NDN Blog

Yesterday, NDN, CTIA, the UN Foundation, and the Vodaphone Foundation partnered to release a study on mHealth for Development. Following a morning program focusing on the domestic benefits of mHealth, and specifically its ability to impact chronic disease, the evening program focused on mHealth in the developing world.

The evening session featured speakers very close to NDN. Simon opened the presentation, framing the conversation broadly around the power of mobile and reading from the 2007 paper he coauthored with Alec Ross, now the Senior Advisor on Innovation to Secretary of State Clinton:

A single global communications network, composed of Internet, mobile, SMS, cable and satellite technology, is rapidly tying the world’s people together as never before. The core premise of this paper is that the emergence of this network is one of the seminal events of the early 21st century. Increasingly, the world’s commerce, finance, communications, media and information are flowing through this network. Half of the world’s 6 billion people are now connected to this network, many through powerful and inexpensive mobile phones. Each year more of the world’s people become connected to the network, its bandwidth increases, and its use becomes more integrated into all that we do.

Connectivity to this network, and the ability to master it once on, has become an essential part of life in the 21st century, and a key to opportunity, success and fulfillment for the people of the world.

We believe it should be a core priority of the United States to ensure that all the world’s people have access to this global network and have the tools to use it for their own life success. There is no way any longer to imagine free societies without the freedom of commerce, expression, and community, which this global network can bring. Bringing this network to all, keeping it free and open and helping people master its use must be one of the highest priorities of those in power in the coming years.

The evening continued as Ross spoke, largely about his work at the State Department, noting that “networks are as, if not more, important than states and governments.” Following Ross, Tom Kalil, the Deputy Policy Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy spoke, reviewing the conclusions he drew in the paper he wrote last year for NDN affiliate, the New Policy Insitute, on Harnessing the Mobile Revolution. In October of 2008, Kalil wrote:

that the explosive growth of mobile communications can be a powerful tool for addressing some of the most critical challenges of the 21st century, such as promoting vibrant democracies, fostering inclusive economic growth, and reducing the huge inequities in life expectancy between rich and poor nations.

The benefits of mobile communications are particularly profound for developing countries, many of which are “leapfrogging” the traditional fixed telecommunications infrastructure. As a result, billions of people in developing countries are gaining access to modern communications of any sort for the first time. There is no doubt that mobile communications are having a significant impact on the way Americans live, work and communicate with each other. But the impact is no doubt more keenly felt by the African mother who can call ahead to determine whether a doctor is available to treat her sick child before traveling for hours.

Following Kalil, former Senator Tim Wirth of the UN Foundation introduced the study on mHealth and Development, which is available here.

This morning, I tweeted the proceedings of the CTIA mHealth event on Capitol Hill and this evening I did the same from the NDN, Vodafone, UN Foundation event celebrating the release of an important report on mHealth and development. It was a little experiment in microblogging that I hope some of our readers enjoyed. You should, of course, follow NDN on Twitter and stay tuned to the video from this evening's event.

The World Bank released research yesterday on the state of global finance and the global economy, arguing that the world is going to enter an "era of markedly slower economic growth." They are generally positive on the policy response to date, but still argue that much is to be done. One of the most important releases comes from their thoughts on the prospects of a global recovery:

Finally, there is a very urgent need to recognize that poor countries that were already under strain—notably from suffering through the food and fuel crisis—should receive attention quickly. These countries have little or no access to private foreign capital even in good times, and are largely dependent on donors for the resources needed to meet the Millennium Development Goals, which have a due date of 2015.

Recent history has seen hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty by the creation of economic opportunity around the world. The Great Recession has reversed or forestalled this trend in many places, with potentially disastrous social and political consequences. It's the kind of thing that makes one wonder about members of Congress blocking IMF funds.

In this morning's Washington Post, Michael A. Fletcher writes about the probability of a jobless recovery, a meme that has been growing in the zeitgeist around Washington lately.

Despite signs that the recession gripping the nation's economy may be easing, the unemployment rate is projected to continue rising for another year before topping out in double digits, a prospect that threatens to slow growth, increase poverty and further complicate the Obama administration's message of optimism about the economic outlook.

The likelihood of severe unemployment extending into the 2010 midterm elections and beyond poses a significant political hurdle to President Obama and congressional Democrats, who are already under fire for what critics label profligate spending. Continuing high unemployment rates would undercut the fundamental argument behind much of that spending: the promise that it will create new jobs and improve the prospects of working Americans, which Obama has called the ultimate measure of a healthy economy.
...

Since the recession took hold in December 2007, the U.S. economy has lost 5.7 million jobs, a rapid decline that caught administration and other economists off guard. In recent months, the velocity of job losses has slowed substantially, which, combined with a rising stock market and increases in consumer spending, has offered hope that a recovery is beginning to take hold.

But employers still cut 345,000 jobs last month, while the nation's growing working-age population requires the job market to expand by 125,000 to 150,000 a month just to keep the unemployment rate stable.

The dynamics of the modern economy further dim the employment picture. Job growth was weak for years after the past two recessions, in 1991 and 2001. Employers have grown increasingly slow to rehire workers, and steady advances in technology have allowed businesses to do more with fewer workers.

It's really only a matter of time until that double-digit unemployment number comes out, and there are strong arguments to be made that we are, for most intents and purposes, already there. This means it's very much worth thinking about the jobs meme that has basically taken over the economic dialogue. If a jobless recovery is a strong possibility, crafting an agenda around that meme has become far more politically dangerous. It also means that it's now worth devoting almost every waking minute to figuring out how to avoid such a scenario - or an even share of time fixing it and blaming it on the last guy, which is what FDR was able to do, and what the American people overwhelmingly believe right now.

The bill, based on a proposal from our own Dr. Robert Shapiro that would offer free computer training to all Americans through the nation's community colleges and introduced by House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson, H.R. 2060 The Community College Technology Access Act of 2009, continues to gain momentum. The bill is growing stronger in the House of Representatives, as it now has 34 cosponsors and has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness. The cosponsors are:

Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3]
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU]
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE]
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12]
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4]
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3]
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4]
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17]
Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4]
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1]
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13]
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2]
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4]
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5]
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7]
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13]
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8]
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38]
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR]
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2]
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16]
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18]
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4]
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34]
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP]
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13]
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7]
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13]
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9]
Rep Wu, David [OR-1]

It's a great bill, and we applaud Chairman John Larson for his leadership in building a 21st century economic agenda for America by ensuring that our workers have the tools to compete in the interconnected era of globalization.

Yesterday on FP.com, the Tufts Fletcher School’s Daniel Drezner wrote about the problems Russia is causing itself by being seen to meddle in Iran’s internal politics (in stark contrast to Obama's smart response).  Basically, he picks up on an Andrew Sullivan blog in which Iranians seem to believe that something like a Russian Coup is actually happening, and that the Russians are now very concerned about this and trying to backtrack, likely unsuccessfully.

I also think Drezner’s right on in terms of where things are headed, which is now in stark contrast to where the situation was just a couple days ago. Until recently, Obama was accurate in saying that there was little difference in terms of policy outcomes between an Ahmadinejad and Mousavi win (and he was certainly right to say it, so as to not pronounce an American favorite, thereby handicapping that person). Now, as Drezner rights, the situation in Iran is at a fundamentally different point (my emphasis):

I'm pretty sure a Rubicon has been crossed in Iran that can't be uncrossed.  This isn't 1999 and 2003 -- too many days have passed with the Khamenei regime on the defensive.  The regime as it existed for the past twenty years -- hemmed-in democracy combined with clerical rule -- is not going to be able to continue.  With the largest protests of the past week scheduled for tomorrow, I think this ends in one of two ways:  the removal of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei from power, or bloodshed on a scale that we cannot comprehend. 

Actually, come to think of it, those two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.  

As many already know, NDN's discussion on the future of the global auto industry with Better Place CEO Shai Agassi did not occur as scheduled yesterday. We apologize for this cancellation, which was caused by Agassi's plane being grounded in New York. We look forward to further discussion on this topic with Agassi and the Better Place team, and will keep the NDN community up to date on a future event. In the meantime, please enjoy this video of Agassi from NDN's Moment of Transformation conference last year.

Yesterday on the NDN Blog, Simon, Sam, Dan, and I wrote quite a bit about Obama’s foreign policy philosophy, and I’d like to present a couple more takes on the subject. First, TNR’s Peter Scoblic applauds the Obama Administration’s response to Iran, and their ability to craft a middle ground between realism and idealism:

I don't accept the suggestion that if one is not an idealist, one is necessarily a cold-blooded realist. Although there are certainly those who believe that the internal affairs of other countries are irrelevant or unimportant, it is possible to care about human rights while questioning America's ability to influence the internal affairs of other countries and while doubting that our values and our interests are always synonymous. The United States has other priorities as well. Thus one can be skeptical of the efficacy and wisdom of diplomatic and military pressure in the name of human rights without being amoral. Moreover, although realism may be "cold," its ideological opposite, which puts the nature of regimes at the center of our foreign policy, is even more problematic. In this view, one espoused chiefly by conservatives and neoconservatives, the fact that a regime is good or evil becomes not simply a moral observation but a strategic guide. Idealism's concern with regimes, in other words, can rapidly deteriorate into a dangerous Manichaeism.
…

I think it is possible to have a foreign policy that harbors no illusions about the nature of enemy regimes, but that recognizes our limited capacity to change those regimes and therefore our need to engage them. I think it is possible to have a moral foreign policy that is not moralist. But how, exactly, do we pursue our idealist instincts without sabotaging the security of the United States and our allies? How can we be appropriately self-interested without being utterly selfish? These are the questions we're wrestling with right now. At first glance, the answers may seem to differ only in balance and degree. (Does one speak loudly and decry the evil of the mullah-cracy in order to support the protestors, or does one hold back, recognizing that interference could backfire not only against Mousavi's backers but against American interests more broadly?) But these are not simply tactical questions…they are the manifestations of fundamentally different worldviews, which is to say they represent different assessments of our strategic priorities and our capabilities.

Also, Stephen Walt over at FP.com convincingly rejects Andrew Sullivan’s call for Western governments to refuse to acknowledge Ahmadinejad as president of Iran, asking how far we would have to apply that standard. He is also (not surprisingly) pleased with Obama’s response to Iran:

Obama's measured response to the events in Iran strikes me as more sensible: we can and should deplore the abuses of basic rights and the democratic process, while making it clear that the United States is not interfering and remaining open to the possibility of constructive dialogue. Given our long and troubled history with Iran (which includes active support for groups seeking to overthrow the current government), any sense that we are now trying to back Moussavi is likely to backfire. Trying to steer this one from Washington won’t advance our interests or those of the reformists.  

Here's a hypothetical question for you to ponder. Which world would you prefer: 1) a world where Ahmadinejad remains in power, but Iran formally reaffirms that it will not develop nuclear weapons, ratifies and implements the Additional Protocol of the NPT, comes clean to our satisfaction about past violations (including the so-called "alleged studies"), permits highly intrusive inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities, and ends support for Hamas and Hezbollah as part of a "grand bargain" with the West; or 2) a world where Mir Hussein Mousavi -- who was the Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister from 1981 to 1989 -- wins a new election but then doesn't alter Iran's activities at all? 

This is hypothetical, of course, and almost certainly does not reflect the likely policy alternatives. But your choice of which world you'd prefer probably reveals a lot about how you conceive of the national interest, and the degree to which you think foreign policy should emphasize concrete security achievements on the one hand, or normative preferences on the other.

Finally, I hesitate to even link to this, but Robert Kagan embarrassed himself this morning in the Washington Post. Jonathan Chait at TNR does a fine job of dismantling his argument.

This morning on the NDN Blog and the Huffington Post, Simon laid out an argument, to which he urged me to respond, concluding that, due to the rapidly changing nature of the global landscape, the “rise of the rest,” and the ability of America’s very unique new president to speak directly to the world’s peoples, Barack Obama will not be able to be a realist, and will instead have to base his foreign policy on the politics of global aspiration.

Simon’s argument is powerful, and the points he makes about the changing global landscape are on the mark. Obama does indeed have a unique ability to communicate to the world’s peoples, both from a personal and technological standpoint, that is unparalleled. But if Obama is not a realist, what is he?

I would argue that he is certainly not a foreign policy liberal and certainly not a neo-liberal (indisputably the ideological predecessor to neo-conservatism). We will not see an emphasis on democracy promotion as a panacea, and I doubt very much that Obama advisers will be heard calling America “the indispensible nation.”

Rather, much like his domestic policy, Obama’s foreign policy defies labels.

In his almost six months in office, Obama has crafted a middle road, one that has America’s interests at heart, but defines American interests more broadly. It rejects the easily caricatured cynical realism of Kissinger and the narrow realism of Scowcroft/Baker. As Simon argues, he embraces the so called “rise of the rest,” which is not necessarily contrary to American interests – more markets for our goods, greater stability, and fewer failed states all work in our favor.

While Obama often speaks about ideals, we have not seen him subordinate them to interests. In this, Obama has already been the consummate realist – avoiding Carter-esque handwringing about human rights in China, rebuffing Israel – our democratic ally – on settlements, and, most recently, offering very cautious comments on Iran that have sought to avoid pro-democracy pontificating, while still noting that self-determination is a universal value.

The moment that Obama faces and the challenges that come with it, from terrorism, to global poverty, to the rise of new powers, demand this middle road that Obama is walking. America will use diplomacy, alleviate poverty, disease, and strife, and build international institutions all because these serve the American interests that Obama will redefine. He can talk about values, but it will come with the historical knowledge that some of our most disastrous foreign policy moments have come out of liberalism, and that blindly insisting on liberal ideals will, in many cases, backfire.

I’d imagine that, over the next few years, we will find that Obama’s foreign policy will be something that looks like a realism of a more liberal variety, just as Obama’s brand of pragmatism is progressive. And just as a term like pragmatic progressive barely serves as a good descriptor of the Obama domestic policy, nor will whatever term emerges like “liberal realist” be a good descriptor of Obama’s foreign policy. Suffice it to say that the great challenge for this man, in this moment, is to bring America closer to the rest of the world, and the world closer to America, than either has been in a long time – in a manner that serves America’s interests. And he might just be able to do it.

The bill, based on a proposal from our own Dr. Robert Shapiro that would offer free computer training to all Americans through the nation's community colleges and introduced by House Democratic Caucus Chair John Larson, H.R. 2060 The Community College Technology Access Act of 2009, continues to gain momentum. The bill is growing stronger in the House of Representatives, as it now has 34 cosponsors and has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Higher Education, Lifelong Learning, and Competitiveness. The cosponsors are:

Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3]
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU]
Rep Castle, Michael N. [DE]
Rep Costello, Jerry F. [IL-12]
Rep Edwards, Donna F. [MD-4]
Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3]
Rep Grayson, Alan [FL-8]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4]
Rep Hare, Phil [IL-17]
Rep Himes, James A. [CT-4]
Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1]
Rep Kilpatrick, Carolyn C. [MI-13]
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2]
Rep Markey, Betsy [CO-4]
Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5]
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7]
Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13]
Rep Murphy, Patrick J. [PA-8]
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38]
Rep Pierluisi, Pedro R. [PR]
Rep Polis, Jared [CO-2]
Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16]
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18]
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4]
Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34]
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP]
Rep Schwartz, Allyson Y. [PA-13]
Rep Sestak, Joe [PA-7]
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13]
Rep Smith, Adam [WA-9]
Rep Wu, David [OR-1]

It's a great bill, and we applaud Chairman John Larson for his leadership in building a 21st century economic agenda for America by ensuring that our workers have the tools to compete in the interconnected era of globalization.