In the latest episode of Global Pulse, host Erin Coker looks at global media coverage of the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Watch the episode and share your thoughts below!

I remember a talk I had with Danuta Pawlowska, the Polish grandmother of a good friend of mine, in her Warsaw apartment several years ago. A member of the Warsaw resistance during the Nazi occupation, Danuta was closely monitored after the communists took over in the mid 1940s.

She recalled a long gossip-filled phone conversation with a close friend. Two hours into the conversation, a booming male voice suddenly burst through the receiver. "Would you just shut up already?" the man groaned. "How much more of this must I listen to?!"

I had laughed at the time. For a young American with roots in Warsaw, the idea of a government agent listening to a banal chat with a friend was amusing – something fit for a dime store spy thriller. In Warsaw's meticulously reconstructed Old Town, today's foreign tourists purchase T-shirts and shot glasses; bursts of bad American pop music filter out of the same fashion chain stores that line Paris' Rue de Rennes or Copenhagen's Strøget. The stylish, boisterous students crowding the bars and cafes have no memory of life in pre-1989 Warsaw. 

Yet, if you venture outside of the city center, the medieval architecture gives way to monotonous tenements, the color of diesel exhaust. Passing by some of these buildings at dusk is an unnerving, somewhat melancholy experience, and I'll admit that I glanced over my shoulder more than once. For Danuta and millions of others, that reality was life.

I was also a child when the Berlin Wall came down.  I remember the now-iconic images of jubilant Berliners  rushing the wall with pickaxes, but I was too young to grasp the larger significance of the event and what it meant to Germany, Europe and the world.

I would like to say that I left Poland with a greater understanding of what day-to-day life must have been like for Europeans, such as Danuta, who had lived under the Soviet regime. Like Warsaw's younger generation, however, that second-hand knowledge can only resonate so much.  The generation gap in Poland has resulted in a new type of barrier, between those who remember and those who came of age in a different time.

In the flood of anniversary coverage this week, the most telling, perhaps, is a BBC special report.  Amidst the frenzy of anniversary festivities, Walls Around the World is a sobering reminder of the barriers, from North Korea to Botswana, that have yet to topple.

I think of Danuta and of the magnitude of what she witnessed. I wonder which other walls will come down over the course of my lifetime.

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 the latest episode of Global Pulse, host Erin Coker asks whether China's 60th anniversary festivities were a display of power for the world or just for Chinese citizens. Watch the episode and leave your comments below!

Media worldwide covered China's celebration of 60 years of communist rule, acknowledging China's rise over the past six decades, while also pointing out its spotty human rights record and the barring of its own citizens from attending the festivities.

Such general wariness of the Communist Party of China's (CPC) celebration may be indicative of a greater global anxiety concerning China's new place on the world stage. In marrying the tenets of communism with explosive economic growth, the country has, perhaps, come to embody the worst of communism and capitalism -- reckless urbanization within the rigid framework of a repressive authoritarian system. The result? A growing power whose rapid industrial expansion and repression of personal freedoms is both a detriment to its people and a possible threat to western interests.

Some experts question the durability of the so-called "authoritarian capitalism" model. "The more open and competitive an economy becomes, the greater the pressure to liberalize political institutions and democratize civil society," notes Tim Dunne in a Guardian editorial. "China wants the former while resisting the latter."

For state-run Chinese media however, capitalism remains an opposing ideology that is distinct from both the country's government and its burgeoning economy. A recent opinion piece in the state-run People's Daily extols socialism as the country’s historical choice, while an article on the CCTV website attributes China's private sector expansion to the country's larger socialist market economy.

In Yasheng Huang's 2008 book, Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics, the MIT professor points to reforms of governance, not market reforms, as crucial for China’s brand of capitalism to thrive. "Many of the endemic problems in the Chinese economy today—massive pollution, corruption, inefficient capital deployment, land grabs, and so forth—cannot be tackled without…reforms of Chinese political governance," a Reuters article notes in an analysis of Huang's book.
 
In the end, whether seen as a pure success story, a threat to the west, or the worst of two economic systems, China's continuing rise assures that it will not be ignored.

For this week's Global Pulse episode, Bonus Battle, host Erin Coker asks whether France's new bonus restrictions are workable. Share your thoughts and watch this episode below!

A leader whose extravagant lifestyle once earned him the moniker "President Bling-Bling," Nicolas Sarkozy has adopted a tough stance against financial excess in recent weeks. Following national furor over banking giant BNP Paribas' partial use of government bailout funds to finance a one billion euro bonus payout, new rules require French banks to spread bonus payments over three years, with one-third of bonuses to be paid in stocks. If a trader's investments lose money, the trader also loses the bonus.

The French president has since taken his bonus battle to the international stage, calling for broad global measures to curb traders' compensation, including a fixed international limit on bonuses. Sarkozy even threatened to walk out of the G-20 summit if leaders fail to reach an agreement on bonuses.

European Commission President José Barroso told Bloomberg television that citizens "are horrified" by banks' use of government funds to pay bonuses, and that international bonus restrictions could "restore credibility to the financial system."

Although American and British leaders agree on the need for financial regulation, they have balked at the idea of bonus caps. President Obama is "reluctant to set individual compensation levels." It is looking like Sarkozy may compromise on the caps, as long as the larger package is put in place.

Debates over bank bonuses are also raging outside of the political sphere. Earlier this year, American and British outrage over executive bonuses spurred demonstrations from Wall Street to London. However, as the global economy shows signs of recovery, some experts have questioned the need to quell bonuses.

"I don't think, ultimately, people really care that much about banker bonuses," writes Daniel Indiviglio in a recent Atlantic Monthly article. "The only reason they do now is because there was a financial crisis. Once things get better, most of that anger dissipates." He adds: "The bonus culture isn’t what caused the financial crisis, it was a culmination of factors."

The Washington DC-based Institute for Policy Studies hailed the Sarkozy decision, arguing that European government action "will open up opportunities in Washington for real change to an executive compensation system that now threatens our economy and our democracy."

But even some French supporters are doubtful that the global financial world will embrace the measures. "Sarkozy's idea is a good one," Nicolas Bouchard, a 32-year-old Paris-based corporate attorney told Global Pulse in an email. "But it is a difficult one to carry out in a global system.  Paris is a small financial center in comparison with Wall Street or London."

One self-described French "utopist" offered another way that Sarkozy could display support for the end of economic excess. In an email to Global Pulse, Alexandre Carpentier, 28, challenged summit attendees to forgo luxury hotels in favor of more modest accommodations.

"It would help the local economy, there would be less rioting and people would be proud of their leaders," the Paris-based competition lawyer explained.

A bit of a stretch? Probably. But a reminder that in a world recovering from financial fallout, public scrutiny is on political leaders as much as it is on banks -- particularly a president trying to distance himself from a "bling-bling" image.

For this week's Global Pulse episode, Iran’s Power Players, host Erin Coker asks the question: Are Khamenei and Ahmadinejad playing "good cop, bad cop"? Share your thoughts below!

In the nearly three months since Iran's disputed election and the massive street protests that followed, global media have turned their attention to the internal factional bickering within Iran's ruling party. Allegations of detainee abuse have created further fissures within Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's conservative government, with the country's leadership offering conflicting responses to the allegations.

Reacting to claims made by opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi of detainee torture and sexual abuse, Iran's parliament speaker Ali Larijani vehemently dismissed the allegations as "sheer lies," according to a CNN report. Larijani's remarks contradicted police and judiciary officials who acknowledged detainee abuse at the now-shuttered Kahrizak prison and promised to investigate the claims. According to The Guardian, an unnamed Iranian MP said he had proof of the abuse, further contradicting Larijani.

As this week's episode points out, Ahmadinejad and the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have also appeared at odds over abuse allegations. According to a report that ran on the state-controlled Press TV website on August 28th, Ahmadinejad blamed the abuse on an enemy plot, saying that he had evidence which "exonerated revolutionary, military, security and intelligence forces." But three days later, following a report that the detained son of a conservative political advisor had died as a result of abuse, the BBC reported that Ayatollah Khamenei promised the young man's father that those responsible would be brought to justice.

The confusing signals reflect factional struggles at the highest levels of government, which can only be aggravated by the Iranian blogosphere's relentless pursuit of allegations of torture, sexual abuse and killings of detained protesters, often through chilling personal accounts. On September 2, the independent Radio Zamanah’s website reported that a rape victim and key witness in the case had disappeared. Mentions of the story surfaced several times throughout the day on the microblogging site Twitter, alongside posts like "Regime, No matter how many you execute, torture, or rape. We will never stop. We will never give up on our right to freedom," and, "Saeedeh's body was burned & almost unrecognizable (note that she was arrested from her house, so burning was deliberate)."

Even after the dust has settled on the present internal political struggle, it may take more than damage control to bridge the divisions between the Iranian government and its people.

In my opinion, nakedness lays bare a person's true nature. It strips away hidden agendas, dishonesty and any sense that the person is untouchable. I could see nakedness playing an important role in the world of politics. I am tired of the deception of politicos. I want the naked truth.

 A humorous article on the Guardian website speculates that many political careers would end if politicians made speeches in the nude. For example, "If Robert Mugabe had to stand naked before the people of Zimbabwe and justify his actions he'd be gone in seconds." The writer, Richard Smith, muses that nakedness among politicians could go so far as to abolish tyranny. It makes me laugh to think of that.

Vladimir Putin has turned heads by gallivanting shirtless around Siberia. Sure, it's easy for Western media to poke fun at the Russian PM, but as reported by Spiegel Online, the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaja Pravda "ran a 'Be Like Putin' article, instructing men about exercises they can do to develop a robust torso like Putin's.” Seems like Putin has found a way to motivate young Russian men to be fit and healthy by showing off his own naked torso!

In Belgium, politician Tania Derveaux, the leading candidate of the NEE party for the senate, posed nude in a billboard campaign. Sexy and suggestive, these posters might just gain the support Tania needs to win the senate seat.

And in Poland, the Polish Women's Party used a similar tactic as Tania, albeit a little less suggestive and more political, in their campaign posters. In a Telegraph article, party founder and writer, Manuela Gretkowska said, "This poster is intended to shatter stereotypes in the anachronistic world of politics, which is more often dominated by uncommunicative men." According to Lara Kattan, a writer and professor at Northwestern University, "Most of the major [Polish] parties list female candidates' names on the bottom of electoral lists so they're not seen and not voted for."

Nakedness shows that politicians can relax, be at ease and be human like the rest of us.

Do we need more nudity in government? Does seeing our politicians without their clothes on give us more confidence in their leadership abilities? I think so. What do you think?

In this week's Global Pulse episode, World Leaders - NAKED!, host Erin Coker asks why we are so fascinated by seeing our politicians in the buff. Share your thoughts on "Naked Politicians = Truth + Honesty"!

Almost two weeks after the heavily disputed Iranian elections, the question still remains: Was the election rigged? According to the Guardian Council’s spokesman, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, “[There were] No major irregularities in Iran's election,” yet they have requested a 5 day extension to continue their investigations. Meanwhile on the streets of Tehran, people continue demonstrating and get beaten and killed as a result, as a report from McClatchy News describes.

My name is Shams, a pseudonym. My parents are from Iran and Pakistan and I was born in the U.S. I grew up in all three countries and speak all three languages fluently. I spent my teenage years growing up and attending school in Tehran. I have been living in the U.S. for the last 9 years. As I watch events unfold in Iran, I can’t help but feel a mixture of guilt, rage, excitement and reservation. On one hand, after having lived under the Islamic Regime and experiencing the oppression first-hand, I know how exciting and incredible these demonstrations are and how much hope they are eliciting worldwide. Yet, on the other hand, I have strong reservations and doubts about what the Iranian government wants the world to know or see and what is actually happening behind closed doors.

Chaos has been allowed to erupt in Iran because the rulers are divided. On closer observation, there is a lot happening in the leading ranks. Clerics, parliament members and other civil servants have been voicing concerns over the elections and the violence that has ensued in opposition to the results. Ahmadinejad, supported by Iran’s Supreme Leader, is seen in this video, meeting with clerics and talking about a change that will take away the right to vote. While Rafsanjani, his main rival and head of the Assembly of Experts, held an emergency meeting with the same body to discuss post-election matters. This body also has the constitutional power to depose the Supreme Leader. According to the Huffington Post, Rafsanjani’s meeting was seen as a possible threat to the current government and brought about the immediate arrest of his relatives as “a clear warning from the hard-line establishment to a cleric who may be aligning himself with the opposition.”

When I lived in Iran, life was normal in the most basic sense of the word. We had our parties, met with boys, ate, drank and made merry, but all out of sight of the authorities. Yet, we wanted more. We wanted the chance to voice our opinions without being arrested or shut down. We wanted the ability to walk down the street without being persecuted for what we were wearing or not wearing. We wanted to listen to music and show our art publicly, even if it had controversial subjects. But we were too afraid. We were afraid of all that we heard from those who had gotten arrested and beaten for speaking out, wearing what they wanted to, or listening to loud rock music…

I returned to visit in 2005, when Ahmadinejad had just won the elections, and what I saw was very disheartening. I saw a population of young and talented people wasting away by means of drugs, alcohol and a general sense of indifference. No one was concerned about rights or freedoms; they just wanted to escape reality.

At this pivotal moment in history, I watch the demonstrations and masses of people all over the country pouring into the streets, speaking their minds and standing together, with tears in my eyes. It has made me wildly joyful and filled with hope to know that those same indifferent people from a few years ago are rising up to the challenge of fighting for what they want: freedom.

So, what will become of my people and country? All I can do is pray that none of the lives that have been lost, the suffering or the anguish experienced is in vain, and that whatever change takes place is for the best and is defined by the people.

A week has passed since the disputed Iranian elections, and reliable information from Iran has been more and more difficult to come by. One relatively well-publicized event though took place Tuesday, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad flew to Russia to participate in his first foreign policy trip as Iran's newly re-elected president. The reason: a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a political alliance between Russia, China, and several former Soviet states, with a few nearby nations like Iran maintaining "observer" status.

While nations like the U.S., Germany, and France expressed concern that only massive vote fraud led to Ahmadinejad's re-election, a far warmer reception lay in wait at the SCO. "The Iranian elections are the internal affair of the Iranian people," declared Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov. Ahmadinejad spoke briefly, criticizing the U.S. and the "international capitalist order" while ignoring the rising protests back home.

Ahmadinejad's SCO speech was brief, but its symbolism important. Russia and China's warm reception for a "stable" yet undemocratic Iran speaks to a larger push to organize developing nations in alliances that exclude nations like the U.S. Shortly after Ahmadinejad's return to Iran, the SCO played host to a summit of the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, and China), which represent the most influential of developing economies. According to a Goldman Sachs report, by 2050 the BRIC nations could surpass the current leading economies, with smaller developing nations like Iran rivaling Canada and Italy in total output.

In the streets of Tehran today, there is still hope that a promised vote recount will yield a fair result. But friends of electoral justice in Iran would do well to take note of the indifference of many global players to the outcome in light of other economic and political ends.

South Africa's new president Jacob Zuma assumed power this week with no shortage of controversy trailing him. Derided over the years as a terrorist, a communist, and an uneducated polygamist, Zuma arrived at the presidency having recently beaten back charges of rape and corruption. Free market devotees worry that Zuma will unravel South Africa's free trade policies. And on the left, observers are clamoring for the former freedom figher and long-time ANC leader to address the nation's epidemic poverty, crime, and HIV/AIDS infection rates.

But with all the speculation of dramatic change, Zuma's first week can't but seem a bit anticlimactic. Saturday's inauguration ceremony was marked by the appearance of Nelson Mandela to whom Zuma kneeled before addressing the nation. Zuma's midweek cabinet selection provided hope to both partisans on the right and left and pleased a broad cross-section of the South African press. Even the Mail & Guardian cartoonist Zapiro, a long-time Zuma satirist, agreed to depict the new president in a more conciliatory light.

Still, South Africa's inaugural week was not without its controversy. Opposition leader Helen Zille accused Zuma of putting his three wives at risk of contracting HIV and therefore was unfit to tackle social policy. BBC News further published a report that detailed Zuma's use of the nation's growing spy services, particularly for his defense against corruption charges.

Will Zuma prove to be a leader to unite South Africa? Or will critics prove justified in their skepticism of his ability to lead?

Watch the Global Pulse episode on Jacob Zuma here.

Obama declassifies Bush administration documents that detail and attempt to legalize what some have called "torture techniques." While the U.S media seem focused on the political ramifications, media worldwide present the brutality of torture and point the finger of blame directly at Bush.

SOURCES: FOX, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Daily Show, U.S; TV5, France; Press TV, Iran; TVN, Chile; Al Jazeera English, Qatar