Last week we asked listeners this question: how would you mount a successful revolution? Anchor Marco Werman goes over some of our listener's answers with The World's Alex Gallafent.

Commodity exports have soared in recent years and they've helped cushion Latin America from much of the global downturn. But many countries including Argentina are still vulnerable. Ian Mount sent us this report from Buenos Aires.

Global financial crisis

Anchor Marco Werman speaks with Linda Robinson, author of "Tell Me How This Ends: General David Petraeus and the Search for a Way Out of Iraq." Robinson describes how General Petraeus helped improve the situation in Iraq, and how that experience can help the general now that he'll be in charge of US strategy in Afghanistan.

It seemed like a done deal. But a draft security agreement between Washington and Baghdad has run into trouble. Over the weekend, Iraqis began expressing objections to the deal. The World's Katy Clark reports on the political back and forth, and what this says about democracy in Iraq.

Gen Odierno, Ambassador Crocker, and Iraqi President Talabani

Today on The World: a draft security agreement between the US and Iraq runs into trouble in Baghdad; also, how General David Petraeus's Iraq strategy could be applied to Afghanistan; and increasing clashes between settlers and farmers in the West Bank.

Kang Cheol HwanKang Cheol Hwan was only 9 when he and his family were sent to North Korea's Yodok prison camp after his grandfather was accused of treason. Kang spent ten years there before being released in 1987. A few years later he defected to South Korea. Kang is Vice Chairman of the Committee for the Democratization of North Korea (CDNK), a human rights group founded by former defectors. He reports on North Korea for the Chosun Daily

A Letter to the U.S. President To Be Elected

I am a North Korean defector who had the opportunity of talking about North Korea's human rights problems with President Bush for 40 minutes in June 2005 with a presidential invitation to the White House.

As a person who has suffered the most under an unprecedented oppressive regime, it was a great honor to meet with the U.S. president who can exert great influence to North Korea. I felt it was a significant place to discuss the strategies and tactics to solve the problems of North Korea together.

I collected the opinions of many former high-ranking defectors including the former DPRK Labor Party Secretary Hwang Jang Yop to give a detailed account why the fastest way to solve the North Korean problem for President Bush is not through the nuclear weapons issue but through North Korean human rights. I have also specifically mentioned that the problem of North Korean defectors is not a difficult one that could be resolved through the negotiation between the U.S. and China.

I think it is important to know the reason defectors – who have experienced the North Korean regime – stress that the problem of North Korean nuclear weapons cannot be solved through dialogue. The Kim Jong Il regime is already economically destroyed and the overall sentiment of the people have turned against the regime to the point where the military is at the cusp of turning its back as well. If Kim Jong Il didn't have nuclear weapons, he would lose the central source of his power and this would mean that his regime would be demolished as well.

Thus, as the international community continues to obsess over the nuclear weapons issue, Kim Jong Il will use this to sustain his regime and the results are that he will secure the resources needed for his regime through all sorts of threats. In the past year, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill led the Six-Party talks but there has been no improvement and this was something that defectors had already predicted.

With the resolution of the nuclear weapons issue, North Korea could solve its economic sanction but as the U.S. gave in first, this allowed Kim Jong Il to take a breather. It is not too late for the U.S. to reverse its decision to remove North Korea from the list of states that support terrorism because it is a one-sided diplomatic achievement for North Korea with no effect whatsoever in the resolution of the nuclear weapons issue.

This is a country where a person can disappear in the middle of the night for saying something wrong and many people living in North Korea are puzzled about the removal of North Korea from the U.S. list of states that support terrorism. The fact that North Korea had violated the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework without any repercussion had led to this nuclear crisis. A conversation with only a carrot and no stick is meaningless in actuality.

While the international community and the U.S. gave its sole attention to the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, North Korea's human rights problems have worsened and the sacrifices of many North Korean residents have been aggravated.

At the current time, we no longer have leeway to neglect the North Korean regime. The way to solve the North Korean problem is not through sentimental thoughts but through pragmatic approaches.

There is no example in history where an oppressive regime was resolved through only dialogue. If North Korea were to be changed to a regime where dialogue worked, they would have to return to the Communist level of the late Chinese leader Deng Xiao Ping in the early stages of China's opening and reform. The reason the Communist Party in China changed to a system where conversation was possible was because the Mao era governed by a cult of personality had ended and the collective leadership of Deng Xiao Ping was able to move forward. North Korea is currently a far worse oppressive regime than that of Mao or Stalin so there is no room for any discussion.

Thus, I hope that the next U.S. president starts to solve the North Korean issue by stopping the forced repatriation of North Korean defectors by talking to China rather than with Kim Jong Il. If President Bush had negotiated with China to solve this problem, many lives could have been saved and the North Korean regime could have been led into an opening and reform. Diplomatic measures without strong pressure mean nothing to an oppressive regime. In addition to the issue of defectors, the prison camps in North Korea that act as murder factories should be dismantled. As long as there are prison camps, it is impossible to expect any change in North Korea let alone the nuclear weapons issue.

I wish the new U.S. policy towards North Korea could be one that acts on the North Korean human rights problem not only with words but with action. It is most important to enact a human rights policy to dissolve the anti-U.S. sentiment among the North Korean people and weaken the Kim Jong Il regime. This will create an incentive for a democratic movement within North Korea.

To solve these issues, , I think it would be highly beneficial to the U.S. to talk frequently with democratic activists who have fled North Korea's regime instead of talking with Kim Jong Il.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kang Cheol Hwan

Kang Cheol Hwan was only 9 when he and his family were sent to North Korea's Yodok prison camp after his grandfather was accused of treason. Kang spent ten years there before being released in 1987. A few years later he defected to South Korea. Kang is Vice Chairman of the Committee for the Democratization of North Korea (CDNK), a human rights group founded by former high-ranking defectors. He is a reporter on North Korean affairs for the Chosun Daily

A Letter to the U.S. President To Be Elected

I am a North Korean defector who had the opportunity of talking about North Korea's human rights problems with President Bush for 40 minutes in June 2005 with a presidential invitation to the White House.

As a person who has suffered the most under an unprecedented oppressive regime, it was a great honor to meet with the U.S. president who can exert great influence to North Korea. I felt it was a significant place to discuss the strategies and tactics to solve the problems of North Korea together.

I collected the opinions of many former high-ranking defectors including the former DPRK Labor Party Secretary Hwang Jang Yop to give a detailed account why the fastest way to solve the North Korean problem for President Bush is not through the nuclear weapons issue but through North Korean human rights. I have also specifically mentioned that the problem of North Korean defectors is not a difficult one that could be resolved through the negotiation between the U.S. and China.

I think it is important to know the reason defectors – who have experienced the North Korean regime – stress that the problem of North Korean nuclear weapons cannot be solved through dialogue. The Kim Jong Il regime is already economically destroyed and the overall sentiment of the people have turned against the regime to the point where the military is at the cusp of turning its back as well. If Kim Jong Il didn't have nuclear weapons, he would lose the central source of his power and this would mean that his regime would be demolished as well.

Thus, as the international community continues to obsess over the nuclear weapons issue, Kim Jong Il will use this to sustain his regime and the results are that he will secure the resources needed for his regime through all sorts of threats. In the past year, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill led the Six-Party talks but there has been no improvement and this was something that defectors had already predicted.

With the resolution of the nuclear weapons issue, North Korea could solve its economic sanction but as the U.S. gave in first, this allowed Kim Jong Il to take a breather. It is not too late for the U.S. to reverse its decision to remove North Korea from the list of states that support terrorism because it is a one-sided diplomatic achievement for North Korea with no effect whatsoever in the resolution of the nuclear weapons issue.

This is a country where a person can disappear in the middle of the night for saying something wrong and many people living in North Korea are puzzled about the removal of North Korea from the U.S. list of states that support terrorism. The fact that North Korea had violated the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework without any repercussion had led to this nuclear crisis. A conversation with only a carrot and no stick is meaningless in actuality.

While the international community and the U.S. gave its sole attention to the issue of North Korean nuclear weapons, North Korea's human rights problems have worsened and the sacrifices of many North Korean residents have been aggravated.

At the current time, we no longer have leeway to neglect the North Korean regime. The way to solve the North Korean problem is not through sentimental thoughts but through pragmatic approaches.

There is no example in history where an oppressive regime was resolved through only dialogue. If North Korea were to be changed to a regime where dialogue worked, they would have to return to the Communist level of the late Chinese leader Deng Xiao Ping in the early stages of China's opening and reform. The reason the Communist Party in China changed to a system where conversation was possible was because the Mao era governed by a cult of personality had ended and the collective leadership of Deng Xiao Ping was able to move forward. North Korea is currently a far worse oppressive regime than that of Mao or Stalin so there is no room for any discussion.

Thus, I hope that the next U.S. president starts to solve the North Korean issue by stopping the forced repatriation of North Korean defectors by talking to China rather than with Kim Jong Il. If President Bush had negotiated with China to solve this problem, many lives could have been saved and the North Korean regime could have been led into an opening and reform. Diplomatic measures without strong pressure mean nothing to an oppressive regime. In addition to the issue of defectors, the prison camps in North Korea that act as murder factories should be dismantled. As long as there are prison camps, it is impossible to expect any change in North Korea let alone the nuclear weapons issue.

I wish the new U.S. policy towards North Korea could be one that acts on the North Korean human rights problem not only with words but with action. It is most important to enact a human rights policy to dissolve the anti-U.S. sentiment among the North Korean people and weaken the Kim Jong Il regime. This will create an incentive for a democratic movement within North Korea.

To solve these issues, , I think it would be highly beneficial to the U.S. to talk frequently with democratic activists who have fled North Korea's regime instead of talking with Kim Jong Il.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kang Cheol Hwan

Ka Chan joined New York Community Media Alliance as communication director earlier this year. As a second-generation immigrant originally from Hong Kong , he became a naturalized citizen this summer and registered as a first time voter. As a New York-based news writer and photojournalist, he traveled with a group of ethnic and community journalists to Denver and Saint Paul to cover the Democratic and Republican Conventions.

October 24, 2008

It was a busy week for New Yorkers, especially for those who are eligible to vote, because in a little more than a week, we are going to decide who should be our next President, and at about the same time next year, we will have to make up our mind on whether Michael Bloomberg should continue to be our Mayor or not.

As a first-time voter for both the presidential and municipal elections, it's going to create voting memories for me – with the first African American running for president in the U.S. history, and the first billionaire, running for mayor for a third time, trumping over the term-limit law passed 15 years ago. Good God! Simply being a voter is already part of the history-in-the-making process.

While a mayoral election is incomparable with a presidential election in terms of its participation scale, to me they both reflect only one core issue: leadership. A few weeks ago I read a poll result that said, when asked whether Bloomberg should stay to lead the city through the economic turmoil, more than half of the responses went in favor of his third bid. The stat is telling evidence that many people have confidence in Bloomberg's leadership.

The same cannot be said about either of the presidential candidates, however, when the best thing I, as an independent voter, can do at this point is only – and still – speculate. Often, when I hear a person's confession of his or her choosing Obama for president, there is an unequivocal statement: “Look at McCain.” But here's the catch: even if the 72-year-old is “not an option,” as many Democratic diehards say, does that automatically make his rival an option?

My gut tells me that the answer remains partly unknown. But my odyssey to make a final decision made a big leap in the past week, when Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama kicked in over the weekend. Now, did I know this former general so well that his opinion has enough weight to swing my vote? No. Did I watch his appearance on MSNBC to announce his endorsement? No. I first learned his name back in 1991, when I was living with my family in Hong Kong, and across the Indian Ocean, all the way to Middle East, the U.S. military launched the “Operation Desert Storm” in Iraq. The name of Powell was all over the news day every day, until the end of the Gulf War.

Powell's endorsement stirred a stronger influence on my vote than any other political figure because, in my opinion, he is someone who knows how to end a war. When we are talking about something that costs both lives and cash tremendously, ending is no less important than starting. Oddly enough, I'm more convinced by a former general than a former POW, although both demonstrated strength and experience in the same field. Yet, it's just that heroism looks like a personal anecdote to an independent mind, when all we need now is leadership to get us out of a very real mess.

October 20, 2008

It didn't strike me as a moment-of-my-life kind of thing in the first 10 seconds when I was standing in front of a counter at the Manhattan DMV center, scanning under the fluorescent light the voter's registration form attached to a driver's license application form. It was until I got to the part that asked me to check a box to register as a Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Then the question hit my mind with a big bam: Do I really want to become a Democrat?

The scene above occurred back in mid August this year. It was before all the actions and dramas took place – a few weeks before the two parties' conventions, months away from the presidential candidate debates, and perhaps most importantly, an awfully short period of time before the Wall Street crisis became a Main Street epidemic. I was more puzzled than unsure about what the true meaning is behind the three checkboxes. For a first time voter, how does he or she know exactly which party he or she wants to join, or whether to remain independent, while filling out the voter registration form?

I reckon the uncertainty is more apparent for some naturalized immigrants, who might never have had the experience of casting a vote in their country of origin. It may also be true that a first time voter knows too little about both parties that he or she fails to identify him- or herself as a Democrat, Republican or Independent right at the spot. Having worked for two Chinese-language newspapers in Manhattan's Chinatown for about four years and spoken with numerous voters for a number of elections on local and national levels, I discovered that many voters in the community cast their votes based on the name of the party (or the translation of the name), instead of the party's ideology. This trait in the Chinese-American community can probably be found in other immigrant communities – and this is not a good enough reason to elect our next President.

All these ideas were spinning in my head after I checked the box that says “Independent” on the voter's registration form. And, even today, when we are less than three weeks away from November 4, I still hesitate to point to either one of the candidates and say “This is my final answer.”

As someone who went to both the Democratic and Republican conventions, I think I'm informed enough to make a decision on who to elect. Nonetheless, being there and witnessing the historic moment of Obama delivering his acceptance speech didn't fully convince me – as a first-time, immigrant and independent voter – to join his force of change, when his leadership experience has yet to be proven.

Similarly, the image of an angry and aggressive McCain depicted by progressive media didn't wipe out my bet on him being a true independent of his party. After all, both of them have been found siding with their parties at numerous times, despite the seemingly deceptive rhetoric of “change” and “maverick” flying up in the air. As a matter of fact, I feel a little upset to learn that I'm still unconvinced by either candidate. Is that my problem or their problem? Hopefully we can find out soon.

Edwin Okong'o

FRONTLINE/WORLD's Edwin Okong'o reports from Kenya

On a recent trip to Kenya, I sat down with Said Obama, Sen. Barack Obama's uncle, and asked him about his family and religion.

"We were born into a Muslim family in a predominantly Christian area," Said Obama said. "We went to Christian schools and studied Christian religious education. Whenever we were short of something we were sent into Christian homes (to borrow) and whenever they were short of something they were sent into our home. Religion never became an issue."

Said Obama, Sen Barack Obama's uncle.

He added that the senator's father never practiced Islam.

"Other than Barack -- whom he gave his name to -- none of his other children have Islamic names," Said Obama said.

When I asked him about the fact that his famous nephew had carefully distanced himself from his Muslim roots during the presidential campaign, he told me that the senator's relatives in Kenya were not offended. That's because everyone in the Obama family is at liberty to join any religion.

"What I know is that we are a multicultural, multiracial and a multi-religious family," Said Obama said.

How Obama's Kenyan family sees religion is no different from the way most Kenyans do: Everyone has a personal relationship with God. People of the same religious beliefs may work together to convert souls, but they do not put conditions on those who fail to heed the word. Instead, they pray that one day the nonbelievers may see the light.
Said Obama

Said Obama, Sen. Barack Obama's uncle.

American Christian fundamentalists on the contrary seem so sure that their God is the right one that they do not hesitate to condemn other forms of worship on His behalf. A few months ago, a man at a bar in Minneapolis told me that Obama's "questionable religion" would cost him the presidency.

"There are people in this country who believe that America is the superpower it is today because of our belief in God," the man said. "And by 'God,' they mean the one Christians believe in."

Whether Obama will lose the presidency remains to be seen, but a particular type of rhetoric has surfaced since he took a clear lead in the polls. At a McCain rally in Minnesota recently, a woman called Obama "an Arab." (It should be noted that McCain admonished the woman and took the microphone from her telling her that Obama was a decent family man who he happened to disagree with on a number of fundamental issues.) She later told the Star Tribune: "You can't trust Barack Hussein Obama because he is a Muslim and a terrorist."

Kenya has been successful in religious tolerance because people see themselves only as messengers of God, rather than enforcers of God's law, as do Christian fundamentalists in America.

Before I spoke to Said Obama, I had not thought about how religiously diverse many Kenyan families are. My own family is no exception, so I went to my uncle, Henry, for an explanation.
"We were born into a Muslim family in a predominantly Christian area," Said Obama said. "We went to Christian schools and studied Christian religious education...Religion never became an issue."

"If your parents are Seventh-Day Adventists or Roman Catholics it doesn't mean that you are also supposed to be a Seventh-Day Adventist or Roman Catholic," Uncle Henry said. "You can pick whatever religion you want."

Members of my extended family don't agree on whether Saturday or Sunday is the God-mandated day of worship. Uncle Henry and his wife and children are Catholic and rest on Sunday. My grandfather, other uncles and aunts and my mother picked the Seventh-Day Adventist church, which has Saturday as the holy day.

There are also members of my family who believe in God but are not in any organized religion, and others who hold indigenous beliefs. At one time, a family member was married to a Muslim woman. Despite all these differences, I have never heard of an argument about whose God is the right one.

When I asked Uncle Henry about the role of religion in politics, he surprised me by pulling out a copy of The Obama Nation, the anti-Obama book by Jerome R. Corsi.

"I wanted to know exactly what Jerome is saying and if it is true," he told me, before I could ask him where he got the book. (He had his son ship it from California). "I found that there's no truth in it. First and foremost, the fact that Obama's grandparents were Muslims does not mean that Obama is Muslim."

According to Uncle Henry, religion has become a greater part of American politics because politicians have made the electorate hate Muslims.
Barack Obama visiting Kenya.

Sen. Barack Obama, pictured with his grandmother, on a visit to Kenya in 2006.

"I think Americans, per se, do not have a problem with Islam," he said. "They have only the fear. Every time an American wakes up in the morning he thinks Osama bin Laden is next to him."

Uncle Henry has also been a campaign manager for many politicians in our West Mugirango constituency, so I asked him if he thought Kenyans would elect a Muslim president.

"If we get a good person, a good leader, who is Muslim, yes we can," he said.

Like many Africans, Kenyans are some of the most religious people in the world. Our national anthem begins with a call to "God of all creation" to "Bless this, our land and nation." Yet when it comes to politics, Kenyans never demand that a candidate has to be a particular faith to be elected to lead their God-given land.

After the meeting with my uncle, I went to nearby Jamia Mosque to hear what Muslims had to say about religion in Kenyan and U.S. politics. I asked men who had just completed their Friday prayers why it did not matter to them that Mwai Kibaki, the president, was a Catholic.

"In Kenya we don't ask, 'What are your beliefs? Are you a Catholic, Orthodox?' We don't mind," one man said. "But when Americans see a beard or a [Muslim] dress, the first thing that comes to their mind is terrorism or, 'This person ought to change their way of living.'"

In fact, as several Muslim men outside the Mosque spoke, there was a Christian man nodding to some of the things said in the discussion. When it was his turn to speak, the Muslims listened attentively and did not seem to mind that he was there.
"The greatest commandment in the Bible says love the Lord our God with all your mind, all your heart, all your soul, all your strength. If you follow the will of God, you are a Christian and you are a Muslim."

"I'm a Christian, I read the Bible, but I also read the Koran," the Christian man said. "All the religions are the same. The meaning of Islam is total submission to the will of God. The greatest commandment in the Bible says love the Lord our God with all your mind, all your heart, all your soul, all your strength. If you follow the will of God, you are a Christian and you are a Muslim."

The Christian man said that America had a "God-given mission" to be the moral authority in the world. But he said Americans were failing, not because they mix religion and politics, but rather because their religious politics contained hateful messages. This, according to him, was an abandonment of God.

Whatever happens in November, never in the history of the United States has a candidate inspired and appealed to so many people from different parts of the world. I spoke to people in Kenya -- including many Christians and Muslims who did not expect a President Obama to change America's aggressive foreign policy -- and they all agreed that they would be alright if Obama lost a fair election.

They also told me that if he loses because a group of Christian extremists repeated his middle name long enough for voters to start singing "terrorist," America would lose a rare opportunity to redeem its image.

Nguyen Qui Duc, a Vietnamese refugee, returns to Vietnam and encounters a society in transition. Deeply capitalist and open to Western culture, modern-day Vietnam looks back but mostly forward in its relations with the U.S.