Much has been said in recent days of Pakistan's involvement in the Mumbai bombings. But it's not the only neighbor to the north the India might need to worry about. Several reports yesterday indicated the Mumbai militants entered not just from Kashmir, but Nepal and Bangladesh, as well.

As in Pakistan, the Nepalese government struggles to control wide swathes of territory. The Tarai border region with India -- from which the attackers would have entered -- is of particular concern. The 1800 km of forested land is simply "not a controllable border," says Chalmers.

The problem runs deeper than geography. Nepal is still on unstable ground after a 2006 peace agreement brought an end to a long-time monarchy and a violent Maoist rebellion. Elections were held this summer, and to everyone's great surprise, the Maoists won the day. Now, the same army that once fought those Maoists is expected to be loyal to their civilian government. So far the 95,000-strong force has looked reluctant to shed its elite ties. And Maoist rebels have yet to be demobilized.

All this means that fragile Nepal is "as militarized as Pakistan," analyst Rhoddy Chalmers of the International Crisis Group told me. For now, the peace is holding, but as the Mumbai attacks make clear, the country is vulnerable to a host of groups looking to take advantage of chaos.

India, long a supporter of the peace process, might change its tone after the Mumbai attacks, particularly if 2009 elections bring to power a "securicrat" interested in closing the borders. For now, people and goods cross freely through check points, easily avoidable if one is willing to duck through a bit of forest.

Until now, "India doesn't tend to have policy towards Nepal--it has interests, pursued haphazardly," says Chalmers.

Maybe a grand strategy is needed.

Photo: PRADEEP SHRESTHA/AFP/Getty Images

Maybe I just have a soft spot for lost causes but I think there's something weirdly poignant about the efforts of Bolivia--a landlocked country--to build up its navy:

Beyond the ice-capped peaks to the west lay their object of longing, the Pacific ocean, but Bolivia's navy was marooned and landlocked at Lake Titicaca, 3,800 metres (12,470ft) above sea level in the Andes.

"I've never seen the sea," sighed Wilmer Camargo, 18, a conscript sailor in navy blue uniform. "But when I do I would like it to be a Bolivian sea."

He spoke for a nation. South America's poorest country lost its coast in a 1879-1884 war with Chile and wants it back. La Fuerza Naval Boliviana exists to keep that hope alive by cultivating a maritime conscience and end the "enclaustramiento".

The navy's purpose is mostly aspirational, but it keeps busy by patrolling the country's 5,000 miles of rivers for smugglers and will soon join an international peacekeeping force in Haiti, its first overseas (or any seas) deployment.

We're still a year away from learning who will host the 2016 Summer Olympics. But, while Beijing is fresh in our minds, I thought it'd be high time to consider the lessons and legacies of the 2008 games with an eye on the future.

If we learned one thing from Beijing 2008, it's that the Olympics are a perfect pretext for a massive security crackdown. So why not award the 2016 games to a city that could actually use a massive security crackdown?  

The murder rate in the state of Rio de Janiero is down to 39 per 100,000, from a high of 64 per 100,000 people in the mid-1990s. That's still high, and one still encounters machine guns while browsing shopping stalls. Some think meditation may do the trick, but an Olympic effort to crack down on petty crime (not political opposition, mind you) could do wonders.

The other finalist host cities are Chicago, Tokyo, and Madrid. The United States recently hosted in 2002 and 1996, Japan in 2006, and Spain in 1992. South America has never hosted the Olympics. Considering Brazil's growing economic clout, the time seems to be about right to finally change that.

Plus, India is gearing up for a 2020 bid of its own. With Beijing 2008, Sochi 2014, Rio 2016, and New Delhi 2020, all of the BRICs would get the recognition they deserve as the 21st century's rising powers. 

Of course, it is important that Rio be truly ready. As my colleague Josh Keating argues in today's Web exclusive, hosting international sporting events can do more harm than good for a country's reputation. The 2010 World Cup in South Africa, for one, appears to be headed toward disaster. But Brazil insists that it successfully hosted the 2007 Pan America Games, and would have proper practice after hosting the 2014 World Cup. Here's hoping Rio gets a good look from the IOC next fall.

In India, more women are wearing jeans and other Western clothing. That's bad news for sari weavers in the city of Varanasi. Demand for Varanasi's famed, 6-meter silk saris, which have been hand-woven there for centuries, is falling, as the Christian Science Monitor recently reported.

The problem is due to much more than changing fashions, however. The hand-woven saris -- which typically have ornate patterns and scenes, such as Mughal processions of horses and elephants -- have to compete against cheaper copies that are churned out by machines, some of which are in China. The result: Varanasi's hand loom weavers are plunging into grinding poverty.

In the face of creative destruction, perhaps weavers could reframe their product. "What we really need is for crafts in India to reposition themselves, like in Italy, where handmade has a high value," Adarsh Kumar of the All India Artisan and Craftworkers Welfare Association told the CSM.

Indeed, couldn't ornately woven fabric be used to make table linens, decorative sofa pillows, tunic shirts that could be paired with jeans, and even Western-style dresses? And all marketed to people worldwide, not just Indians? In fact, one Canada-based businesswoman is using such logic to preserve alpona, another Indian art form that's been in decline.

It looks like the business savvy to reposition Varanasi saris hasn't yet materialized. And if it doesn't, weavers' lives may be left in tatters.

Remember that uncontacted tribe in Brazil? Turns out it was actually discovered in 1910.

UPDATE: Survival International complains about the coverage, saying, "The only people who ever claimed that the Indians photographed were ‘lost’ or ‘undiscovered’ were…. the press, despite the fact that
Survival has been campaigning for the protection of the many isolated Indian tribes on the Peru-Brazil border for more than twenty years."

Michael Wilkerson, writing on World Politics Review's blog, shares a rare bit of good global food news out of Chile. Scientists there have genetically engineered a new strain of rice that can be cooked with one fourth the amount of water. The discovery won't reduce the skyrocketing cost of rice but will dramatically reduce the water and fuel needed to cook it. With destabilizing food riots occurring more and more frequently, anything to give developing world consumers a break is welcome news.

 

Uruguay and its 3.4 million people entered the big leagues of culinary feats Sunday by organizing the world's largest barbecue. Snatching the title away from Mexico, Uruguay has triumphed -- at least for now -- in a global cookout war that has been raging for years.

Namibia tried but failed in 2006 to beat Australia for the world's largest sausage. The Philippines set up the world's longest barbecue in 2003, though I believe Uruguay just showed them up by about half a kilometer.

The small South American country pulled off the stunt to highlight its beef exports (at least $800 million worth in 2007). To give you an idea of the size and scope of the operation, army personnel set up the grills, firefighters lit 6 tons of charcoal, 1,250 people cooked up a storm, and roughly 20,000 people watched as 13.2 tons of beef were prepared.

When all was said and done, Uruguay had beaten Mexico's record by 4 tons. One of the grillers told Reuters: "I'm very proud to be Uruguayan. We have the best beef and now we have the world's biggest barbecue." National pride can be tied together by many things -- even apron strings.

Last May, FIFA (the Federation of International Football Associations) prohibited international soccer matches from being played at more than 2,500 meters (8,200 feet) above sea level. The reduced oxygen levels at higher elevations were thought to put teams from low-altitude countries at a disadvantage.

Now, a study published in the British Medical Journal supports the ban's proponents. The scores and results from 1,460 international soccer matches played at varying elevations in 10 South American countries over the past 100 years were analyzed. After statistically controlling for differences in team ability, it found that not only did high-altitude teams have an advantage playing at high elevations, but they also had an advantage playing at low elevations.

The finding itself is not too surprising. After all, athletes often train at high elevations in order to gain an edge on the competition. But now, we can quantify that edge. The researchers found that for every 1,000 meters in elevation difference between two teams that played on the high-altitude team's turf, the goal difference in a match increased by about half a goal in favor of the high-altitude team. Additionally, while the chances of the home team winning are 54 percent for teams from the same altitude, this number increases to 83 percent when the altitude difference is 3,695 meters (as in the case of high-elevation Bolivia as home team versus sea-level Brazil) and plummets to 21 percent when the difference is -3,695 meters (as in Brazil as home team versus Bolivia).

We shouldn't feel too bad for the Brazilians, though—they've won four out of the past five Copa América tournaments. As for the Bolivians, their last championship was in 1963.

In 2003, the U.S. Library of Congress paid $10 million for the first map in world history to use the name "America." The map goes on display in Washington this month, but researchers remain puzzled by its startling accuracy. Produced in 1507 by a German monk named Martin Waldseemüller, the map estimates South America reasonably well and even includes a large ocean to the west—years before the Pacific was discovered. Here, 500 years after its creation, is the famous Waldseemüller map:

And here's what it looks like up close:

Britain's announcement on Wednesday that it plans to extend its Antarctic territory by 1 million square kilometers has already come under fire from environmental groups as being antithetical to the UK's status as a leader in the fight against global warming. The new territory would likely be used for oil and gas exploration, critics points out, thus violating the 1959 Antarctic treaty. The treaty divides the continent between seven nations and forbids resource extraction.

But Her Majesty's Antarctic land grab is only one of five new territorial claims the UK plans to submit under a new U.N. treaty that allows countries to claim continental shelf up to 380 miles off their shores. Britain's four other claims are located around the Falkland Islands, around Ascension Island in the South Atlantic, near the Bay of Biscay in the North Atlantic, and in the Hatton-Rockall basin off Scotland's coast. Though eight other countries have filed claims under the treaty, some are characterizing Britain's sudden expansionist mood as imperialistic.

The Falklands claim is particularly touchy because of certain previous, uh, territorial disputes in that region. When the claim was announced last month, a senior Argentine official stated, "[I]f the British do not change their approach we shall have to interpret it as aggression." Now, Argentina is working on its own Antarctica bid. This should be interesting.

It used to appear that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice enjoyed trading verbal barbs with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. Chávez would call President George W. Bush "a donkey." Condi would fire back that Chávez was "really, really destroying his own country." It was good fun. But sometime around March, the Bush administration's tactics began to change. These days, when Hugo acts like an impetuous toddler, the Bush administration treats him accordingly: by ignoring him.

The 180-degree turn in tactics was on full display yesterday when Condoleezza Rice spoke about Latin America with members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Chávez had just boycotted the U.N. General Assembly and had given an interview to the AP in which he said the U.S. was "hunting" him and wanted him dead. But in her appearance yesterday, Rice didn't bite. She didn't mention Chávez by name once, instead referring only to "exceptions" to democracy in Latin America who "may be noisy ... but are heading in the opposite direction of the hemisphere as a whole." This was hardly the Power Condi of 2005 who showed up at Wiesbaden Army Airfield wearing knee-high leather. In fact, Rice went out of her way yesterday to check the tough talk at the door. Though her remarks were typically laden with language about the transformative powers of democracy, she also made it clear that, when it comes to picking allies in the hemisphere, "the U.S. charges no ideological price for our partnership."

At least by Rice's account, the change in tactics is working. After Bush refused to mention Chávez's name on a tour of Latin America in March, Condi says, "Chávez was going around saying, 'Why will not President Bush mention my name?'" "There is actually, frankly, nothing that he likes better than to have the United States responding to him," Rice added. That may be so, but I'm still going to miss the fireworks.

Néstor Kirchner isn't standing for a second term as Argentina's president. Instead, he's recommending his wife for the position. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who represents the highly populous Buenos Aires province in the Argentinian Senate, plans to run for Argentina's top job in October.

Kirchner is reasonably well liked, with an approval rating of 52 percent. It's not as if he couldn't win reelection. So why is he doing this? The Post speculates that Néstor is worried that recent setbacks have hurt his popularity. His plan, analysts suspect, is to give Cristina a turn at the wheel and return to power in 2011. (Argentina prohibits a president from serving more than two terms in a row.) The Kirchners' scheme to stay in power for longer could very well work; none of the other four contenders for the presidency is even polling in the double digits.

Cristina, interestingly, has been critical of her husband's friendship with Hugo Chávez. But she can only go so far in distancing Argentina from Chávez, as Strafor notes—her country's economic health depends on the Venezuelan strongman's continued largesse.

Bolivia's coca growers are demanding that Coca-Cola drop the word Coca from its name. A group of coca industry representatives passed a resolution saying that international companies should refrain from using the word coca in their commercial names. The resolution also urges the United Nations to decriminalize the shrub. The coca growers argue that the sacred plant is part of Bolivia's cultural heritage, which is true, but disingenuous when you take into account that the traditional crop now underpins a global illicit industry whose profits run in the billions. (Just today, Mexican police found $206 million in drug cash in a Mexico City mansion.)

This effort at trying to "own" the word coca reminds me of Ethiopia's effort to trademark the names of three of its coffee-producing regions. In this case though, it is a publicity stunt aimed primarily at a domestic constituency, and the latest step in President Evo Morales's struggling campaign to recast the image of the coca leaf (which is only a mild stimulant until it is processed into cocaine). Morales, who emerged from the ranks of coca growers, hopes—probably in vain—that a legal market for coca tea, flour, and liquor can emerge to divert the coca harvest away from the illegal market for the popular drug.

Meanwhile, The Coca-Cola Company issued a statement declaring that its brand name is protected under Bolivian law. It also denied, yet again, that it has ever used cocaine as an ingredient. (It made no mention of whether it has ever used coca leaves in its refreshing beverages. An old label, though, lists coca leaves as an ingredient.)

It all seems a bit counterproductive to me. If coca growers want to recast the image of their plant as a legitimate, marketable crop, then isn't inclusion of the word coca in the world's most widely known brand something that would actually further that goal?

Add bananas to the list of products you need to be careful about buying.

Chiquita Brands International, one of the world's largest producers of bananas, has agreed to pay a $25 million fine to the U.S. government for paying protection money to terrorists through a former subsidiary in Colombia.

Last month, the Ohio-based company disclosed in its quarterly financial statement that it initially notified the U.S. Department of Justice of the problem in April 2003. But the payments, which reached $1.7 million altogether, continued into 2004. Chiquita was logging the transactions as "security payments" or "security services." Of course, in this instance, they happened to be paying terrorist groups not to kill or intimidate their employees.

The groups paid are: the right-wing United Self-Defense Forces (AUC), the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (better known as FARC), and the National Liberation Army (ELN). All three are on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations.

Now that Chiquita has reached a plea agreement, I wonder what other banana companies have been paying out protection money to terrorist groups? 

Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL: "Unidos da Tijuca" samba school performs at the Sambadrome, during the second night of carnival celebrations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 19 February 2007.

A number of tour operators have begun leading curious tourists into some of the world's most famous slums: Soweto township, slums in Kenya, Brazil's favelas, and the "homes" of India's street children. The jury's still out on whether the tours are perverse invasions of privacy or eye-opening experiences that will prompt action on the poverty agenda.

The best-known slums of all, Rio de Janeiro's sprawling favelas, are even enticing permanent gringo residents. This isn't so surprising, given that favela residents are a lot more middle-class than most Brazilians care to admit—about 15 percent according to the 1991 census. And this proportion is rising, due to a lack of affordable housing. The vibrancy of life in the favelas is felt more strongly outside Brazil than within it, thanks to cultural exports like samba music and the movie City of God. Gentrification of the favelas is almost certain to help poor residents, as gringos support local restaurants and help upgrade infrastructure.

In traditional development circles, pro-poor tourism is about helping the poor market goods and services to foreigners, not marketing their own misery to the rich. My take: There's room for tour operators who respect the poor and help the rest of us better understand their lifestyles. Who better to lead favela tours than favela residents? As I wrote last week, there are plenty of positive things happening in the slums that we would do well to understand. After all, the first step to helping the poor is to ask them what kind of help they want.

An interesting report was released this week by the Technological Institute of Mexico and the Washington Office on Latin America, a lobbying organization. It attempts to debunk the much publicized theory that street gangs such as MS-13 are proliferating around the globe. "[O]nly a small minority of gang members ... possess transnational ties," the report concludes. "This idea that gangs are like an infection spreading from country to country through a process where the leaders send out missionaries to colonize new areas is fundamentally untrue," one of the study’s authors told the Washington Post.

On the technicalities, that's true. But in the larger sense, it's not. Gangs may not be going global in order to secure new turf, but that doesn't mean that none of them are transnational in nature. Andrew Papachristos, a bright young researcher at the University of Chicago, pointed this out nearly two years ago in FOREIGN POLICY:

[V]ery little evidence suggests that gang proliferation is associated with calculated entrepreneurial ambitions. A more plausible explanation is that when people move, they take their culture with them. [...]

In a recent survey of more than 1,000 gang members, the National Gang Crime Research Center found that about 50 percent of gang members believed that their gang had international connections. Analysis conducted by this author suggests the rate is considerably higher for Hispanic (66 percent) and Asian (58 percent) gang members, who are more likely to be immigrants.

The movement of gang members overseas not only spreads gang culture but also helps to establish links between gang members in different countries. When Lito, a member of Hector's Latin Kings gang, ran into trouble with the law in Chicago, his family sent him to live with an aunt in Mexico. There, he quickly became a go-between for gang members in the United States looking to avoid detection and for Mexican immigrants searching for jobs in the United States. The Latin Kings, in fact, turned these connections into a lucrative business by manufacturing fake ID cards. A 1999 investigation of several Latin Kings recovered 31,000 fraudulent IDs and travel documents.

Royal Nepal Airlines is a trifle embarrassed. The state airline recently put out a promotional flyer with the headline, "Have You Seen Nepal?" with a picture of ... Machu Picchu, which is halfway around the world in Peru. What's worse, it took a Peruvian mountaineer visiting the airline's offices in Delhi, India, to notice the gaffe.

Nepal's foreign ministry released a statement today formally apologizing for using another country's wonder as incentive to visit Nepal. Which raises the question: Aren't the Himalayas enough?

In one of the more irony-laced news events of the last week, Rio de Janeiro, one of the world's most violent cities, asked Naomi Campbell, one of the world's most violent supermodels, to be its ambassador.

Two days after Campbell admitted in a NYC courtroom that she threw a mobile phone at her housekeeper, the last in a long line of abuses aimed at her staff, she told Rio's mayor that she would gladly accept the offer to represent the city because it's one of the few places in the world where she "felt at home." In the meantime, federal police have been sent to the city to try to quell a wave of gang violence. Nearly 20 people died in late December when gangs torched city buses and attacked police stations. Let's hope they just throw phones at each other from now on, okay?