Carbon Emissions Are Finally Falling

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

[[SHARE]]

The good news:  The Earth got an unexpected reprieve in September when the International Energy Agency found that worldwide carbon emissions had fallen 2.6 percent in 2009, the biggest reduction in 40 years. Of course, the main driving force behind the fall was the global economic crisis, which resulted in lower industrial output. But the IEA also credited new emissions standards and energy efficiency policies in the United States, Europe, and China. Since 2007, U.S. emissions have fallen 9 percent -- the first decline in a century -- thanks in large part to reduced usage of coal. The IEA is now arguing the recession will make it much less difficult to reach the emissions reductions needed to avert the worst effects of climate change.

On the other hand:  When the global economy begins to heat up again, emissions are likely to increase along with it, particularly in Asia's rapidly growing economic powers, India and China. And with next month's Copenhagen summit scuttled before it even begins, world leaders appear no closer to the kind of international regulation that could make the recent gains permanent.

Al Qaeda Is Going Broke

Al Jazeera

The good news: In June, al Qaeda no. 3 Mustafa Abu al-Yazid released an audiotape that focused less on waging global jihad or spreading the terrorist group’s ideology than on the constant concern of all organizations – raising money. “We, in the battlefield in Afghanistan, are lacking a lot of money and a weakness in operations because of lack of money, and many mujahideen are absent from jihad because of lack or absence of money with which they can carry out jihad,” Yazid complained. The increasing ability of authorities to trace and disrupt terrorist financing -- not to mention the hit that al Qaeda donors in the Persian Gulf region likely took from the financial crisis -- are clearly having an effect.

On the other hand: David Cohen, assistant Treasury secretary for terrorist financing, recently said that while al Qaeda does appear to be in its “weakest financial condition in several years,” the group’s Taliban ally’s ability to finance terrorist attacks on U.S. forces is increasing, thanks to involvement in a wide range of illegal activity and increased international funding.

The Recession Hasn’t Led to Chaos

OLIVIER MORIN/AFP/Getty Images

The good news: The effects of the worldwide economic recession have been devastating, to be sure -- millions have lost their jobs in the developed world and millions more face desperate poverty and hunger in developing countries. But the dire predictions that the economic downturn would lead to widespread political instability or lead to an upsurge in extremism haven’t come to past. Yes, governments have collapsed in Iceland, Latvia, and a few other small countries, but even these countries’ democratic systems never faced a major threat. And while the rising popularity of far-right parties like Britain’s BNP is troubling, centrists have dominated recent European elections. In India, the ruling Congress party held off a populist challenge from the Hindu Nationalist BJP. Rising economic power Brazil also looks likely to stick with a center-left government in next year’s election.

On the other hand: Hopes that the recession would undermine the authority of resource-dependent authoritarians in Russia, Iran, and Venezuela have also proven unfounded. Vlad, Mahmoud, and Hugo are still making mischief.

Swine Flu Is Starting to Peak

PASCAL GUYOT/AFP/Getty Images

The good news: While this undoubtedly looks to be the most severe flu season in the last decade, now that flu has claimed more than 6,000 lives worldwide there are signs that the epidemic is starting to slow, contrary to experts’ worst predictions. Although 700 people died of the disease in the last week of October, the number was down to 179 by the week of Nov. 8, according to the World Health Organization.  The pandemic now shows signs of having peaked in its epicenter -- North America --and is holding steady in Western Europe. In the Southern Hemisphere, the disease appears to be on the wane. Antiviral medicines are also proving effective at preventing flu deaths.

On the other hand: Despite the overall downturn, the disease continues to spread to new countries and the epidemic seems to be growing more severe in the Middle East and East Asia. And there are always other potential outbreaks to worry about.

Sarah Palin Isn’t the U.S. Vice President

Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

The good news: Vice President Joe Biden’s gaffe-prone public appearances have made him a favorite target of comedians and bloggers, but the publicity tsunami surrounding the release of Sarah Palin’s memoir Going Rogue: An American Life is a reminder how close the United States came to having a complete foreign-policy neophyte a heartbeat away from being commander in chief. In the book, Palin continues to defend her description of Alaska’s proximity to Russia as a foreign-policy qualification, complains of the difficulty of the McCain campaign’s vetting process, and says she was unprepared for the hostile nature of the now infamous Katie Couric interview at the United Nations. Whatever one thinks of Biden’s position on the Afghan troop debate -- less nation-building, more drones --  we can at least be thankful that Palin isn’t in the room when these decisions are being made.

On the other hand: Palin seems to be laying the groundwork for a presidential run in 2012. While her chances seem slim at best, her influence within the conservative movement is growing and it would be foolish to rule the maverick from Wasilla out completely.

Barack Obama

Who? President of the United States

[[SHARE]]

The crime:  Obama came into office promising sweeping change and pledging to make the United States a global climate leader. But last weekend, at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Singapore, world leaders dashed global hopes that a fully binding international legal agreement on climate change would happen next month. The new goal of the upcoming U.N. climate treaty at Copenhagen, they announced, would be to reach a "political" consensus about possible next steps. And they punted on the most difficult questions -- of national targets for greenhouse gas cuts, and who will pay for them -- into the future.

Obama's role in delivering the bad news was a sad spectacle, but not really a surprise. It marked the culmination of a year in which climate has all but slipped off the president's agenda. While a host of European leaders, from Gordon Brown to Angela Merkel, have publicly stated their intention to attend Copenhagen and committed to carbon reductions, Obama has stonewalled. Earlier this year the president traveled to the Danish capital to lobby (unsuccessfully) for Chicago's Olympic bid. But he hasn't committed to heading across the pond to lobby for the planet's future. Obama said he would only go to Copenhagen if his appearance would seal the deal -- the deal he just helped scuttle (an unhappy self-fulfilling prophecy). Plus, Obama's ambivalence has deflected pressure from two other big emitters: China and India.

Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images

Wen Jiabao

Who? Premier of People's Republic of China

The crime: Wen commands more international affection than most Chinese politicians. But as chair of China's national climate committee, Uncle Wen let the world down. It's true that China has come further on climate issues in recent years than most observers expected. Before 2007, climate change was largely off the public radar in China, with Chinese journalists and experts wary of making public statements before the parameters of the official position were known. In the intervening years, the world's top carbon emitter has stepped up its research on the impacts of climate change and made real strides on energy efficiency and renewable energy.

But, all the while, China has clung stridently to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," wherein the developing countries that have contributed the most cumulative carbon to the atmosphere ought to shoulder the majority of the practical and financial burden for reducing emissions. Whether or not the there is logic to this argument, the way China has presented it has surely not signaled that it is open and willing to negotiate. ("Developed countries must lead the way with transforming their unsustainable production and lifestyle," China's top economic minister recently said.) Such finger-pointing at the West has only fueled suspicion of China on Capitol Hill, giving U.S. cap-and-trade skeptics another reason for inaction.

Feng Li/AFP/Getty Images 

Harry Reid

Who? Democrat of Nevada and Senate majority leader

The crime: He's made a lot of promises -- but not kept them. In January, Reid pledged that the U.S. Senate would pass climate-change legislation before the summit in Copenhagen. Last month, with still no bill in sight, a reporter asked if a bill would even reach the Senate floor, let alone pass, before the summit began. Reid responded with a less-than-inspiring but still affirmative, "Yup." But as of today, it hasn't happened. The Senate cap-and-trade bill -- a version of which the House, headed by Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, passed in June -- languishes in the committee-approval stage. There is no possibility of a vote until next year.

The Senate has run out of time, and it has hamstrung the efforts of the rest of the world. Indeed, as Reid knew, action in Congress was a prerequisite to progress in Copenhagen. Last spring, Obama indicated that he would not agree to internationally binding carbon-reduction targets unless the U.S. Congress had already passed its cap-and-trade bill. The United States needed to make sure its international agreements comported with domestic law, he said -- and therefore it needed to have its domestic law set first. Reid's foot-dragging ensured that did not happen, causing Obama to punt on Copenhagen and the global agreement to evaporate. Granted, Reid says he needed the legislative time to eke out a massive overhaul of the U.S. health-care system (a Senate vote is expected on that bill next month). But Pelosi managed to do her part -- and had Reid fast-tracked or rushed a vote, the world wouldn't be waiting. If any single body bears blame for Copenhagen's faltering, it is the Senate -- and if any single person is responsible for the Senate, it is Harry Reid.

Chip Somodevilla/AFP/Getty Images  

Jairam Ramesh

Who? India's minister of state for environment and forests

The crime: Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. research organization, issued a report on climate change. It concluded that the Himalayan glaciers in India were among the fastest-receding on Earth and that they might disappear by 2035. India has long resisted international efforts to rein in its emissions, but this month, India's environment minister released a classic piece of oppo research, arguing that climate change is not responsible for glacier melting and implying that political concerns underpinned the IPCC report. "This comes from Western scientists," Jairam said, apparently ignorant that the report's primary author is Indian. "It is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem," he added.

This sort of diversionist finger-pointing exemplifies Ramesh's beliefs about global warming. He agrees that climate change exists. He contends that "no country in the world" is as vulnerable to its effects as India, with its long floodable coastline and monsoon-dependent crops. But he has refused to have India agree to binding international targets, arguing that developed economies should do more instead -- butting heads with dignitaries such as U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and with Copenhagen negotiators along the way. 

MANAN VATSYAYANA/AFP/Getty Images  

Tom Donohue

Who? President and chief executive officer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The crime: If Copenhagen were a person and FP were prosecuting for its death, we'd charge most of the offenders on our list with manslaughter. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Tom Donohue could stand for murder charges. His organization actually set out to kill a deal. Climate legislation has stalled in the U.S. Congress, crippling the chances of any international agreement, in no small part because of the redoubled efforts of American industry and business lobbyists. According to an analysis by the Center for Investigative Journalism in Washington, "More than 1,150 companies and advocacy groups had hired an estimated 2,810 lobbyists on climate change" -- five for each member of Congress.

The chamber has been front and center in efforts to convince legislators to just say no to cap-and-trade legislation, arguing that measures enacted now to save the planet wouldn't be worth the upfront cost to the U.S. economy. The chamber, for instance, has been one of the backers of a fake grassroots group called "Energy Citizens," which, according to its press release, held rallies to "to aim a loud message at those states' U.S. senators to avoid the mistakes embodied in the House climate bill." The question, really, is just who Donahue is speaking for today? With concern about climate on the rise in the U.S., marquis companies like Apple and Levi Strauss & Co. have quit the chamber to protest its obstructionist stance.

Chip Somodevilla/AFP/Getty Images

ASTEROID

iStockphoto

[[SHARE]]

How it could happen: Objects from space impact Earth all the time, generally burning up in the atmosphere. Occasionally, a large object makes it through, resulting in a massive impact. The most recent major impact was the 1908 Tunguska event that flattened a 2,000-square-mile area of Siberian forest with an explosion about 1,000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. The object involved, which was likely only a few dozen meters in diameter, could have wiped out a major metropolitan area.

The real danger would come from an object more than a kilometer in diameter, which could kick up enough sediment to cause environmental damage and crop failures worldwide. A rock the size of the 15-kilometer object that is thought to have killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago would probably wipe us out too.

How likely is it? Another large object is sure to hit the earth eventually, but almost certainly not during our lifetimes. An object big enough to kill off a substantial portion of the earth's population only hits earth about twice every million years. None of the objects yet discovered by NASA's Near Earth Objects program have a high probability of hitting the earth -- though one known as 1950 DA will come extremely close in 2880. Given the relatively small effort devoted to identifying near-earth objects, there's no guarantee that the earth would have much warning time before one hit. A previously unknown seven-meter asteroid passed just 14,000 kilometers from the earth's surface on Nov. 6 and was noticed by NASA only 15 hours before what counts as an entirely too close encounter.

CLIMATE DISASTER

PETER PARKS/AFP/Getty Images

How it could happen: Under the worst-case scenario predicted by the International Panel on Climate Change, the global surface temperature of the Earth could increase by as much as 4-5 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. (Many scientists believe that estimate is conservative). Such a scenario would lead to as much as a half-meter rise in sea levels, flooding coastal regions including many of the world’s major cities.

Meanwhile, nearly one-third of the planet could become desert and more than half would experience drought. The salinization of much of the Earth’s groundwater supply will only make this worse. The IPCC found that at even a 3.5 degree increase would put 40-70 percent of the world’s species at risk of extinction, and the potential for new geopolitical conflicts over dwindling resources is mind-boggling.

How likely is it? A recent MIT study found that current carbon trends bear out the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios or even exceed them. Global carbon levels are currently at 380 parts per million compared to 280 before the Industrial Revolution. Most scientists conclude that catastrophic effects will begin to be felt once those levels pass 450. If the Earth reaches 800-1000 parts per million, as the worst-case scenarios predict, it’s really anybody’s guess. While recent research by the National Oceanographic and Aeronautics Administration suggests that many of the effects of climate change are already irreversible, the worst, potentially civilization-ending outcomes could be mitigated by a substantial reduction in carbon emissions.

NUCLEAR WAR

How it could happen: There are currently more than 23,000 nuclear weapons in the world, of which 8,000 are currently operational and 2,000 are on high alert and ready to launch on short notice. While nuclear apocalypse has long been a popular subject for books and movies, the Dr. Strangelove scenario is actually fairly unlikely. Even in 1977, with nuclear arsenals near their Cold War height, the U.S. Defense Department of Defense predicted a maximum of 265 million casualties from a full-scale U.S.-Soviet nuclear war. Certainly, such a death toll would be enough to destroy both countries as superpowers, but not the end of life as we know it. With nuclear stockpiles substantially reduced since then, the casualties would likely be much lower today.

However, scientists in the 1980s developed models showing that the dust and smoke caused by a superpower nuclear war would cause temperature and precipitation shifts unprecedented in human history -- a "nuclear winter." A study by Cornell ecologist Mark Harwell in 1986 predicted that global agriculture would be wiped out completely for a year, leading to a famine that would wipe out most of humanity. A 2007 study by ecologists at Rutgers University found that current global nuclear stockpiles are still capable of producing this outcome.

How likely is it? The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the famous "Doomsday Clock" in 1947 to convey how close humanity is to "catastrophic destruction." The clock reached its high-point -- 2 minutes to midnight -- after the first hydrogen bomb tests in 1953. The BAS moved the clock back to 17 minutes after the end of the Cold War but it has been steadily ticking back toward midnight since then, with rogue states such as North Korea developing nuclear weapons and tensions increasing between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan and it currently stands at 5 minutes to midnight.

Despite this, the worst-case scenario of all-out nuclear war between two superpowers is far less likely than it once was. The nuclear winter theory also remains controversial, with some scientists saying the predicted effects have been exaggerated.

PLAGUE

MAHMUD HAMS/AFP/Getty Image

How it could happen: Throughout history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees. The Black Death killed more off more than half of Europe's population in the Middle Ages. In 1918, a flu pandemic killed an estimated 50 million people, nearly 3 percent of the world's population, a far greater impact than the just-concluded World War I. Because of globalization, diseases today spread even faster - witness the rapid worldwide spread of H1N1 currently unfolding.

A global outbreak of a disease such as ebola virus -- which has had a 90 percent fatality rate during its flare-ups in rural Africa -- or a mutated drug-resistant form of the flu virus on a global scale could have a devastating, even civilization-ending impact.

How likely is it? Treatment of deadly diseases has improved since 1918, but so have the diseases. Modern industrial farming techniques have been blamed for the outbreak of diseases, such as swine flu, and as the world’s population grows and humans move into previously unoccupied areas, the risk of exposure to previously unknown pathogens increases.  More than 40 new viruses have emerged since the 1970s, including ebola and HIV. Biological weapons experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.

THE UNKNOWN UNKNOWN

NASA

How it could happen: There are any number of theories for how human civilization -- the world as we know it -- might end. Some are natural: supervolcanoes erupting like the one in Yellowstone National Park that could severely alter the Earth’s climate or a gamma-ray burst from a star that would cause dangerous radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. Others are man-made: overpopulation causing a food crisis or the accidental development of dangerous new technologies.

 How likely is it? Sooner or later, the world will end. In about 5-8 billion years, according to astronomers' estimates, our sun will burn out the last of its hydrogen into helium and will balloon up into a red giant hundreds of  times its current size, dragging the Earth to its inevitable doom. Even if the planet escapes destruction, it’s atmosphere and oceans will be boiled away. Human beings have only been around for a small fraction of that time -- around 200,000 years -- and one way or another, the chances of us being around for the real end of the world are pretty slim.

On Thursday night, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced his intention not to seek another term in the presidential election scheduled for January. The move was widely seen as a reflection of Abbas's frustration with the lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and the Obama administration's retreat from its previous demand of a complete halt to Israeli settlement construction before beginning negotiations. FOREIGN POLICY decided to take a look at the various candidates who are next in line whenever Abbas leaves the political scene.

MARWAN BARGHOUTI

Pros: Of all the possible candidates, Barghouti is perhaps the most popular on the Palestinian street. Born in a village outside the West Bank city of Ramallah, he joined Fatah at 15 and has played an active role in Palestinian politics ever since. He helped organize Palestinian protests during the first intifada, in 1987, and then directed Palestinian military action during the second intifada in 2000.[[SHARE]]

Despite this fact, some Israelis would also not be upset to see Barghouti rise to the top. Although Barghouti unapologetically admits that he is no pacifist, he also maintains that violence is only a means to establish a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders. For many Israelis working to make the two-state solution a reality, Barghouti is a strong, credible leader who has the potential to unite Palestine's divided factions behind a negotiated settlement. Recently, he has committed himself to bridging the Fatah-Hamas rivalry and is seen as a figure who could drag Hamas, kicking and screaming, away from armed resistance and back to the negotiating table.

Cons : The most obvious objection to Barghouti has less to do with his politics than his location. He languishes in an Israeli prison in the Negev, serving out a sentence of five consecutive life terms for the murder of four Israelis and a Greek monk during the second intifada. Although this imprisonment has only increased his popularity among Palestinians, it would be difficult for Barghouti to guide the Palestinian Authority from behind bars. While he could act as a sort of figurehead, offering broad proclamations on the course of Palestinian politics, any concrete policy decisions would be known immediately by the Israelis. A number of dovish Israeli Knesset deputies have called for Israel to commute his sentence, but the Likud government is unlikely to do so in the short term. Today, Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon stated that Barghouti would not be pardoned even if he were elected president.

Path to victory: Barghouti would need to unite the younger generation of Palestinian leaders -- those in their 40s and 50s who made their reputation during the first and second Intifada -- behind his candidacy. If he runs, he will no doubt exploit his reputation as a "clean" politician who has sacrificed for the Palestinian movement, in contrast with the corruption of Fatah's current leadership. He will also need to gain his freedom or, failing that, prove that he can be an effective leader from behind bars. Paradoxically, some analysts think that Barghouti's imprisonment will actually influence some Palestinian leaders to support his candidacy. Because he will be unable to handle the details of governance, it will allow them to maintain their fiefdoms and patronage networks within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

SALAM FAYYAD

Pros: The prime minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA) has won plaudits from both international observers and Palestinians for reforming the PA and overseeing an economic boom in the West Bank. His plan to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state within two years also has won him praise from those eager to see Palestinian institutions that run transparently and effectively, without the widespread corruption that existed in Arafat's day. His rise would be supported by the United States and Israel, who would view his election as the best possible scenario.

Cons: Fayyad is not a member of Fatah, and it is hard to see how he can win a popular election without the party's organizational muscle. His centrist Third Way party won only 2 percent of the vote in the 2006 legislative elections. There is no evidence that Fayyad's support has expanded since then. Furthermore, Hamas would be extremely hostile to Fayyad's candidacy due to his prominent role in suppressing their activities in the West Bank, and his close relations with Israel and the West.

Path to victory: Fayyad needs to erase his reputation as a technocrat and establish his Palestinian nationalist credentials, which means standing up to Israel and the United States. Even if he demonstrates the ability to give a fiery speech, he will also need to win over influential segments within Fatah -- for example, winning the support of Abbas. The most likely result, however, is that he throws his weight behind a more popular Palestinian leader, who promises to give him an important policy role in the new government. Right now, the rumor is of an alliance between Fayyad and former Gaza strongman Mohammed Dahlan.

ISMAIL HANIYEH

Pros: The Hamas political leader served as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority until his dismissal, by Abbas, following Hamas's violent 2007 takeover of Gaza. He has continued to exercise official authority in Gaza, and Hamas refuses to recognize the legality of his dismissal. If Haniyeh expects to come out on top of a free and fair presidential election, he must hope for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to remain in limbo, which will bolster his case that violent struggle is the only way to establish a Palestinian state. He must also hope for a catalyzing event, which rallies support to Hamas. This could include a new violent confrontation with Israel or another political flub by Hamas's rivals, on par with the PLO's initial failure to push for U.N. recognition of the Goldstone report on Gaza war crimes.   

Cons: In terms of popularity, Hamas isn't what it was in 2006, when it won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council. Gazans are increasingly disillusioned by Hamas's inability to provide basic services, in light of the blockade of basic goods in and out of Gaza. Even in the midst of the Goldstone debacle, only 18.7 percent of Palestinians said that they would vote for Hamas, according to a poll last month by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre. In contrast, 40 percent said they would vote for Fatah in the next legislative elections. Furthermore, aggressive PLO action against Hamas members in the West Bank has had a debilitating effect on the Islamist party's ability to rally its supporters.

Path to victory: If Fayyad's election is the dream result for the United States and Israel, Haniyeh's election is their nightmare. Realistically, if it appears that Palestinians won't reject Haniyeh on their own, these two outside powers will do it for them. Israel and the West learned their lesson from the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, which Hamas won, and are unlikely to allow the Islamist organization to participate in an election where the result is in doubt. Hamas probably has its eye on a longer timeline -- hoping for a complete collapse of PLO support in the West Bank or a waning of Western support for the isolation of Hamas which has been in place since 2007.

MOHAMMED DAHLAN

Pros: Like Barghouti, Dahlan is a member of Fatah's younger generation who rose to prominence during the two intifadas. Hailing from the Khan Yunis refugee camp in Gaza, Dahlan was named the head of the Preventive Security Service in the Gaza Strip in 1994, where he built a security force designed to suppress any dissent to the PLO in the region. After the 1993 Oslo Accords, he cultivated good relations with Israel and the United States, which saw him as a pragmatist willing to reach a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Following Yasser Arafat's death, Dahlan cultivated a close relationship with Abbas. He engaged in often brutal measures to suppress Hamas's rising strength in Gaza and held joint security meetings with Israel following its withdrawal from Gaza. His reputation took a hit following Hamas's 2007 takeover of Gaza, but he has rebounded nicely in recent months. This September, he was elected to Fatah's Central Committee, showing that his standing among the party elite hasn't been harmed by his failure in Gaza. If anything, his anti-Hamas bona fides might help him among PLO loyalists, who have been embittered by the long-running struggle with their Islamist rival.

Cons: Dahlan is absolutely detested by Hamas for the years that his security forces spent suppressing the group's political rise. The feeling is mutual, and Dahlan's ascension to the presidency would inevitably solidify divisions between the two factions. Dahlan also has a reputation for brutality and corruption, thanks to the patronage networks that he cultivated during his days as a Gaza strongman.

Path to victory: Dahlan will need to overcome his reputation for being overly eager to work with Israel and the West, and solidify his Palestinian nationalist credentials. He has taken the first steps to do this in recent months, arguing that Fatah never recognized Israel and, more recently, refusing to open negotiations with Israel unless there is a complete halt to settlement construction. Because Dahlan's relationship with Hamas appears irreparably damaged, he will also benefit if the Islamist organization's popularity continues to wane.

AHMED QUREI

Pros: The 72 year-old Qurei has been a member of Fatah since the 1960s and is one of the most prominent members of the "Old Guard" of Palestinian leaders who were close to Arafat. He rose to power as the PLO's moneyman, directing foreign investments into Arafat's coffers. He also played a leading role in negotiating the Oslo Accords and served as prime minister from 2003 to 2005. During the Fatah Central Committee elections held this August, Qurei was one of the many Arafat loyalists forced from power to make way for a younger generation of leaders, most of whom were tied to Abbas.

He did not take his dismissal quietly, publicly attacking the election process as fraudulent and designed to benefit those who favor accommodation toward Israel. Qurei might be able to position himself as the leader of Fatah loyalists who favor a more hard-line policy than that of Abbas and his associates, but who still are opposed to Hamas.

Cons: Much of Qurei's influence was tied to Arafat, and it's unclear whether he still has any popular support. He spent a good part of his political career in exile, unlike figures such as Dahlan and Barghouti, and therefore lacks their connections among ordinary Palestinians. Furthermore, like many leaders from the Arafat generation, he has a reputation for corruption.

Path to victory: Qurei will need to capitalize on widespread disenchantment with Palestinian leadership under Abbas, but he is unlikely to have the support to ride it to victory.

MUHAMMAD GHNEIM

Pros: Ghneim is another septuagenarian member of Fatah's old guard. Unlike Qurei, he has established an alliance with Abbas rather than opposing him. Ghneim returned from exile in Tunisia this June to attend Fatah's internal elections, after Abbas negotiated his return with Israel. He was one of the few members of the older generation to maintain his position in the Central Committee after the elections. As an aging leader who nevertheless has credibility with current Fatah cadres, he could enter the picture if the younger generation of leaders is unable to unite around one candidate.

Cons: Like Qurei, his long career in exile means that Ghneim lacks the support base of leaders who have spent the bulk of their career in Palestine. He was also a vocal opponent of the Oslo Accords and continued to espouse a hard-line stance, which would cause the United States and Israel to look askance at his candidacy.

Path to victory: First, Ghneim needs to hope for serious infighting among the younger, more popular Palestinian leaders such as Barghouti and Dahlan. It's possible that such a scenario would cause the leaders to turn to Ghneim to act as a unifying force, bringing together the various Fatah factions under his wing. The continuing failure of negotiations with Israel also would be a boon for him, as it validates his uncompromising line.

The Israel/Palestine “Separation Barrier”

MUSA AL-SHAER/AFP/Getty Images

[[SHARE]]

What: The Israeli government first proposed a physical barrier between Israel and the West Bank in 2002, saying it was necessary to prevent terrorists from entering Israeli territory. It is now more than half complete. Although often referred to as "the wall," in most places the barrier consists of an electronic fence surrounded by trenches and barbed-wire fences and is roughly 60 meters wide.  The barrier has 66 gates, though many are often closed.

[[INSET]]

How it divides: The most controversial aspect of the barrier is that most of it runs not along the "green line" separating Israel and the West Bank, but through ostensibly Palestinian territory. Palestinians living between the barrier and the green line require permits to remain in their homes. The wall has also been extended in several locations to encompass Israeli settlements on the West Bank, effectively annexing sections of Palestinian territory. The relatively few crossing points, even fewer of which are open at any given time, disrupt cross-border Palestinian trade. The International Court of Justice at the Hague has declared the wall to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and ordered construction to stop. Like the Berlin Wall, the solid sections of the barrier have become a target for Palestinian graffiti artists. 

Future: Israel has been forced to make several adjustments to the route of the wall due to challenges filed in Israel's Supreme Court. It now expects the wall to be completed next year, though that is already seven years behind schedule.  Thanks to delays and cost overruns on the $2.5 billion project, some analysts now predict it will never be completed.

The U.S.-Mexico border fence

David McNew/Getty Images

What: In 2006, President George W. Bush approved a congressional plan to build 700 miles of fencing in several sections along the U.S.-Mexico border, citing the need to curb illegal immigration. The fence consists of both physical barriers and “virtual fences” of cameras and motion detectors. About 613 miles of fencing have been constructed so far. There have been several congressional proposals in recent years to extend the fence along the entire U.S. border.

How it divides: There are an estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States and more than a million people are arrested each year trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border. The current round of fence construction was approved over the protests of then Mexican President Vicente Fox -- who likened it to the Berlin Wall and warned that it would damage relations between the two countries -- and border protection agents themselves, who argued that immigrants would simply find new routes. In addition, the fence’s proposed route would divide the territory of several American Indian reservations and disrupt the migratory patterns of a number of animal species.

Future: U.S. President Barack Obama promised to review the current construction plan during his campaign, but has so far made no moves to halt fence construction. A majority of Americans support building a fence along the entire border.

The Korean Demilitarized Zone

JUNG YEON-JE/AFP/Getty Images

What: Running along the 38th parallel that has marked the division between North and South Korea since World War II, the demilitarized zone (DMZ) is, in fact, one of the world's most heavily militarized borders. On either side of the 4 kilometer-wide border, nearly 2 million North and South Korean troops are stationed. 

How it divides: Described by former U.S. President Bill Clinton as "the scariest place on Earth," the DMZ has been mostly peaceful in the five decades since the end of the Korean War, so peaceful, in fact, that the area has become a haven for wildlife, including several endangered species. There has been something of a competition in recent years to see which side can build the most impressive guard posts and fortifications along the DMZ, a contest known as the "skyscraper wars." Although more than 16,000 North Koreans have defected to the South since the end of the Korean War, most of them have chosen to cross into China first, a much less dangerous proposition. The recent, and unusual, defection of a South Korean man to North Korea through the DMZ has prompted Seoul to launch a review of border security.

Future: A recent program allowed some South Koreans to cross the border to meet with relatives, from whom they've been separated since the end of the war. The program was halted after North Korea captured a South Korean fishing boat. For the most part, cross-border contact between the two Koreas remains almost unheard-of and given Kim Jong Il's nuclear provocations, is likely to stay that way.  

The Wagah Border Crossing (India-Pakistan)

NARINDER NANU/AFP/Getty Images

What: With the exception of the restive Kashmir region, the India-Pakistan border has remained mostly peaceful for the last six decades. But in Wagah, a divided town that hosts the only road link between India and Pakistan, the bitter division between these two rivals is literally on display every night. At the nightly "retreat ceremony," Indian and Pakistani soldiers parade just inches from each other across the demarcation line before shutting the road for the night and lowering their flags.

What it divides: The partition of India divided communities and families and sent millions fleeing across the border. The two countries have remained in a state of heightened tension over nuclear competition, fighting in the disputed Kashmir region, and more recently, terrorism committed by Pakistani-based militant groups. The insurgency in Kashmir has claimed more than 47,000 lives and, much to the consternation of U.S. authorities, has remained Pakistan's top military priority despite its own growing insurgency. During times of particularly high tension, the border crossing is closed.

Future: Despite the simmering tensions over Kashmir, cross-border trade between the two countries has increased in recent years. As one small sign, the nightly confrontation between the two countries militaries at Wagah has been toned down to make it less aggressive. The guards now end the ceremony with a brief handshake.  

The Great Firewall of China

FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

What: China’s Ministry of Information Industry has set up the world’s largest system of Internet censorship and filtering. Through regulation of the country’s Internet service providers, authorities block users from accessing content on controversial subjects like Tibet or Falun Gong. International sites like the New York Times, BBC, and Wikipedia are also frequently censored. An estimated 40,000 cyberpolice are employed to monitor the country’s Internet users.

What it divides: Not all of today’s Berlin Walls are physical. The world’s largest population of Internet users is still unable to access the entirety of the World Wide Web, stifling public debate and the ability of Chinese citizens to interact with the outside world. China’s efforts to clamp down on online dissent go beyond blocking content. Amnesty International estimates that the country has the world’s highest number of imprisoned cyberdissidents. Other authoritarian regimes like Iran and Burma have begun to take note, employing Chinese methods to control their own growing Internet populations. International companies like Cisco, Yahoo!, and Google have also taken heat for facilitating, and at times even cooperating with, China’s censorship efforts.

Future: Savvy Chinese Internet users have proven extremely adept at circumventing the regime’s Internet controls, using false ISPs and other tricks to deceive the censors. Recently, a “Berlin Twitter Wall” website was set up in Germany, allowing users around the world to post messages in honor of the wall’s 20th anniversary. The site was overwhelmed with Chinese Internet users demanding that Beijing loosen its Web restrictions.

“Hamas in talks over releasing Gilad Shalit”

JONATHAN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images

Ever since Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit was taken prisoner in 2006, the militant group Hamas has seemed to delight in dangling the prospect of his release before an anxious Israeli public. Negotiations over Shalit began almost immediately after he was taken. In October 2006, one of the factions holding Shalit reported that they had agreed to Israel's term and were preparing to release Shalit "within days."

Similar reports of "progress" in freeing Shalit have popped up in the Israeli media ever since. Things seemed particularly promising in March 2009 when Israeli negotiators seemed close to a prisoner exchange deal with Hamas at Egyptian-moderated talks, but those too broke down. In September 2009, Israel settled for a video of Shalit in exchange for 20 Palestinian prisoners. Hamas seems in no hurry to give up its most valuable prisoner any time soon.

“North Korea to return to negotiating table”

GREG BAKER/Pool/Getty Images

Since withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993, and particularly since the first round of "six-party talks" 10 years later, North Korea has excelled at the art of nuclear brinksmanship -- withdrawing from international negotiations and provoking its enemies through missile tests and hostile rhetoric -- then eventually returning to the table, usually in exchange for concessions and aid.

The sixth round of talks appeared to lead to an agreement in 2007, but North Korea failed to follow through on delivering a full accounting of its nuclear stockpile. Since then, Kim Jong Il has at various points promised to return to the negotiating table. Most recently, Kim told visiting Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao that he would consider returning to multilateral talks in October.

"Pakistan finally getting tough with Taliban"

AMIR QURESHI/AFP/Getty Images

It has long been global conventional wisdom that Pakistan's military is far more preoccupied with its security concerns in Kashmir than in routing the country's Islamist insurgency. But dating back to at least the raid on the Lal Masjid mosque in 2007, U.S. observers have sought out reasons to declare that Pakistan was finally "getting tough," or "getting serious" on terror.

President Obama has welcomed Pakistan's apparent growing recognition that "their biggest threat right now comes internally," and journalists like the Washington Post's David Ignatius have praised Pakistan's "savvy" offensives in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan. Trouble is, the insurgency shows no signs of letting up and the Pakistani military is not exactly falling in line with U.S. security goals.

"Israel preparing military strike against Iran"

ATTA KENARE/AFP/Getty Images

In December 2005, then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon ordered his military to prepare for the possibility of a strike on Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, saying, "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."

Since then it's been regularly reported that Israel was preparing an "imminent" military strike against Iranian facilities, along the lines of its 1981 attack against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. Many thought such a strike would occur while Israel still had the "green light" from the Bush administration but the Israeli government's warnings have disappeared away with Obama in office. "Under no circumstances should any option be removed from the table," Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned last week.

"Honduras rivals appear close to deal"

Win McNamee/Getty Images

This is a newcomer on the list, but seems to have the potential for endless repetition. Since the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, in June, his supporters have been "close to a deal" a number of times, according to mediators from the United Nations and Organization of American States.

On Oct. 30, it was reported that a deal had been reached to allow Zelaya to finish his term, pending a vote from the opposition-controlled congress. While international mediators and observers were quick to hail the breakthrough, plenty of opportunities for the fragile political peace to break down remain between now and national what are sure to be controversial presidential elections on Nov. 29. It remains to be seen whether this latest development was the real thing, or yet another false alarm. 

"Dollar to be replaced as global reserve currency"

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

The greenback has had a tough couple of years, no doubt about it. But some seem inordinately fixated on the possibility that the dollar will be replaced as the global reserve currency. China's Central Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan set off the speculation in March by remarking that it was dangerous for the world to rely on one reserve currency.

Now it seems that every G-8, G-20, or OPEC meeting is another occasion for speculation about the dollar's imminent demise. Proto-blogger Matt Drudge seems particularly fixated on the story. Unfortunately for the dollar fatalists, there's little evidence to suggest that the dollar will be dumped any time soon and it's not even clear that it would be such a bad thing if it did happen.

"New Russian president proposing liberal reforms"

DMITRY ASTAKHOV/AFP/Getty Images

Like his predecessor and benefactor Vladimir Putin, Dmitry Medvedev came into office as a mystery. Reformers in Russia and the West hoped that the easygoing lawyer would prove to be a more moderate leader than Putin, now the prime minister, proved to be.

While few doubt Putin's ultimate influence, observers continue to speculate that Medvedev will become "his own man", and thanks to a few speeches declaring the need for liberal reforms and speculating about his own future presidential intentions, Kremlinologists have been quick to declare that the two are not so chummy anymore. But apart from a few token gestures -- meeting with friends of murdered human rights activists instead of dismissing them -- there's little evidence to date that Medvedev's liberal program is anything but cheap talk.

"Fidel Castro is dying"

ADALBERTO ROQUE/AFP/Getty Images

Sooner or later, retired Cuban dictator Fidel Castro will die. But the leader who has outlived the terms of 11 U.S. presidents also seems to constantly overcome predictions of his imminent death.

The aging leader was first rushed to a hospital in July 2006 with internal bleeding and missed some time at the office but eventually returned (rumors that the leader was on death's door had Cuban Americans dancing in the streets in Miami's Little Havana). Since he stepped down in 2008, rumors about Fidel's health have continued to circulate, but the regime still regularly releases photos of the perpetually tracksuit-clad leader meeting visiting dignitaries and looking -- if a bit worn out -- very much alive.

"Momentum on Doha Round"

JORGE UZON/AFP/Getty Images

In 2001, WTO countries committed to a series of measures to open up their agricultural markets to international trade. Since then, however, progress on implementing the Doha reforms has been hard to find.

Dating back to 2003, talks have fallen apart or stalled every year due to the unwillingness of developing countries to cut their tariffs and the reluctance of rich countries to cut their subsidies. Nonetheless, efforts to salvage the Doha dream continue. At nearly every major international summit, world leaders pledge to make the necessary concessions soon. Most recently, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk predicted "significant breakthroughs in the next few weeks and months." Believe it when you see it.

"Israel and Palestinians reach peace deal"

AHMED JADALLAH/AFP/Getty Images

Perhaps the greatest and saddest of all Groundhog Day headlines. In 1994 Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat were jointly awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating the Oslo peace accords and courageously shaking hands on the White House lawn.

Since then, thousands have died on both sides in Israeli military strikes and Palestinian bombings and rocket attacks. Countless summits have taken place during this period, notably the Camp David Summit and the Annapolis Conference. Each time, both sides made bold claims and negotiators -- typically from the United States -- made optimistic predictions. But with the Israelis and Palestinians as far apart as ever, the conflict seems destined to grind on.

As American tanks rumbled in to Baghdad on April 7, 2003, Iraqi InformationMinister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, who became affectionately known as BaghdadBob, tried mightily to convince Western journalists to ignore the facts infront of their eyes. "I triple guarantee you, there are no American soldiers in Baghdad," he told reporters as American troops gathered a few hundred yardsaway. Later, he stated that American soldiers were "committing suicide by thehundreds on the gates of Baghdad," mere hours before coalition forces securedthe city.

Today,Baghdad Bob might have found a successor in the form of Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas,the director general of Pakistan's Inter-Services Public Relations, which handles media relations for the Pakistani armed forces. In a recent Washington Post column, David Ignatius celebrated Pakistan's new determination in confronting the Taliban, quoting Abbas saying that the ongoing offensive in South Waziristan brings an end to the Pakistani government's thinking that "somehow we'll be able to manage them, co-opt them, bring them on board."[[SHARE]]

Statementslike that are music to American policymakers' ears. But somehow, it seems like we've heard all of this from General Abbas before. In less than two years, the general has provided the media with a fairly impressive list of promises, assertions, and projections -- none of which have more than a tenuous basis in reality. Here are a few of his greatest hits. But don't worry: We're sure that, this time, he means every word he says.

Sponsorship of the Taliban

Claim: In the recent Frontline documentary aired on Oct. 13, "Obama's War," a perplexed correspondent tried to get a straight answer from Major General Abbas.  Is it true, he asked, that the Pakistani government knows where Taliban leaders such as Mullah Omar and Siraj Haqqaniare located? But Abbas would not budge: "There is no truth in Mullah Omar and Siraj Haqqani remaining in Pakistan side of the border. I refute that.  No one has shown any intelligence to the Pakistanis."

Taliban groups such as these, Abbas said, "operate from Afghanistan.  If somebody claims that everything is happening from this side of the border, I am sorry, this is misplaced, and we refute it."

Reality: In 2008, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen traveled to Islamabad topresent the Pakistani government with evidence that elements of Pakistan's Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) were supporting the Taliban. Mullen reportedly provided the Pakistani government with intercepted communications between the ISI and the Taliban to prove his point. "We spoke to, clearly, the ISI's relationship with various militant groups that they've had for some time," said Mullen in the same Frontline documentary. U.S. officials, from Barack Obama on down, have continued to emphasize Pakistan's role as an incubator of terrorist activities. Thepresident stated this past March: "Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that Al Qaida is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan."

 Waziristan

Claim: On May 17, 2008, Abbas accompanied journalists to Waziristan to speak of the military's recent offensive in the region. He attempted to reassure reporters about a recent relocation of Pakistani Army troops: "The Army will still have a dominating presence [in Waziristan]. ...Until we are fully sure that the tribal elders and 'jirga' (tribal council) are fully in place, we will stay here."

Reality: On May 23, Taliban commander Qari Hussain -- whom the Pakistani military took credit for killing during another offensive in Waziristan in January -- held a press conference mocking reports of his death. "I am alive, don't you see me?" he said. Baitullah Mehsud, then the most influential Taliban leader in Waziristan, also addressed a news conference at a government school building to announce that the Taliban would continue its war against NATO forces in Afghanistan. For the Pakistani military, this all amounted to something considerably less than a "dominating presence" in Waziristan. In any case, the military presence there soon waned, precipitating the recent offensive into the region.

 Drone strikes

Claim: Abbas has repeatedly criticized the U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, and emphasized that the Pakistani military had no need for American help in its recent offensive. For that reason, the drone strike in the area of Bajaur on Oct. 24 was particularly inconvenient. Abbas, however, was unfazed: "Our information suggests that explosive material being loaded ata vehicle blew up," he told journalists.

Reality: The "vehicle"detonated near a bunker where Maulana Faqir Muhammad, deputy chief of Hakimullah Mehsud's Tehrik-e-Taliban, happened to be holding a secret meeting. That's either the most fortuitous location for an explosives accident in history, or a strike from a Predator drone. The International News and the Daily Times, both Pakistani newspapers, didn't fall for Abbas's spin -- they reported the explosion as a drone strike.

 Shamsi Airbase

Claim: On Feb. 17, Abbas was handed a bona fide public relations disaster. The Times of London reported that the United States was using Pakistan's Shamsi airfield, which lies about 200 miles away from Mullah Omar's stronghold of Quetta, to launch Predator drone strikes. After spending the past year issuing government condemnations of U.S. drone strikes, Abbas was faced with the inconvenient fact that thePakistani state was quietly complicit in the launching of these attacks. But, like a good soldier, he pressed bravely on. As the Times of London reported: "Major General Athar Abbas, the chief military spokesman, confirmed that US forces were using Shamsi [airfield]. ‘The airfield is being used only for logistics,' he said, without elaborating."

Reality: Abbas's denial would have been more believable if the Google Earth images accompanying the Times's article did not clearly show Predator drones on the ground at Shamsi airbase. The U.S. government also evidently did not believe that Abbas's explanation would pass muster.  Two days later, on Feb. 19, U.S. officials would admit publicly to operating drones from Shamsi, and that the Pakistani government had been providing them with the locations of potential targets inthe tribal areas.

 Swat Valley

Claim: After a year of fighting in thecontested Swat Valley, the New York Times profiled the "terrified" residents caught between the Taliban and the Pakistani army on Jan.24. The article reported that Taliban fighters roam around the region freely,while the military hunkers down in its camps. Abbas, however, took issue withthe accusation that the military lacks the will to fight, calling it "very unfair and unjustified." He also disputed that Mingora, the largest town in Swat, had fallen to the militants. "Just because they come out at night and throw down four or five bodies in the square does not mean that militants control anything," he argued.

Reality:  On Feb. 16, the Pakistani government would sign a treaty in the Swat Valley that allowed for the imposition of sharia law in the region, in exchange for a "permanent cease-fire" with the Taliban. It turns out that the Taliban's ability to "throw down four or five bodies in the square" did, in fact, say something about their ability to control the area - and at the height of their power the militants were able to assert their authority within 60 miles of Islamabad. The Pakistani government would only regain control of the Swat Valley after another offensive, begun in May 2009.

BURMA

HLA HLA HTAY/AFP/Getty Images

Status: Substantial evidence points toward Burmese collaboration with North Korea in the development of a secret nuclear reactor and plutonium extraction facility. The reactor could be operational as early as 2014.

[[SHARE]]

Why you should worry: Suspicions of a nascent Burmese nuclear weapons program are widespread. In July, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly worried about military cooperation between North Korea and Burma, saying, "It would be destabilizing for the region. It would pose a direct threat to Burma's neighbors." Clinton's worries are validated by the reports of two recent Burmese defectors, one a former business executive involved in Burma's nuclear contracts, and the other an officer in a secret nuclear battalion in the Burmese Army, whose roles in Burma's clandestine nuclear program were described in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Tensions have been rising between Burma and Bangladesh since 2008, with a border dispute and a buildup of military forces along the disputed area. The tension has risen palpably; in the past two weeks, in addition to heavy tanks and artillery, at least five Burmese and four Bangladeshi warships have faced off across the Bay of Bengal. With both countries looking to go nuclear, the prospect of this conflict exploding is only more worrying.

Plus, the Burmese junta has substantial internal instability to contend with. There are reports of a recent "clearance sale" of heroin by ethnic militias, who are rushing to sell off the drugs to finance enormous weapons purchases. The drugs are being sold at bargain-basement prices in preparation for a possible resumption of civil war. These ethnic groups have been fighting the government on and off for more than 60 years. The fighting has largely occurred in Burma's border areas, but a resumption of wide-scale violence also carries the threat of discouraging foreign investments in Burma's energy sector, further weakening and isolating an already dangerous regime.

BANGLADESH

SHAWKAT KHAN/AFP/Getty Images

Status: Cleared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for nuclear power development Bangladesh is receiving support from Pakistan and recently signed a formal bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia

Why you should worry: Bangladesh's drive for nuclear power is understandable; years of underinvestment in its energy sector have made severe power outages a frequent occurrence and some estimates predict that the country could go into a total blackout by 2011 if no new plants are built. Despite these concerns and the IAEA imprimatur, domestic critics continue to raise concerns over whether Bangladesh has the infrastructure necessary to safely operate a nuclear plant, particularly because the country's coal- and gas-powered plants are frequently tripped up by poor maintenance.

Bangladesh is also not the most politically stable of countries. Since gaining independence in 1971 in a regional war involving Pakistan and India, two of the country's leaders have been assassinated, there have been a series of military coups (both bloody and bloodless), widespread corruption charges, bomb attacks by Islamist militants, and near-constant strikes that have paralyzed the country. In December 2008 a state of emergency ended and elections this January brought an end to interim rule. The election has hardly brought political calm, however; charges of a rigged election were followed by a mutiny of paramilitary border guards in February.

Despite relative peace between Pakistan and India in recent years, including high-level talks and appeals to the United States to arbitrate the dispute over Kashmir, the regional arms race continues unabated. Pakistan will have a new plutonium production facility operating within a year, while India is working on cruise missiles designed for nuclear warheads and nuclear submarines. Pakistan's recent push to help Bangladesh develop nuclear capabilities only introduces another potentially devastating factor in an already-volatile mix.

KAZAKHSTAN

STANISLAV FILIPPOV/AFP/Getty Images

Status: With 1.5 million metric tons of uranium deposits, Kazakhstan is the world's third-largest uranium exporter. Although it currently depends on Russia for its uranium enrichment, the country is planning to develop its own enrichment plants and begin constructing a new nuclear power plant in 2011.

 Why you should worry: It's true that there's little risk of Kazakhstan seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kazakhstan voluntarily gave up thousands of nuclear weapons, and the toxic legacy of 456 underground Soviet nuclear tests (test site pictured) has solidified Kazakh nonproliferation sentiment.

The danger, however, is the risk of dangerous materials falling into the wrong hands. Corruption is endemic at all levels of autocratic President Nursultan Nazarbayev's government, and the country's massive and expanding nuclear bureaucracy is no exception.

This May, authorities arrested Mukhtar Dzhakishev, head of the state-run energy firm Kazatomprom, which oversees uranium production and plans to become the world's largest producer by 2010. Dzhakishev was arrested for appropriating nearly two-thirds of the country's uranium deposits and selling them to foreign firms. Some have suggested that such a feat would be impossible and the charges are politically motivated. In any case, the implications are troubling: Either stunningly huge amounts of uranium can be shifted around without oversight, or one of the world's largest uranium producers is becoming an unstable political battleground. The risk of rogue states or terrorist groups taking advantage of this situation is significant and frightening.

VENEZUELA

THOMAS COEX/AFP/Getty Images

Status: Venezuela has a weak science infrastructure, little nuclear expertise, and limited funding. However, President Hugo Chávez's stated goal of developing civilian nuclear power may yet come to fruition with a little help from his friends.

Why you should worry: Despite a distinct lack of material progress, there's reason to worry about Venezuela's nuclear ambitions. Venezuela and Russia have had an increasingly close relationship, signing a number of economic, energy, and military cooperation agreements in recent years. Since 2005, Venezuela has purchased more than $4 billion dollars worth of Russian arms, and last month Russia provided a $2.2 billion loan for additional arms purchases. Venezuela has also become one of Iran's most active supporters; Chávez has taken to the international stage to cheer on Iran's own nuclear development and last month announced he would begin sending the Islamic Republic 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day to undermine sanctions efforts.

Those relationships seem to be paying off for Chávez's nuclear ambitions, which he first announced in 2005. Venezuela has created an atomic energy commission with Russia, designed specifically to jump-start its nuclear program. And Iran is now assisting Venezuela in detecting and testing uranium deposits; Venezuelan officials estimate that there are 50,000 tons of untapped uranium in the country.

"I say it before the world: Venezuela is going to start the process of developing nuclear energy, but we're not going to make an atomic bomb, so don't be bothering us afterward ... [with] something like what they have against Iran," Chávez has said. Given the Venezuelan leader's recent military buying spree and the escalating war of words with neighboring Colombia, such assurances might not carry much weight with his foreign critics or the IAEA. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace's Nima Gerami and Sharon Squassoni write, "Those states and companies that would contemplate nuclear cooperation with the Chávez government should consider whether they might help recreate the alarming history of Iran's nuclear program and subsequent international crises."

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

KARIM SAHIB/AFP/Getty Images

Status: In January, the United States signed an agreement with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), committing to provide nuclear technology, materials, and expertise. Known as a "123 agreement," it still awaits congressional approval but is expected to go into effect by the end of this month. In the meantime, the UAE has developed a legal framework for regulation and oversight of nuclear industry and has drafted plans for a number of nuclear power plants to meet rapidly rising energy demand.

Why you should worry: On first glance, the UAE's nuclear ambitions seem entirely reasonable. The UAE has incessantly emphasized the peaceful nature of its nuclear plans, and by all accounts the UAE's legal commitment to monitoring nuclear operations should be an effective means of oversight. What's more, the UAE is widely considered one of the most liberal and stable states in the Middle East and has extensive ties to the international community as a center of global business.

So what's to fret about? There is a great deal of fear that bringing nuclear technology could cause the country's less-than-stable neighbors to seek the same, in a region that has, with the exception of Israel, remained nuke-free. Referring to the 123 agreement, U.S. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said, "In the Middle East, a nuclear-energy race could be as perilous as a nuclear-arms race." The trend toward nuclear development has already seized the region, with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Egypt, and even chaotic Yemen announcing intentions to look into nuclear energy.

Regardless of how peacefully the UAE's nuclear program begins, arms-control hawks worry that massive amounts of nuclear technology and expertise are a great foundation for developing a nuclear weapons program. As the UAE is a major trading partner of Iran, critics have raised concerns that nuclear material could fall into Iranian hands.