FIRST, THE WHY, I.E. THE REASON I PUT TOGETHER THIS UNUSUAL REFERENCE SOURCE:

          For the first time in human history, tens of millions of us (probably before long a billion) all over the world are:

(1) literate in the same language: English (you’re reading this, aren’t you?);

(2) extremely well-informed by historic standards (through an explosion in education, training, media, travel);

(3) able to access the world’s finest and most-stimulating minds (by print, sound, or sight);

(4) able to communicate almost everywhere, directly and instantly (particularly via this medium); and

(5) concerned to some degree about at least one problem threatening the entire globe. [If not, you should quit here.]

          BUT we, the most “qualified” generations ever born, are dangerously disorganized and incompetent when we even try to focus on, let alone resolve collectively (as we must), the variety of serious and urgent global issues. (If you aren’t aware of any, see the INTRODUCTION.) Optimum reaction: neither despair nor unconcern, but determination. Our ever-more-refined knowledge of the physical world, and hence our expanding power to misuse it, demand that our interdependent species fast become more informed and effective in facing global problems - most of them of our own making. Those it has already produced (weapons of mass destruction; destabilizing inequalities) and is creating (uncontrolled biological/ecological/electronic powers; vulnerability to harm) are becoming more numerous and dangerous, and past“solutions”(isolation? war? muddling-through?)less feasible and appropriate all the time. “New”solutions - more in inter-group relations than in technology - already need to be found and applied faster, simply to keep up with the growing speed and scale of change and the resulting“consequence of error”.

          Besides lack of experience and rapidly-outdated habits in a turmoil-driven global civilization, there are two very basic reasons why people the world over are finding it so hard to get their minds around(and agree on)global issues. I’ve tried in a small way to address both handicaps in creating this bibliography. First, we’ve been taught to think“locally”, or at the broadest, nationally. People/problems outside our family, community, region or nation are not our concern, unless perceived as directly threatening our own collective interests. So we have always erected physical and mental barriers around what used to be self-contained, justified, defensive in-groups. Yet in the amazingly brief time it has taken the world to become(for good or ill)not merely interconnected, but deeply and increasingly interdependent, this millennia-old“us-and-them”perception has become, not just selfish(we know how many kids starve daily), but short-sighted(economics), counter-productive(crime), and in many respects dangerous(WMD; one biosphere). Second, whatever our occupations, we’re all specialists, simply because of the way our more and more complex society operates. Human activity and expertise is split into ever-more-demanding spheres. Any productive career in any country - increasingly tied to knowledge - can now take decades to learn and a lifetime keeping current. So our second preconception encloses another self-isolated“group”: our life-related facts, skills and relationships.

          Yet global issues by definition respect no borders, by their complex nature overlap disciplines and, by sharing a common ecosystem, are all in some way interrelated. But no one naturally thinks in world-wide, inter-disciplinary, multi-factored ways. Even those who perceive this as essential to truly understand the nature of global challenges, find it contrary to the way we’re taught to think. Moreover, multi-dimensional sources to consult barely exist.

          Nevertheless, if you’re interested in global issues and wonder how we get into such trouble with them or, better still, are consciously studying one or more, a one-stop, consumer-friendly guide to what is available about them can offer both stimulation and insight. If you also need to feel useful: the more people with some real sense of the nature and interplay of global problems, the more likely progress can be made on them. Hence this non-technical guide to“global challenges”, drawing your attention to a selection of good current material on a range of such issues. It keeps growing, since never before has there been so much relevant data. Inevitably selective and subjective, it also hopes to be readable, reliable and representative.

          It is not about the United Nations, but the organization is mentioned frequently simply because it is our most effective and credible tool in dealing with global issues; the closest to a GLOBAL 911. In any attempt to find and apply globally agreed and acceptable solutions to world problems, the UN System - with all its faults - is the most useful and representative forum we’ve got. Moreover, neither time nor any consensus would now produce a better substitute. Its loss would result in unrepresentative dominance by a powerful, self-selected few, plus dangerous instability with no agreed web of rules, constraints or help. Our very interdependent world civilization - proliferating new weapons and crises - might collapse. Hence we must also pragmatically understand the UN’s role and capacities.

SO MUCH FOR WHY THIS GUIDE EXISTS. NEXT, HOW TO FIND GOOD STUFF EASILY AND QUICKLY:

          The following notes may help, whether: (1) you need quick help in finding good sources for some particular information/views; or (2) you want to scan a selection of recommended sources dealing with one or more global issue(s) or related major events/trends, in order to get a feel for the problem and what’s available on it.

          The text is divided into two overlapping but fairly distinct types of information and views, so we’ll start with them, and then tackle some fairly obvious questions that may already have occurred to you:

          (A) CONTINUING MAJOR ISSUES points you to selected descriptions and analyses of various well-established problems and trends deemed so serious that now or inevitably they have global impact. The sources recommended are mostly reliable books and reports, or essays from authoritative periodicals. They are grouped into about thirty broad topics, each covering a group of related issues. The topics are listed in alphabetical order(see INDEX), and can be reached directly and downloaded separately. If a search engine sends you straight to an unlikely topic(perhaps because of the specific word(s)you ask it to search for), just click the red INDEX button and look for a better topic. Every truly global issue should be covered under some topic, including all the types of GLOBAL ISSUES identified in the INTRODUCTION, topic titles try to fit the way such issues are mostly grouped by authors/ experts. Within each topic, the sources are also listed in alphabetical order, usually by the author’s surname.

          (B) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS, the other group of recommended sources, lists mostly titles of articles recording fast-moving, current events that relate to new and/or rapidly-changing global issues. Most such issues cannot yet be discussed in books, and any analyses must be preliminary. Yet, if what is already available about them was not included, selected information and views on many critical, still-developing issues(AIDS; terrorism)would have to await their“fruition”, and the writing of thoughtful books and expert analyses. In the short term, therefore, the best sources available are media accounts of events, and the(inter)views and analyses, produced by journalists/ commentators for the world’s top papers and news agencies. Only these can provide first-hand, wide-angled or tightly-focused, and contemporary coverage on a regular basis. Since your time and mine are scarce, the“current” items, in addition to dealing with“permanent”issues, must be derived from some of the world’s best sources available in English: The Economist, The New York Times, and two global news services: Associated Press and Reuters. Fortunately, NYT provides running daily coverage of AP and Reuters stories on the Web, together with its own extensive global reporting and analysis. The full text even of older articles can be obtained on the Web for a small price from the publishers. Libraries, of course, also keep back issues of selected periodicals. Articles are usually listed in order of their date of publication - the most critical element in a fast-moving story - although some may be“grouped”by their specific subjects, because they relate to exactly the same event. As recent developments(i.e. topics)evolve, their titles may change.

          (C) HOW/WHY IS THE TEXT SO HIGHLIGHTED/CONDENSED?: Any source listed in CONTINUING MAJOR ISSUES is a highly concentrated summary(not a review), so you can quickly see if a book, report or article interests you. To help make selection/identification of relevant sources even easier:(1) the main points of each summary are bolded to highlight the gist of the author’s aim, information or views; (2) absolutely key facts or arguments, and/or text with special relevance to the global issue involved, are also underlined. The aim is to let you search the material at various speeds, while still getting all the vital points. If you have the time/inclination, you can read the full(tight)summaries. Or you can just scan them - at two different speeds:(1) relatively fast, by reading all - but only - the bolded text; or (2) at high speed, by reading all - but only - the underlined text.

          Words or phrases in bolded BLUE in either part of the bibliography serve several purposes, all designed to draw special attention to something. If they highlight the names of BOOKS, ORGANIZATIONS, TITLES FROM THIS TEXT, and“HEADS-UP”MARKER WORDS, they are also underlined. ARTICLES, ESSAYS, and LESS IMPORTANT TITLES OR MARKERS are in BLUE, but not underlined. Titles of any periodicals, plus organizations, books, etc. mentioned in passing or often, or having marginal relevance to the argument, are usually just underlined. While all these ploys may make the text look complicated, and a bit harder to read all the way through, I’m assuming most hits are looking for something specific, and so want to scan the text(with varying degrees of thoroughness)as quickly as possible. (A major aim of the whole project is to help you deal with information overload.) By scanning a particular font only, you can most easily and quickly home in on the material most relevant to your interests.

          This aid is somewhat less applicable to an article listed in RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. Since the subjects are moving targets, with rare and obvious exceptions(like-with-like), articles will be found in chronological order, with the latest being last. Each will usually be identified/described only by: its author(if known), the date(of the source publication, not of writing), its exact title as published(to help search systems),and the source publication(if not self-evident) - plus the news service if also applicable. There may be in addition a phrase or two noting extra-long or brief texts, and explaining the main thrust of the article and/or its key information if the title alone does not fully convey these. Since I read and select so many articles every day, I cannot afford either the time or typist(s) to provide summaries of everything. However, as noted, the complete texts can be quickly found via the Web or an appropriate library, and even the (amplified) titles alone have considerable value to show how recent issues were presented to an influential English-reading public.

          The text of both parts of the bibliography is also kept as brief as possible by frequent use of standard short forms whenever the meaning is not in doubt. Frequent examples include: NYT(New York Times); AP(Associated Press); Economist(The Economist Newspaper -weekly); AFP(Agence France Press); 01 Oct 00(dates: two digits for all days - to reduce errors; the first three letters of the month - to avoid confusion about the day/month sequence; the last two digits of the year - unless this is self-evident); the surname only of journalists or other article-writers if their full names have already been given under the same topic; UN(United Nations Organization); US(United States, America, United States of America, USA); US(American-as adjective); UNSG(UN Secretary General); SG(any Secretary General); FM(Foreign Minister or Ministry). Unfortunately, LDC can now be used to mean any of: un- under-, less-, least-developed, or simply developing country. There is no agreed short term or definition for the world’s poorer state(s). Third World begs the question of the post-Cold War status of the Second (Communist)World. While some of both groups are now included among the”emerging economies”, membership in that new group too, involves much debate and ambiguity. The South also brings confusion since relative poverty and geographic latitude simply don’t coincide. Hence, I will adopt whatever collective(long or short)is used by the writer of the text being summarized, and their definition if offered.

          (D) HOW CURRENT, INCLUSIVE AND OBJECTIVE ARE THE SOURCES?: I try to update once a month. This was impossible for a period after 11 Sep 01, when the volume of relevant media material increased enormously, and I have since had to give priority to reading, selecting, printing, and cataloging up to 100 articles daily. Still, virtually all the material is new: less than five years old for books; the latest annual reports; essays from the newest issues of selected journals; and all media articles read and processed on the day published - if not put on the Net. Ideally, material is also novel in content or approach, since even long-term issues are always in the process of change and re-interpretation. Older sources are mainly“classics”, providing a unique or timeless background and context. The whole should offer balanced and representative examples of the best material/views currently available.

          The end product is inevitably far from exhaustive, but remember that many sources can also be used as bridges to a vast volume of further information, since most books/reports and many”academic”essays/articles, also offer their own bibliographies or reading lists. Deletion of older material happens rarely, unless it has been superceded. Yet even news articles have historical value, especially those that turn out to include mistaken facts or judgements, since by its subject-matter and origins most of this material, in some form, influences major decisions.

          Given the controversy surrounding most global issues, sources will often include much personal opinion or strong argument. Incorrect/doubtful“facts”are avoided or so identified if found. Legitimate controversies are reported and indeed highlighted, preferably with good defendants of both/all sides represented. Positions that are truly“bad”(obviously illogical; based on distorted or false information; malicious; purely self-serving; etc.)will only be alluded to, or included with caveats if they are nevertheless influential. The reliable media sources used here, generally do this sort of thing for us anyway. Statistics recommended are usually the best(if not the latest)available.

          (E) HOW TECHNICAL IS THE MATERIAL?: Given the extraordinary range of subject-matter, all sources are as non-technical as possible - some are even(gasp!)popular. Inevitably, we are all non-specialists in most fields, so prefer to be introduced to them with minimum pain to maximum benefit. Specialists already know the current/ technical sources in their field(s) - although even they may find useful bridges to other fields, and building bridges is a major aim. In some areas -like economics or science- the issue itself is technical, so there’s sometimes a note about the minimum background you need to absorb the whole text accurately. But you rarely need to do that, anyway, to grasp what the issue is. The primary aim here is to comprehend, not solve, the problems.

          At the other extreme, scanning (only) a subject in which you are already expert is a relative waste of time. You’ll find few“cutting-edge”insights here; indeed, little in your own field you didn’t know before. You may even be annoyed by over-simplification and/or distortion in what you find stated in your field; but please don’t forget: the sources have been deliberately selected for non-experts. While I will quickly correct any factual errors that I learn of, all major viewpoints on debated issues should be at least mentioned. I suggest browsers read about issues you hardly knew existed; some may turn out to be fascinating - and have unexpected relevance to your own speciality!

          Granted, material on the structure and activities of the UN System can be a teeny bit esoteric; it’s a very complex and confusing organization. Having spent years working in and with the UN, I should confess that ambiguity is the UN’s staff of life. However, most UN-ery included here is either fairly general or self-explanatory. I’ve expanded UN acronyms where essential, but in UN texts, often their exact meaning(if any)matters less than the thrust of the argument. This bibliography is not intended to tell you specifically how the UN works, but inter alia what it(alone?)is capable of doing to help deal with global issues.

          (F) ARE THERE HELPFUL DUPLICATIONS AND/OR CROSS-REFERENCES?: Almost all sources listed among CONTINUING MAJOR ISSUES are repeated under many topics(sometimes as often as 15 times), though often with slightly modified notes or highlighting to stress their relevance to each particular topic. This is because: (1) many topics overlap; (2) most sources relate to several topics; (3) this shows how some topics impact on others; and (4) for down-loading each topic is thus complete in itself. There are also often cross-references to other sources; again these others are usually found under the same topic to ensure each one is self-sufficient. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS also include some articles listed under more than one topic, but rarely more than twice since the subject-matter is usually more specific. However, a major event or statement may be described up to four times by the four key ”reporters” since: (1) each takes a different viewpoint and selects different detail; and (2) readers may only have easy access to one or two sources. Some such duplication/cross-referencing is”forced”by grouping closely-related material together, even if it entails slightly bending the rule that articles are strictly listed by date of publishing. When”grouping”would be confusing, and the subject is a relatively rare one, there may be“true”cross-references.

          (G) HOW SUBJECTIVE/OPINIONATED ARE THE ENTRIES?: These are personal annotations. They are neither reviews(in the sense of purely subjective appraisals, which may not even describe the text), nor abstracts(i.e. carefully-extracted, non-judgmental miniatures of longer texts), but something in between. They offer concentrated and deliberately selective summaries of those key points made by the author(s) that seem particularly relevant to the inclusion of the texts in a collection on global issues. Ideally, all sources are also clear, informative and support defensible(or at least credible/influential)positions. Beyond that, I rarely push particular viewpoints or solutions regarding what are often very controversial subjects(see above for sources’”objectivity”). So authors are left to disagree -specifically or by implication; on“global issues”there could not be a consensus. My own general views on such issues are given elsewhere in the INTRODUCTION. My relatively few personal comments on individual sources are put in square brackets if there could be any doubt whether the views are mine or the authors’. Normally, mine highlight very strong (dis)agreement, UN relevance, or draw attention to related views or facts.

          (H) HAVE YOU READ ALL SOURCES LISTED?: Yes. Unless there’s some clear indication to the contrary, or a book is described specifically as a reference work, I really have read every listed source through, and chosen it from among many more. There is of course some material I could suggest solely on the basis of reviews, respected advice, specially relevant content, scanning, etc., but haven’t read. This is not classed as a recommended ”source”. It gets only brief, qualified and passing mention in some other source, and/or frank admission to having been scanned only, Otherwise, my usual procedure is to read and highlight every source at least once from beginning to end before drafting the annotation. In order to help me remember the dirty bits, there’s masses of underlining, plus rude remarks in the margins. For this reason, I buy and keep copies of all the books, periodicals and articles listed - and there’s always a multitude waiting to be read. However, since blurbs/contents/introductions/summaries and/or conclusions must give some idea of the subject-matter, I (very occasionally) list particularly important books before I have had time to do more than scan them. If these are then included as sources, they are pre-marked NRT to confess they have not yet been read through. I follow this with a sentence or two on the apparent subject-matter(or provide a list of chapter titles), until I can get round to reading them properly.

          (I) WHAT ABOUT USERS’ COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS?: I’m delighted to get them if they’re constructive, but please don’t count on answers(I’ve been getting over a thousand hits a day). Any sources you suggest should be clearly relevant, as non-technical or -theoretical as possible(even on the UN System), and authoritative. Incidentally, I simply can’t handle scanning any more periodicals, however relevant they are; but I’m happy to receive really good articles, which can be sent by fax: (613) 737-0569, or e-mail. As for books, rather than your personal recommendations, I’d be satisfied just to get reviews, if these are substantial, positive and expert. (By the way, I’ve read all the articles, reviews and substantive blurbs found in the sources already listed, so I don’t need my attention drawn to them.)