MEASURING the HEALTH of the Liberal International Order

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

MEASURING the HEALTH of the Liberal International Order BUILDING A SUSTAINABLE INTERNATIONAL ORDER A RAND Project to Explore U.S. Strategy in a Changing World MEASURING THE HEALTH OF THE Liberal International Order Michael J. Mazarr Astrid Stuth Cevallos Miranda Priebe Andrew Radin Kathleen Reedy Alexander D. Rothenberg Julia A. Thompson C O R P O R A T I O N Jordan Willcox For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1994 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication ISBN: 978-0-8330-9802-3 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2017 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover design by Dori Walker Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface In this report, we analyze the health of the existing post–World War II liberal international order and draw implications from that analysis for future U.S. policy. To evaluate the status of the existing order, we examined several categories of indicators, including both inputs (such as state participation in and attitudes toward order) and outcomes that reflect the order’s primary objectives (such as economic liberalization and interdependence, peace among great powers, and adherence to the order’s norms). Ultimately, we found that the postwar order continues to enjoy many elements of stability but is increasingly threatened by major geopolitical and domestic socioeconomic trends that are calling into question its fundamental assumptions. This report is part of Building a Sustainable International Order, a larger RAND Corporation project that seeks to understand the existing international order, assess current challenges to the order, and recommend future U.S. policies with respect to the order. For more information on the project, visit www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/ international-order. This research was sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Office of Net Assessment and conducted within the Inter- national Security and Defense Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and develop- ment center sponsored by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community. iii iv Measuring the Health of the Liberal International Order For more information on the RAND International Security and Defense Policy Center, see www.rand.org/nsrd/ndri/centers/isdp or contact the director (contact information is provided on the web page). Contents Preface ............................................................................. iii Figures ............................................................................. ix Tables .............................................................................. xi Summary ..........................................................................xii Acknowledgments ............................................................ xxiii Abbreviations ................................................................... xxv CHAPTER ONE Introduction ....................................................................... 1 The Order and Its Health ......................................................... 4 Challenges with Measurement ..................................................11 Methodology ......................................................................14 Structure of the Report .......................................................... 24 CHAPTER TWO Participation in Formal Regional and International Institutions ..... 27 Steady Institutional Participation ...............................................29 Integrating International Order into Domestic Institutions ................ 34 Increasingly Diverse and Informal Institutions ............................... 38 Building New Institutions ...................................................... 40 Regional Institutions............................................................. 42 CHAPTER THREE Economic Liberalization and Interdependence ............................49 Trade and Financial Integration .................................................51 Capital Markets and Foreign Direct Investment ..............................58 v vi Measuring the Health of the Liberal International Order Response to Crises ................................................................61 Development Assistance ..........................................................62 CHAPTER FOUR International Conflict and Peace .............................................65 Treaties of Pacific Settlement ....................................................67 Territorial Changes Resulting from Conflict ................................. 68 Status of Controls on Weapons of Mass Destruction .........................72 Levels of Conflict .................................................................74 Ability to Constrain Major War .................................................78 CHAPTER FIVE Adherence to Liberal Norms and Values ....................................85 Democracy and Liberal Systems ............................................... 86 Human Rights .....................................................................89 Corruption and the Rule of Law ................................................91 Economic Growth and Democratic Stability ..................................95 CHAPTER SIX Major-Power Signaling and Policies Toward Order ...................... 99 Russia ............................................................................. 101 China ............................................................................. 104 India .............................................................................. 109 Brazil .............................................................................. 113 Conclusion ....................................................................... 116 CHAPTER SEVEN Public Attitudes Toward Elements of the Order ......................... 119 Support for the Order’s Rules and Institutions .............................. 120 Support for Trade ............................................................... 126 Support for Liberal Norms and Values ....................................... 130 Support for Internationalism .................................................. 133 The Rise of Nationalism ........................................................ 136 Summary vii CHAPTER EIGHT Foundations of Order: Geopolitics and Ideology ........................ 147 Geopolitical Trends ............................................................. 150 Ideological Trends ............................................................... 155 Conclusion: Causes for Worry ................................................. 162 CHAPTER NINE Summing Up: The State of the Order ...................................... 165 The Importance of Ideas and Beliefs .......................................... 169 Recognizing Danger Signs ..................................................... 171 Implications for Policy .......................................................... 173 References ....................................................................... 177 Figures 1.1. Snapshot of the Elements and Engines of the Liberal International Order ................................................... 6 1.2. Complexity of Separating the Effects of Order ..................14 2.1. U.N. and WTO Membership Levels and Number of International Organizations, 1945–2017 ........................ 30 2.2. Total U.N. Security Council Vetoes, 1946–2015 ................32 3.1. Exports, Largest Economies, 1960–2015 .........................52 3.2. Trade as a Percentage of GDP, Worldwide, 1960–2016 .........53 3.3. Trade as a Percentage of GDP, Largest Economies, 1960 –2015 ........................................................... 54 3.4. FDI Net Inflows, Worldwide, 1970–2015 ........................58 3.5. FDI Net Inflows as a Percentage of GDP, Worldwide, 1970–2016 ............................................................59 3.6. Net Official Development Assistance, Worldwide, 1960–2014 ............................................................63 4.1. Multilateral Treaties of Pacific Settlement, 1945–2011 ........ 68 4.2. Global Trends in Armed Conflict, 1945–2015 ...................71 4.3. Territorial Claims Initiated per Dyadic Contiguity .............72 4.4. Number of High-Fatality Conflicts Started Each Year, 1946 –2015 ............................................................76
Recommended publications
  • Fragile States Index 2015
    FRAGILE STATES INDEX 2015 THE FUND FOR PEACE The Fund for Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that works to prevent violent conflict and promote sustainable security. We promote sustainable security through research, training and education, engagement of civil society, building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. A leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, The Fund for Peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing states. Our objective is to create practical tools and approaches for conflict mitigation that are useful to decision-makers. Copyright © 2015 The Fund for Peace. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Fund for Peace. Report Edited by Assessment Directed by J. J. Messner Nate Haken Report Written by J. J. Messner, Nate Haken, Patricia Taft, Hannah Blyth, Kendall Lawrence, Sebastian Pavlou Graham, Felipe Umaña Assessment Supported by Alex Young, Ania Skinner, Katie Cornelius Circulation: PUBLIC The Fund for Peace T: +1 202 223 7940 1101 14th Street NW, Suite 1020 F: +1 202 223 7947 Washington, D.C. 20005 www.fundforpeace.org The Fund for Peace is grateful for the support of: Foreign Policy magazine is the media partner of the Fragile States Index www.foreignpolicy.com www.fundforpeace.org Fragile States Index 2015: Overview The Fragile States Index is an annual The Index in Figures ranking of 178 nations based on their levels of Index of Country Analysis 2015 Map 4 stability and the pressures they face.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Skills-Based Immigration
    20170828 subscribers_cover61404-postal.qxd 8/8/2017 4:46 PM Page 1 August 28, 2017 $5.99 YOU THE CASE FOR SKILLS-BASED IMMIGRATION REIHAN SALAM $5.99 35 PLUS HEATHER MAC DONALD on Jeff Sessions KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON on Emma Lazarus 0 73361 08155 1 www.nationalreview.com base_new_milliken-mar 22.qxd 8/8/2017 5:36 PM Page 1 Truth Matters …in private life and in the public square Educating for Citizenship e Republic Plato Nicomachean Ethics Politics Aristotle On Duties Cicero Treatise on Law St. omas Aquinas Second Treatise of Government John Locke e Federalist Papers Articles of Confederation Declaration of Independence e U.S. Constitution Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville e Lincoln–Douglas Debates Students read and discuss these texts and many more in a rigorous, 4-year Great Books program quinas A C s o a Thomas Aquinas College l m l e o g h e T Join us in supporting the 75% of students on nancial aid www.thomasaquinas.edu/uscitizen 1971 TOC-FINAL_QXP-1127940144.qxp 8/9/2017 2:37 PM Page 1 Contents AUGUST 28, 2017 | VOLUME LXIX, NO. 16 | www.nationalreview.com BOOKS, ARTS & MANNERS ON THE COVER Page 24 39 THE NEW MANICHAEANS Michael Knox Beran reviews The The Case for Skills-Based Once and Future Liberal: After Immigration Identity Politics, by Mark Lilla. 41 TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE The RAISE Act has the potential to Terry Teachout reviews Ernest Hemingway: A Biography, do a great deal of good. Instead of by Mary V. Dearborn, and Paradise sharpening our political and Lost: A Life of F.
    [Show full text]
  • Fragile Contexts in 2018
    CHAPTER ELEVEN Leaving No Fragile State and No One Behind in a Prosperous World: A New Approach Landry Signé undreds of millions of people are left behind in fragile states despite the efforts of the international community to make progress on development Hand alleviate conflict. People in fragile states are victim to persistent poverty,1 enduring violence, poor public facilities, deteriorating infrastructure,2 limited civil and political liberties,3 deteriorating social conditions,4 minimal to nonexistent economic growth,5 and, often, humanitarian crises.6 Research and policies on state fragility build on concepts of limited state capacity, legitimacy, insecurity, stability and socioeconomic, demographic, human development, environmental, humanitarian, and gender contexts to determine states’ apparent effectiveness or ineffectiveness in fulfilling the role of the state. Within this -con text, fragility has become a catch- all concept encompassing fragile states, weak states, failed states, collapsing or decaying states, conflict- affected countries, post- conflict countries, brittle states, and states with limited legitimacy, author- ity, capacity, governance, security, and socioeconomic and human development. 1. Collier (2007). 2. Rotberg (2011). 3. Bah (2012). 4. Van de Walle (2004). 5. Brainard and Chollet (2007). 6. Nwozor (2018). The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to Payce Madden, Genevieve Jesse, and Elise El Nouchi, who contributed to the research, data analysis, fact- checking, and visual elements of this chapter. 239 Kharas-McArthur-Ohno_Leave No One Behind_i-xii_1-340.indd 239 9/6/19 1:57 PM 240 Landry Signé When used without conceptual clarification and contextual consideration, as is often the case, the concept of fragility lacks usefulness for policymakers, as the various types, drivers, scopes, levels, and contexts of fragility require differ- ent responses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fragility-Grievances-Conflict Triangle in the Middle East
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Article The Fragility-Grievances-Conflict Triangle in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA): An Exploration of the Correlative Associations † Timo Kivimäki Department of Politics, Languages and International Studies, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK; [email protected] † For fruitful comments on previous version of this article, I am grateful to Talip Alkhayer, Rana Jawad and Olivia Perry as well as to the three anonymous referees of Social Sciences. I am also grateful for the UK Global Challenges Research Fund project “Conflict and peace-building in the MENA region: is social protection the missing link?” (Grant number AH/T003537/1) for funding this research. My funders or the commentators of this paper are naturally not responsible for the interpretations and possible mistakes in this study. Abstract: The intention of this special issue of Social Sciences is to study state fragility and its relationship with conflict and grievances in the post-Cold War Middle East and North Africa (MENA). This article will lay the foundation for such a study by offering a conceptual foundation, data and the identification of the correlative associations that are specific to the MENA region. This article suggests that the relationship between political legitimacy, factionalism of the state, and conflict needs special, MENA-specific emphasis, as this relationship seems more prominently different in the MENA region, compared to the rest of the world. While in the rest of the world, different aspects of state fragility all relate to grievances and conflict dynamics, in the MENA region political factionalism has a disproportionate role in the explanation of conflict grievances and violence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fund for Peace Fragile States Index 2015: Country Indicator Scores
    FRAGILE STATES INDEX 2015 THE FUND FOR PEACE The Fund for Peace is an independent, nonpartisan, 501(c)(3) non-profit research and educational organization that works to prevent violent conflict and promote sustainable security. We promote sustainable security through research, training and education, engagement of civil society, building bridges across diverse sectors, and developing innovative technologies and tools for policy makers. A leader in the conflict assessment and early warning field, The Fund for Peace focuses on the problems of weak and failing states. Our objective is to create practical tools and approaches for conflict mitigation that are useful to decision-makers. Copyright © 2015 The Fund for Peace. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Fund for Peace. Report Edited by Assessment Directed by J. J. Messner Nate Haken Report Written by J. J. Messner, Nate Haken, Patricia Taft, Hannah Blyth, Kendall Lawrence, Sebastian Pavlou Graham, Felipe Umaña Assessment Supported by Alex Young, Ania Skinner, Katie Cornelius Circulation: PUBLIC The Fund for Peace T: +1 202 223 7940 1101 14th Street NW, Suite 1020 F: +1 202 223 7947 Washington, D.C. 20005 www.fundforpeace.org The Fund for Peace is grateful for the support of: Foreign Policy magazine is the media partner of the Fragile States Index www.foreignpolicy.com www.fundforpeace.org Fragile States Index 2015: Overview The Fragile States Index is an annual The Index in Figures ranking of 178 nations based on their levels of Index of Country Analysis 2015 Map 4 stability and the pressures they face.
    [Show full text]
  • Normandy Index
    Mapping threats to peace and democracy worldwide Normandy Index 2020 STUDY EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service Members' Research Service PE 652.039 – September 2020 EN Mapping threats to peace and democracy worldwide Normandy Index 2020 The 'Normandy Index', now in its second year, aims to measure the level of threats to peace, security and democracy around the world. It was presented for the first time on the occasion of the Normandy Peace Forum in June 2019, as a result of a partnership between the European Parliament and the Region of Normandy. The Index has been designed and prepared by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), in conjunction with and on the basis of data provided by the Institute for Economics and Peace. This paper sets out the findings of the 2020 exercise and explains how the Index can be used to compare peace – defined on the basis of a given country's performance against a range of predetermined threats – across countries and regions. It is complemented by 40 individual country case studies, derived from the Index. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service AUTHORS Editors: Étienne Bassot and Monika Nogaj Author: Elena Lazarou, Members' Research Service Graphics by Nadejda Kresnichka-Nikolchova This paper has been drawn up by the Members' Research Service, within the Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament. The underlying data have been supplied by the Institute for Economics and Peace. The author would like to acknowledge the contribution of Philippe Perchoc to the conception and elaboration of the Normandy Index and to parts of this study.
    [Show full text]
  • To Download the Fragile States Index Annual Report 2019 in PDF Format
    FRAGILE STATES INDEX ANNUAL REPORT 2019 For over 60 years, The Fund for Peace (FFP) has been a world leader in developing practical tools and approaches for reducing conflict. With a clear focus on the nexus of human security and economic development, FFP contributes to more peaceful and prosperous societies by engineering smarter methodologies and smarter partnerships. FFP empowers policy-makers, practitioners, and populations with context-specific, data -driven applications to diagnose risks and vulnerabilities and to develop solutions through collective dialogue. FFP is an independent tax-exempt non-governmental organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. with offices in Abuja, Nigeria and Tunis, Tunisia. FFP boasts six decades of programmatic experience in over 40 countries, focused on conflict early warning, peacebuilding, and sustainable development. Copyright © 2019 The Fund for Peace. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent from The Fund for Peace. Cover images: Freeshot via 123RF Contents Page Image: Bumbledee via 123RF Report designed and edited by J.J. Messner. Assessment directed by Charles Fiertz. The Fragile States Index Team: J.J. Messner Charles Fiertz Nate Haken Patricia Taft Hannah Blyth Marcel Maglo Daniet Moges Christina Murphy Wendy Wilson Amanda Quinn Kevin Obike Kat Meyer Rhea Bhambani Chris Merriman Ignatius Onyekwere The Fund for Peace 1101 14th Street NW, Suite 1020 Washington, D.C. 20005 T: +1 202 223 7940
    [Show full text]
  • The Lingering Problem of Fragile States
    Charles T. Call The Lingering Problem of Fragile States During his campaign, Donald Trump pledged a “very swift and decisive end” to nation-building if elected.1 His statement—identical to the pledge made by then-candidate George W. Bush—marks a reversal of a strong emphasis on failed and fragile states initiated by none other than President George W. Bush. In the wake of 9/11, President Bush declared that “America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones.”2 He subsequently made “failed states” a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. He reoriented military and civi- lian capabilities toward these states, a practice continued by the Obama adminis- tration even as Obama sought to draw those two wars to a close. A policy paradigm of “failed states” emerged as U.S. allies, the European Union (EU), and the United Nations (UN) built new institutions to address these priority countries under the rubric of “state-building,”“reconstruction and stabilization,”“conflict mitigation” and “peacebuilding.” As Trump’s campaign rhetoric indicates, the failed states paradigm has receded. Traditional security challenges posed by Russia and China as well as nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran are higher priorities, and the U.S. military is pulling back from its decade-old emphasis on large-scale stabilization operations. Last year, the Defense Department expressed skepticism about a “fragile states strategy” proposed by the White House,3 and the Congress has no enthusiasm for ambitious new state-building operations. Michael Mazarr, political scientist at the RAND Corporation, argued: “the decline of the state-building narrative reflects a more profound underlying truth: the obsession with weak states was always more of a mania than a sound strategic doctrine.”4 Indeed, the failed- Charles T.
    [Show full text]
  • Fragility in the Data
    APRIL 2018 Fragility in the data Hannes Mueller Hannes Mueller is a tenured scientist at the Institute for Economic Analysis (IAE- CSIC) and a Barcelona Graduate School of Economics Affiliated Professor. About the commission The LSE-Oxford Commission on State Fragility, Growth and Development was launched in March 2017 to guide policy to address state fragility. The commission, established under the auspices of the International Growth Centre, is sponsored by LSE and University of Oxford’s Blavatnik School of Government. It is funded from the LSE KEI Fund and the British Academy’s Sustainable Development Programme through the Global Challenges Research Fund. Cover photo: Flickr/Will De Freitas Fragility in the data Contents Background and definitions .................................................................................................... 2 Past fragility explains present welfare ..................................................................................... 3 Implications ...........................................................................................................................11 Indicators of fragility and failure .............................................................................................13 Fragility index data and welfare .............................................................................................15 Predictive capacity of fragility index data on future failure ......................................................17 Developing a model of risk of future failure ............................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • GIM: Doing Business in Latin America 2015 ] Syllabus October 1, 2014
    Global Programs GIM: Doing Business in Latin America 2015 ] syllabus October 1, 2014 GIM: Doing Business in Latin America 2015 Winter 2015 - B – Spring 2015 - A Thursday, 6:30 – 9:30 PM Professor Daniel Lansberg-Rodríguez [email protected] Phone: 203-824-5739 Office hours: Jacobs Center, Room 5234, by appointment Global Programs GIM: Doing Business in Latin America 2015 ] syllabus October 1, 2014 GIM Program Objectives The GIM Program enables Kellogg students to: • Gain an understanding of the economic, political, social, and culture characteristics of a country or region outside the United States. • Learn about key business trends, industries, and sectors in a country or region outside the United States. • Conduct international business research on a topic of interest. • Further develop teamwork and leadership skills. Course Description and Objectives In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, and certainly in Latin America, that difference can be pretty extreme. Despite being a diverse region, rich in resources and human capital, many Latin American countries routinely rank near the bottom of the World Bank’s Annual Ease of Doing Business Index. Even so, in our increasingly globalized world, a working knowledge of Latin American economics, business norms, and etiquette is of increasing importance given the importance of the region to energy markets, logistical chains, tourism and agriculture. Likewise, as domestic economies in countries like Brazil, Mexico and Colombia adapt to the changing retail and service needs of growing middle classes, many American companies have come to see Latin America not just as a potential target for investment, but for expansion as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Peace Index 2020: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Sydney, June 2020
    GLOBAL PEACE INDEX PEACE GLOBAL GLOBAL PEACE 2020 INDEX 2020 MEASURING PEACE IN A COMPLEX WORLD Institute for Economics & Peace Quantifying Peace and its Benefits The Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit think tank dedicated to shifting the world’s focus to peace as a positive, achievable, and tangible measure of human well-being and progress. IEP achieves its goals by developing new conceptual frameworks to define peacefulness; providing metrics for measuring peace; and uncovering the relationships between business, peace and prosperity as well as promoting a better understanding of the cultural, economic and political factors that create peace. IEP is headquartered in Sydney, with offices in New York, The Hague, Mexico City, Brussels and Harare. It works with a wide range of partners internationally and collaborates with intergovernmental organisations on measuring and communicating the economic value of peace. For more information visit www.economicsandpeace.org Please cite this report as: Institute for Economics & Peace. Global Peace Index 2020: Measuring Peace in a Complex World, Sydney, June 2020. Available from: http://visionofhumanity.org/reports (accessed Date Month Year). Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 Key Findings 4 RESULTS 5 Highlights 6 2020 Global Peace Index Rankings 8 Regional Overview 13 Improvements & Deteriorations 20 TRENDS IN PEACEFULNESS 25 GPI Trends 26 GPI Domain Trends 28 Civil Unrest 32 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF VIOLENCE 41 The Economic Value of Peace 2019 42 Methodology at a Glance 50 POSITIVE PEACE 53 What is Positive Peace? 54 Positive Peace and the COVID-19 Pandemic 57 Trends in Positive Peace 67 ECOLOGICAL THREAT REGISTER 71 Introduction 72 The Types of Ecological Threat 74 APPENDICES 83 Appendix A: GPI Methodology 84 Appendix B: GPI indicator sources, definitions & scoring criteria 88 Appendix C: GPI Domain Scores 96 Appendix D: Economic Cost of Violence 99 GLOBAL PEACE INDEX 2020 | 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This is the 14th edition of the Global Peace Index (GPI), North America.
    [Show full text]
  • Fragilestatesindex-2016.Pdf
    SOMALIA SOUTH SUDAN CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC SUDAN YEMEN SYRIA CHAD DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AFGHANISTAN HAITI IRAQ GUINEA NIGERIA PAKISTAN BURUNDI ZIMBABWE GUINEA BISSAU ERITREA NIGER KENYA COTE D'IVOIRE CAMEROON UGANDA ETHIOPIA LIBYA MYANMAR LIBERIA MAURITANIA MALI NORTH KOREA REPUBLIC OF CONGO RWANDA NEPAL SIERRA LEONE TIMOR-LESTE BANGLADESH ANGOLA EGYPT DJIBOUTI LEBANON BURKINA FASO MOZAMBIQUE SRI LANKA MALAWI SWAZILAND CAMBODIA IRAN GAMBIA ZAMBIA PAPUA NEW GUINEA TOGO SOLOMON ISLANDS EQUATORIAL GUINEA PHILIPPINES LAOS MADAGASCAR COMOROS TAJIKISTAN SENEGAL UZBEKISTAN GUATEMALA TANZANIA VENEZUELA KYRGYZ REPUBLIC RUSSIA LESOTHO COLOMBIA HONDURAS ISRAEL AND WEST BANK INDIA NICARAGUA BENIN GEORGIA THAILAND BOLIVIA ALGERIA JORDAN BHUTAN TURKEY MICRONESIA AZERBAIJAN FIJI TURKMENISTAN ECUADOR UKRAINE CHINA INDONESIA BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA TUNISIA MOROCCO MALDIVES BELARUS MOLDOVA SAO TOME & PRINCIPE PARAGUAY EL SALVADOR SAUDI ARABIA GABON PERU SERBIA CAPE VERDE GHANA NAMIBIA GUYANA DOMINICAN REPUBLIC VIETNAM MEXICO SOUTH AFRICA ARMENIA SAMOA MACEDONIA SURINAME KAZAKHSTAN CUBA MALAYSIA BELIZE BRAZIL JAMAICA CYPRUS BOTSWANA BAHRAIN GRENADA BRUNEI DARUSSALAM ALBANIA SEYCHELLES KUWAIT TRINIDAD & TOBAGO MONGOLIA ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA GREECE MONTENEGRO BULGARIA PANAMA ROMANIA HUNGARY CROATIA OMAN BAHAMAS BARBADOS ARGENTINA LATVIA COSTA RICA QATAR SLOVAKIA UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ESTONIA MAURITIUS ITALY LITHUANIA CHILE CZECHIA POLAND SPAIN MALTA URUGUAY SOUTH KOREA JAPAN FRANCE UNITED STATES SLOVENIA SINGAPORE UNITED KINGDOM PORTUGAL BELGIUM GERMANY
    [Show full text]