On Monday, October 27, the Dow Jones Industrial average plummeted 554.26 points. Ominously, the drop came almost ten years after the largest stock market dive since the Great Crash of 1929. The drop was the worst one-day drop in the average's history, sending shock waves around the world. Brought about by news on Hong Kong's massive economic fall since the July 1st Chinese takeover, the world was traumatized by the fact that the world's most powerful economy and its $6 trillion corporate instrument were vulnerable.
However, Tuesday's (Oct. 28’s) NYSE performance was completely therapeutic, regaining lost points. The climb was due to strong performances by computer and health care concerns, Monday's biggest losers. Billionaires like media mogul Ted Turner, who lost an estimated $185 million on Monday, made a swift recovery. By Friday, the Dow Jones actually ended on a gain for the week.
In reality, the Second Coming of Black Monday did little to hurt the U.S. economy. Alan Greenspan and George Soros both predicted the inevitable fall. A much sharper percentage drop plagued the 1987 Crash. Investors and brokers alike took the fall in stride and most were upbeat about a gain on the week. Most point to the fact that there are still good aspects about the U.S. economy, as well as the stock market. The market is still up some 11 percent for the year and few were wiped out by the crash.
In fact, investments made in January still favor a positive return. Moreover, many viewed the plummet as simply a good chance to buy stock, which Tuesday's gain reinforced. The U.S. economic indicators are equally strong. The deficit, following five years of decreasing values, is the lowest it has been in 20 years at about $22 billion. Prospects for growth with low inflation and unemployment are also good.
Despite the American nonchalance, the crash did have some negative effects elsewhere. The Hong Kong and Tokyo markets saw drops of 13 and 3.6 percents, respectively. European markets have been plagued by high inflation rates, compounded with anxiety over the Euro.
Finally, New York City stands to lose from the sell-off. More than anything, Monday's fall quells any doubt about the emergence of a global marketplace. The interdependence of the world's economies became painfully obvious as the world’s financial markets tumbled simultaneously. Now people fear that a new financial panic could hurt economies significantly, from New York to Kinsasha.

Whoever said the Earth's future doesn't look too hot? By the year 2100, the average global temperature is likely to rise by 2 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit. In terms of the weather, it means sweltering summers in New York, torrential rain in the traditionally dry highlands of Turkey, and rising sea levels in the Caribbean islands.
Most scientists have attributed this aberrant weather to the effects of global warming, a result of an increase in the atmosphere's concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and CFCs), which traps more heat in the atmosphere than usual. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels by factories and automobiles, are to blame for this phenomenon.
Although scientific uncertainty still surrounds the consequences, the trend of global warming is indisputable and pressing enough to warrant collective action. On December 1, 1997, 160 countries will gather in Kyoto, Japan to try to produce a climate change treaty on reducing the emission level of carbon dioxide.
As usual, each country is promoting its own agenda. Japan, the host country, has proposed a 5 percent reduction from the 1990 emission level. The European Union wants to see more stringent measures while the Australians complained that the proposed cut was too drastic. The U.S., never a country to rush, modestly proposed a reduction to 1990 levels in late October. The developing nations, who could potentially become the worst offenders in the future, want no part in this treaty.The prognosis for a consensus does not look promising.
And what of the environmental organizations that were the center of attention at the 1992 Rio Summit? Lack of funding has reduced their ability to form a coherent strategy and has significantly weakened their clout. In fact, the most successful players have been the US industries who have sponsored an advertising campaign warning that the reduction in carbon dioxide emission levels would stifle the economy.
The truth is nobody knows the costs and benefits of a reduction in emission levels. Each country lacks the technical ability to reach the proposed targets so the international community does not seem ready to deal with a treaty. Perhaps the leaders should all take some time off to reconsider this issue. The risk, though, is that it will take the drowning of Maldives to bring it back to the negotiating table.

The recent Iraqi "crisis" has brought to attention an important issue that has generally gone unreported, at least in the American media: the conflict between the United States' wish to remain the world's major power and the necessity of preserving "International Cooperation" - that is, cooperation with the United States.
The paramount international events of this past year attest to the growing tension between the international community, and the United States and its major allies. European nations have expressed displeasure over American attempts to limit their relations with states that hurt U.S. interests. Issues such as the Helms-Burton Act, or the deal between French, Russian, and Iranian oil companies that violated the D'Amato-Kennedy Act are symptomatic of the current tension.
The present crisis in Iraq is seen by both the Clinton Administration and Saddam Hussein as a test of the fault lines that have started to form in the old system of international cooperation. Despite pressure from Congress and officials, such as Madeline Albright and Bill Richardson, to take a hardline stance against Iraq, President Clinton has so far preferred to keep the action limited to the UN Security Council. However, as of Monday, November 10, the United States has taken certain measures in several Middle Eastern nations, in what might be interpreted as an attempt to gain the support of strategically important states in the region.
These measures include Syria and Lebanon's removal from the so-called “drug list,” which denies aid to any state blacklisted therein. Syria is still on the list of terrorist states which means that it cannot receive direct American aid. Nevertheless, this abrupt change in the Administration's policy has prompted negative responses from certain members of Congress. Also, the $200 million agreement between General Electric and ATAM Electric of Turkey to build a power plant in northern Turkey is of strategic importance to the U.S. because Turkey serves as a base for American armed forces. In addition, Egypt is to receive 50 American M88A2 tank recovery vehicles, which will support its 55 brand new M1A2 main battle tanks, the best in America's arsenal.
Despite its efforts to gain the support of the international community, the Clinton Administration might have to face a more reluctant group of states than the Bush Administration. If the United States succeeds in convincing the Security Council members to accept restricting measures, it will not be because of the infinite allegiance of these countries, but rather because of their own, separate interests in the region.

Jiang Zemin visited the White House on October 28 and October 29. His meetings with President Clinton and his entire U.S. tour were met with both commendation and controversy. In the end, however, it became clear that his visit was more a success than a failure.
First of all, the fact that Jiang came was important. Relations with China have been so strained during the Clinton Administration (and probably even since the Tiananmen Square massacre) that a simple meeting of the heads of state is both symbolically and functionally important. Any time the leaders of two potential global rivals meet, it is bound to have great significance.
But beyond that, there were gains made during these two days that make the situation as Clinton put it, "win, win, win." Here are some of the “wins”:
China arranged a $3 billion deal with Boeing to purchase 50 aircrafts. China promised to limit nuclear exports to rogue states, and in return the United States lifted a ban on exports of nuclear reactors. These nuclear reactors are cleaner than coal, and are safer for the environment, especially when heating the homes of over a billion people. China will cut tariffs on high-tech imports.
The United States will send judges, lawyers, and experts to China to teach them about the rule of law. A superpower hotline was created between the offices of Clinton and Jiang.
Despite these successes, many questions still remain. Will China adhere to its nuclear trade promise? What about Tibet? And most of all, why were no human rights issues raised? These are important questions, but not important enough to detract from the success of the meeting. In the end, it is clear that Sino-American relations improved which has improved global stability in general.

Now that the Senate hearings on Clinton's campaign finance practices have ended, we have to ask ourselves if the issue is really worth all the attention it has been receiving. So Clinton is a good solicitor. So he has had 938 people as overnight guests at the White House. Big deal. Even though Clinton's recent fund-raising escapade has cast him in a bad light, one must remember that money is necessary: money determines the very basics of American democracy. Sad, but true. But things could be much worse.
The average cost of a senatorial race, in 1996, is about $3,765,000. The Clinton and Dole campaigns spent about $232 million, a huge amount that could have been well spent elsewhere. But it takes money to run a campaign. It takes money to run television, radio, print, and other types of advertising that is so unseemingly necessary to be a successful modern "democratic" candidate. Congress gives billions in tax breaks and other favors to industries and interest groups that contribute to parties and campaigns. This type of campaign financing truly favors incumbents, and inexplicably steers the voter's attention away from current issues. It is true that there are many questionable campaign donors, especially those who seek access to the president for personal financial gain.
Campaign finance definitely produces losses within American society. However, it is already an established fact that whenever an election occurs, an exorbitant amount of money will be used to prop up the candidates. America's "democracy" is still a lot more democratic than that of many other countries, whose candidates explicitly buy or flex military power to obtain votes. The issue of campaign financing would not even be taken seriously in so many other "democratic" countries.
Yes, campaign financing is bad, however, it is not worth the attention that it has been getting. The American political system is built with enough checks and balances (in some cases, too many) to keep politicians in line. We have to accept that corruption exists, and because one party does it, the opposing party has to do so, too. As long as the soliciting does not hugely affect political reform and progress, it should not be a major concern.

The mass murder of over seventy foreign tourists at Luxor, Egypt is probably sending chills up the spines of tourists and travel agents everywhere. The Egyptian Government is probably equally worried about the prospect of a disastrous winter holiday season. Islamic radicals in Egypt have attacked foreign tourists before but never in such massive numbers. Al-Gamaa al-Islamiyya claims that it was attempting to take the tourists hostage. They hoped to exchange the hostages for the release of Abdel Rachman from his American prison. Hostages, however, are only useful when they are alive and the terrorists methodically killed everyone that they could. The hostage story is just a smoke screen for the terrorists’ real objectives. Islamic fundamentalist terror groups hope to use terrorism to disrupt Egypt's vital tourist trade and cripple the economy.
If tourists do stay away from Egypt, the radicals may succeed. Egypt is plugged with massive poverty and unemployment. It lacks the natural resources of Saudi Arabia or the healthy and well educated work force of Singapore. Tourism is, therefore, one of its few viable industries. If tourism declines, unemployment will climb, the ranks of the radicals will swell with the unemployed and disaffected, and the terrorist problem will become even worse.
If the world values its access to Egypt's cultural treasures, then it must put a stop to this cycle of violence. Cooperating with Egyptian authorities to help stop terrorism is a good place to start but more must be done to truly solve the problem. In the long run, Egypt must reduce its economic dependence on tourism and develop the kind of economy that terrorists cannot take hostage. The Egyptian government has already taken measures to diversify Egypt's economy by making foreign investment easier. America and the rest of the world can help by opening markets to Egyptian goods and providing development aid. The ultimate success of these economic reforms, however, lies in the hands of the Egyptians. If they want to stop the violence, they must stick with Mubarack's economic reform program. If not, more blood will flow.