through Skype. An article in Tech News World says that “Russia’s apparent effort to shut down Georgian government websites in August (2008) was one of the most public incidents of cyber attacks by a government to date.” Even liberal Holland has admitted to spying on a local news agency by means of hacking, as this article from the Der Spiegel website indicates.
 
It makes us wonder, is hacking different from a government’s spying on its own people and other countries? One obvious difference is that governments have more resources and personnel than hackers have. Bruce Shneier defines a hacker as “…someone who discards conventional wisdom, and does something else instead. Someone who looks at the edge and wonders what's beyond. Someone who sees a set of rules and wonders what happens if you don't follow them.” According to a study by Roger Blake at EFF, hackers are “mostly male, between the ages of twelve and twenty-eight” and, “consider themselves misfits and misunderstood.” The same study speaks of how hacker communities create their own information economy that values expertise in gathering information, much in the same way a surveillance operation does. 

Finally, a handful of accomplished hackers can grow up to become security consultants and “get to hack for a living.” In other words, they develop new security protocols for codes they are paid to break. So in the end, there is a continuum between hackers and governments that should give anyone pause before condemning one, or the other.