Shortly before French President Emmanuel Macron was to meet President Trump for the first time at a NATO summit last spring, the young and hyper-ambitious French leader received an urgent memo from France’s ambassador in Washington.

Beware the American leader’s peculiar but very intentional handshake, the ambassador, Gérard Araud, advised Mr. Macron. Best to be prepared for it.

What followed, Macron himself has since confirmed, was a crash course featuring videos of the Trump grab-and-jerk handshake, followed by sessions where France’s youngest leader since Napoleon practiced power handshakes of his own.

The result was not just the handshake seen ‘round the world, but the budding of an unlikely relationship that is on full display in Washington this week: Tuesday night the “America First” president – who has shown little respect or use for world leaders, including many US allies – lavishes the first state dinner of his presidency on a French leader who freely associates himself with his country’s long-gone absolute monarchs.

From an intimate dinner for the two first couples Monday at George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate to Macron’s address Wednesday to a joint session of Congress – plus a dialogue with students at George Washington University – Americans are getting a glimpse of the one world leader with whom Trump appears to have clicked.

The question that remains to be answered is whether all the fuss and fanfare that have gone into cementing an unusual transatlantic bond will translate into a deeper relationship that enhances cooperation on common interests. They range from counterterrorism and European security to countering Iran and upholding international norms, such as the ban on the use of chemical weapons.

If it does, it will have all started with that first handshake – when a physically diminutive Macron demonstrated strength and self-respect to an unorthodox American president known for disdaining those who in his eyes demonstrate weakness.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

President Trump, French President Emmanuel Macron, first lady Melania Trump and Brigitte Macron hold hands on the White House balcony during a state arrival ceremony at the White House in Washington, April 24, 2018.

“Trump hates weak people and those with no personality, and I think Macron distinguished himself from the outset with that handshake,” says Jeff Lightfoot, a nonresident senior fellow specializing in US-Europe relations and North Atlantic security at Washington’s Atlantic Council.

Indeed it is Macron who has “broken the code of this president” by managing to simultaneously demonstrate personal strength and respect for Trump, says Heather Conley, director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

“Trump does respond well to strength, but it wasn’t just the handshake” that forged this bond and explains why Macron, unlike some other leaders, has managed to steer clear of Trump’s Twitter tirades, she says. “It stems very much from President Trump’s [subsequent] trip to Paris, when President Macron really went out of his way to demonstrate respect for Trump and for France’s relations with the United States.”

As others note, it was on the Paris trip weeks after the handshake that Macron made Trump his guest of honor to the Bastille Day military parade, thus exposing him to the martial force that has made France perhaps America’s most reliable security partner.

“Macron has proven to be very adept at the symbolism and stagecraft of international politics,” says Jeff Rathke, a former US foreign service officer now specializing in US-Europe relations at CSIS. “He has a sense that resonates with President Trump.”

The Bastille Day parade, he adds, really drove home “the strength France brings to the [Franco-American] relationship.”

Contrast with Merkel

Trump’s enchantment with Macron and the US-France relationship is on display this week not only in the three-day state visit, but in how it contrasts so starkly with the one-day working visit German Chancellor Angela Merkel will make to the White House Friday.

The German leader may bring with her the same topics her French counterpart will seek to address – primarily the Iran nuclear deal and transatlantic trade – but the brief official visit seems to underscore how Trump’s relations with Germany have never taken off.

But if Macron has spent such time and effort cementing what he calls a “very close” relationship with Trump, it is not in the least out of a sycophantic desire to be the American president’s best buddy, experts say. Rather, it reflects a clear-eyed mission to pursue the global role France envisions for itself and to further French interests through close ties to the leader who, as Ambassador Araud noted at an Atlantic Council event earlier this month, is “after all, the most powerful man in the world.”

Macron and Trump may disagree on many key issues, from climate change and the Paris climate accord to the usefulness of the Iran nuclear deal. But as numerous diplomatic analysts have pointed out, the French leader is out to demonstrate to Trump that the two nations’ enduring common interests outweigh even big current disputes.

“Macron plays on France’s soft power when he invites Trump to the Champs-Élysées” to review the Bastille Day military parade “in a demonstration of pragmatic cooperation overcoming strategic disagreements,” says Célia Belin, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe.

Writing recently in the Washington-based National Interest, the former French Foreign Ministry US analyst adds that “Macron’s flawless English and flair for theatrical statecraft puts France at the center of international relationships in ways that considerably expand the country’s global influence.”

Yet what Macron may be about to learn is whether or not punching above one’s own weight translates into concrete results, especially when dealing with the “America First” Trump, who seized the opportunity at their meeting today to attack the Iran nuclear deal as “insane.”

French expectations

Macron comes to the White House with the Iran deal at the top of his agenda. Experts say the French leader would like nothing better than to convince Trump to stick with the international accord past the May 12 deadline Trump faces for deciding whether the US remains in or exits the deal.

But they add that Macron and his entourage have been careful to avoid sounding like they are on a rescue mission for the Iran deal – or that the French leader has a list of must-gets in his travel bag.

“The French are playing down the expectations, they don’t want to be seen as coming home empty-handed,” says the Atlantic Council’s Mr. Lightfoot. “The truth is that they don’t know what this president is going to decide [on Iran] any more than anyone else does.”

That explains why Macron is likely, especially publicly, to put the emphasis on the “enduring common interests and specific goals” the two nations have, says Mr. Rathke.

“For Macron it will be important to underscore where the US and France cooperate militarily – in the Sahel [region of Africa], on ISIS in Syria, as we’ve seen recently on enforcing the norms against the use of chemical weapons with the airstrikes in Syria – and how that cooperation furthers our common interests,” he says. “Those security interests are enduring,” he adds, “and they will endure even if he doesn’t get Trump to adjust his policies” on issues like Iran.

Another area Macron will address is trade, and in particular Western trade with China. But that conversation will be marked by Trump administration threats to impose tariffs on European steel and automobiles. “Basically Macron’s message to Trump will be, ‘We share concerns on China’s trade and industrial development practices, but we can’t work together if you are putting tariffs on us,’ ” Lightfoot says.

Yet while Macron may not need to score a win on the Iran deal to maintain relations with Trump, at some point he will need to get something concrete to show for his efforts to woo the US president, others say.

“At the end of the day, leaders need to deliver for their national interests,” says Ms. Conley of CSIS. “And if there’s nothing to show for the effort put into a relationship, it doesn’t really matter at that point if one leader can say, ‘Yes we haven’t got much, but I am treated differently in the Twitter account.’ ”

Mary Altaffer/AP

Michael Cohen, President Trump's longtime personal attorney (c.), leaves federal court in New York, April 16, 2018. The White House has refused to rule out a possible future pardon for Mr. Cohen.

President Trump was furious.

After FBI agents raided the home and office of one of his personal lawyers in New York City – seizing client files, recordings, and computers – the president lashed out, suggesting federal prosecutors and investigators had gone too far. “An attack on our country,” he called it.

That’s not all he did.

A few days later, Mr. Trump granted a full pardon to a former top aide in the Bush administration, Scooter Libby, who had been convicted in 2007 of perjury and obstruction of justice in a classified information leak case.

The White House says the pardon was an act of clemency to correct a lingering injustice done to Mr. Libby by an overzealous special prosecutor.

Trump critics accused the president of acting with a darker motive.

“This is the President’s way of sending a message to those implicated in the Russia investigation: You have my back and I’ll have yours,” wrote Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California on Twitter.

The Constitution assigns exclusive authority to the president to grant pardons – but the full scope of that power has never been tested. That may soon change.

A year into special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia investigation, the stage is being set for a potential constitutional showdown, as increasingly aggressive tactics by Mr. Mueller are countered by a president who seems increasingly willing to wield executive power in unprecedented ways in response. And one of Trump’s biggest weapons may be his ability to issue pardons.

Mueller was appointed to investigate alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. But the probe has expanded to include tax issues, lobbying, and business practices of Trump associates that the president’s supporters say have nothing to do with Russian interference in American elections.

The widening scope of the investigation has left Trump clearly frustrated that his presidency is being undermined by an ever-expanding cloud of suspicion that he seems powerless to dispel.

But there is one area where the president’s authority is nearly absolute.

Legal experts agree that the president has broad power to issue pardons. Yet there is substantial debate about how and when the president can use this authority.

Some constitutional scholars believe that a presidential pardon is only valid when it is issued for reasons of sound public policy that are unrelated to any self-interest or self-dealing by the president or his close associates. They say that if a president acts with a corrupt purpose – to cover up wrongdoing by himself or others, for example – the pardon would be invalid.

Others say that even a pardon granted for a corrupt purpose – such as in response to a bribe – would be valid, although the bribery itself would be a crime.

Some scholars go so far as to argue that the president could pardon himself – though they point out that such a move could be political suicide for a sitting president, should the public perceive the action as an admission of guilt or an attempt to cover up wrongdoing. Moreover, the Constitution makes clear that a presidential pardon grants no protection from impeachment. If enough members of Congress saw the move as an abuse of power or obstruction of justice, the president could be removed from office.

Iran-Contra and Watergate

Timing can be critical.

In 1992, with only a few weeks left in office, President George H.W. Bush pardoned his former Defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, and five others charged in the Iran-Contra scandal. The pardons came 11 days before Mr. Weinberger was to stand trial. President Bush did not pardon himself, but the action insulated the president from potential criminal exposure, effectively ended the Iran-Contra investigation, and enraged independent counsel Lawrence Walsh.

“The Iran-Contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed with the pardon of Caspar Weinberger,” Mr. Walsh declared in a bitter statement issued after the pardons were announced.

The most extreme scenario involving the pardon power would be if, shortly before leaving office, the president issued a self-pardon.

Former President Richard Nixon is reported to have considered a self-pardon for the Watergate break in and cover up, but instead resigned and was pardoned by Gerald Ford after he became president.

Despite the collective experience of 45 presidents over more than two centuries, legal experts are unable to say definitively whether a presidential self-pardon would be valid.

“We don’t know, because it has never happened. No president has been so bold as to attempt it,” says Brian Kalt, a law professor at Michigan State University and author of the book “Constitutional Cliffhangers: A Legal Guide for Presidents and Their Enemies.”

Professor Kalt says there are strong arguments on both sides of the debate over presidential self-pardons, but that ultimately he believes the Constitution does not authorize the president to hold himself above the law.

“A pardon is something that you give to someone else,” he says.

Other constitutional scholars embrace a more robust view of executive power.

“The text of the Constitution just says he can pardon offenses against the United States. When the president violates the law, he has committed an offense against the United States, so why wouldn’t he be able to pardon himself?” asks Saikrishna Prakash, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

“It is not going to look good,” he adds. “He is basically implying to a lot of people that he is guilty.”

Nor must a presidential pardon be in the public interest to be valid, says Professor Prakash.

One example: former President Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich in 2001. Mr. Rich allegedly owed $48 million in back taxes and had fled to Switzerland in the 1980s. The pardon was granted in the final hours of Mr. Clinton’s term in office. It came after Rich’s ex-wife had donated $450,000 to the Clinton library and $100,000 to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign.

“I don’t think that made the pardon invalid,” Prakash says. In fact, he says it would be valid even if a “corrupt motive” were clearly established: “There is no case that I am aware of that says if you secure a pardon by a bribe, that the pardon is invalid.”

Sending a message

In the case of Scooter Libby, there is no suggestion that there was any payment or improper inducement to win a pardon. Rather, the allegation by critics is that the pardon was granted to send a message to Trump’s associates – including his besieged personal lawyer in New York, Michael Cohen – not to cooperate with federal prosecutors.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP/File

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was the chief of staff to former Vice President Dick Cheney, was recently granted a full pardon by President Trump. Mr. Libby had been convicted in 2007 of perjury and obstruction of justice in a classified information leak case.

The White House denies sending any implied message to targets of investigations. “Pardoning Libby was the right thing to do after the principle witness recanted her testimony,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told members of the media.

But Ms. Sanders has refused to rule out a possible future pardon for Mr. Cohen. “It is hard to close the door on something that hasn’t taken place,” she said Monday. “I don’t like to discuss or comment on hypothetical situations that may or may not ever happen.”

At a joint appearance Tuesday with French President Emmanuel Macron, Trump responded to a reporter’s query about whether he might pardon Cohen by saying: “Stupid question.”

Alan Dershowitz, an emeritus Harvard Law School professor who has been a frequent Trump defender, told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Monday that it would be “inappropriate” and potentially an impeachable offense to offer a pardon in exchange for a witness’s silence during an investigation. Mr. Dershowitz said the pardon itself would be valid, but warned there might be significant negative consequences for a president who issued it.

Administration critics say the Libby pardon was not the first time the White House has suggested it might issue pardons to those caught up in the Mueller investigation.

According to a New York Times report, one of Trump’s lawyers raised the possibility of pardons last year with lawyers representing former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The report was sourced to “three people with knowledge of the discussions.”

The Trump lawyer, John Dowd, denied that he had any discussions about pardons with the men’s lawyers. He resigned as the president’s lawyer last month.

Both Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn were subsequently indicted. Despite the alleged pardon discussions, Flynn has pleaded guilty and is cooperating with prosecutors. Manafort has pleaded not guilty and is facing two separate trials in federal court in July and September.

In addition to suggesting that White House pardons may be available in the future, critics say the Libby pardon was used to bolster Trump’s strategy of attacking the special counsel’s probe as a “witch hunt.”

“Trump didn’t pardon Libby by saying his long record of public service and otherwise exemplary career made him deserving of clemency. Instead, the claim was that Libby had been treated unfairly by an overzealous prosecutor,” wrote George Washington University Law Professor Randall Eliason in a recent blog post. “And not just any prosecutor,” he added, “but a special prosecutor who was appointed by none other than James Comey.”

Mr. Comey was the FBI director who initiated the Trump-Russia investigation. He was fired by Trump in May 2017, prompting the appointment of Mueller as special counsel.

Democrats moving preemptively

In an effort to head off any plan by Trump to use his pardon power to undercut federal investigations, Congressman Schiff has introduced legislation that would compel public disclosure of any underlying connections between the pardoned person and the president’s interests.

“At a time of constitutional peril, it is incumbent on the Congress to stand up for the rule of law by creating a strong disincentive to the president issuing pardons to protect himself and obstruct ongoing investigations,” Mr. Schiff said in announcing his bill.

The Abuse of the Pardon Prevention Act would require the Justice Department to make public all evidence against the recipient of a pardon when the president pardons someone in connection with an investigation in which the president or one of his family members is a target, subject, or witness.

The measure, as currently written, is backdated to the beginning of Trump’s term, Jan. 20, 2017. 

Democrats outside Washington are also moving to head off possible efforts by Trump to wield his pardon power in ways that might undercut federal investigations.

While a presidential pardon is complete and unreviewable as it applies to federal law, that is not necessarily the case for violations of state law, according to legal experts.

Many Trump critics have suggested that the attorney general in New York could file state charges against those pardoned by Trump. New York is the location of Trump’s former primary residence and his business headquarters.

But there is a problem with that tactic.

New York law currently grants full recognition to presidential pardons. That means that any attempt to prosecute someone for a pardoned crime would violate the constitutional principle that no one should face criminal jeopardy twice for the same offense.

In anticipation that state prosecution might be necessary to hold Trump associates accountable, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is asking the state legislature to close what he calls a “double jeopardy loophole” that might allow someone to escape accountability “merely because of a strategically-timed presidential pardon,” he said in a statement.

Despite such concerns, legal analysts say a pardon wouldn’t necessarily end an ongoing investigation. Once a pardon is given, the recipient loses their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination related to the pardoned crime.

That means that a pardoned individual must testify fully and truthfully. If they don’t, he or she can be charged with lying and obstruction of justice.

In fact, in the hands of a skillful prosecutor, a pardon could actually advance an investigation rather than hinder it, legal experts say.

As geopolitical tensions spiked between Russia and West in recent years, one staunch US ally has been something of outlier toward Moscow: Israel.

Israeli emissaries failed to show up for a crucial 2014 UN vote condemning Russia for annexing Crimea. Israel has taken no active part in several waves of Western sanctions against Moscow. It recently declined to expel any Russian diplomats over the Skripal poisoning even as the West collectively kicked out 150 of them; and last year it actually increased its bilateral trade with Russia by over 20 percent to more than $3 billion. This week Israel announced it was resuming talks on establishing a free trade zone with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union.

Amid a general, accelerating breakdown in East-West contacts, Israel and Russia have so far succeeded in maintaining a robust, practically-oriented dialog underpinned by what is reportedly a warm working relationship between Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.

But despite that mutual determination to steer clear of the global storm, things may be reaching a breaking point in Syria. While Russia and Israel have hitherto been able to manage their differences there so far, Israel is becoming increasingly concerned as Iran, Russia's ally in Syria and Israel's main enemy, gets more firmly ensconced in Syria.

Recent victories by the Syrian regime, backed by Russia, Iran, and the Lebanese Shiite movement Hezbollah, have opened up the possibility of a peace settlement to the multi-sided seven-year-old war that could permanently entrench Iran in the country, in sites including military bases near Israel’s border. Israel has signaled that would be unacceptable.

“Israel and Russia have been coordinating in Syria, and there is an important element of mutual understanding between them,” says Alexander Shumilin, a Middle East expert with the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) in Moscow. “But views about Syria are diverging, and that is rapidly overshadowing the relationship. Israel and the US want to completely remove Iranian influence from Syria, and this is not a Russian interest. Whatever influence it has, Russia may simply not be able to control the growing conflict between Iran and Israel in Syria.”

A practical relationship

Earlier this month, both Israel and a US-led group of allies struck hard at targets in Syria. While the US hit alleged chemical weapons facilities, Israel struck the T4 airbase near Homs, used as a drone center by Iranian forces. The Israeli strike drew a low-key condemnation from Russia’s foreign ministry spokesperson, but Moscow's real fire-breathing response was aimed at Washington. Russia accuses the US of having no coherent strategy for its Syrian involvement other than to obstruct Russia and Iran’s hopes for victory.

Pavel Golovkin/AP/File

Russian President Vladimir Putin (r.) meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Moscow in March 2017. Mr. Netanyahu visited Moscow to talk about security issues stemming from Iran's presence in neighboring Syria.

In response to the strikes, Russia has threatened to arm Syria with S-300 air defense systems, an effective post-Soviet weapon that would vastly improve its capabilities. No decision has been finalized, but Israel warned this week that it would retaliate if S-300 missiles interfered with Israeli objectives.

“We need to find new mechanisms for coordinating with Israel,” says Yevgeny Nikitenko, a national security expert at the Russian Academy of National Economy and State Service (RANEPA). “Israel fears that as Syria becomes stronger, the issue of the [occupied and annexed former Syrian] Golan Heights will become critical again. Israel is our best ally against terrorism, and we need to find a new level of understanding with them.”

The former Soviet Union was allied with several key anti-Israel Arab regimes, championed the cause of the Palestinians, and even broke off diplomatic relations with the Jewish state after its sweeping military victory over Arab neighbors in 1967. Relations were restored in 1991, but it was only after Mr. Putin came to power in 2000 that ties began to warm up significantly.

“One important factor for Putin was the Israeli position about Russia’s war in Chechnya,” says Dmitry Maryasis, an Israel expert with the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RAS. “The West tended to condemn Moscow over Chechnya, but Israel understood us and agreed that there can be no compromises with terrorists. Russian decision-makers really appreciated this support, which was not just on the verbal level, but also took the form of cooperation between intelligence services.”

Russian stabilization and economic growth under Putin also created new economic opportunities. About 10 percent of Israel’s population are Russian-speakers – the largest proportion in any country outside of the former Soviet Union – and thousands of them began returning to Russia to start businesses and take high-end jobs. According to official statistics, about 100,000 Israelis currently live and work in Russia.

Though Russia remained friendly with many Arab countries, and continued to support the Palestinian cause, it has not taken the lead in opposing Israel as the Soviet Union once did.

“Russia has no anti-Israel movement at all, as many European countries do,” says Mr. Maryasis. “The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, which is growing in the West, is nonexistent here. Russian Muslim communities, such as Tatars, have no anti-Israel agenda whatsoever. The tone of the Russian media about Israel has been generally neutral. Israelis, who are very sensitive about this, tend to appreciate that about Russia.”

‘A very dangerous moment’

That could be changing too, as tensions over Syria grow. In an unaccustomed harsh statement, Russia slammed Israel’s killing of dozens of unarmed Palestinian protesters earlier this month in Gaza as an “indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population.” The Israeli press has started to wonder aloud whether the good working relations between Mr. Netanyahu and Putin may be reaching their limit.

Some Russian analysts, like Maryasis, are optimistic that Russia and Israel can work out these differences.

“Israel knows that there is no way to decide the fate of Syria without Russia. There is only one country that has real influence on Israel’s enemy, Iran, and that is Russia,” he says. “So, Israel needs to make Russia understand its concerns; Russia is the country it has to speak to. Netanyahu and Putin have been able to talk without all these political tensions that are wrecking US-Russia relations, there has been a strong dialog between them, and there are good reasons to hope they will find a new language of cooperation in this new situation.”

Others are not so sure.

“The trap Russia has fallen into in Syria is that it is obliged to protect its allies, particularly the Assad regime. But it is getting much more complicated,” says Mr. Shumilin. “This S-300 issue could be a breaking point. No one knows what's going to happen, or what Russia will do. It’s a very dangerous moment.”

Courtesy of Nonn Panitvong

Nonn Panitvong, named a “biodiversity hero” by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, shows off a bag full of specimens he collected during a field trip to a river in northern Thailand.

Now and again you can find Nonn Panitvong floating facedown in rivers and lakes. Peering intently into the murky waters through his snorkeling mask, the Thai taxonomist is there to observe the behaviors of various freshwater fish species. He can stay like that for hours.

Occasionally his own behavior draws attention. “Sometimes strangers passing by in boats prod me with their oars to make sure I’m still alive,” Dr. Nonn chuckles.

At other times you can find him in limestone caves. With a flashlight in hand or strapped to his helmet, he scouts around for rare species of karst-dwelling geckos.

“Once I found this new species of gecko,” he recalls. “As I started measuring its body temperature, I realized it was around 3 degrees [C; about 5 degrees F.] higher than the surrounding environment,” he adds. “I became very excited, thinking I may just have discovered the world’s first warmblooded gecko!”

Stop the presses? Not quite. It turned out the coldblooded creature had simply absorbed the heat from Nonn’s hands as he was handling it. “My colleagues had a good laugh,” he says.

Well-groomed with a self-mocking sense of humor, Nonn may not seem like the conventional outdoorsy type. He looks more like a businessman, which is what he is: Nonn runs his family’s sugar-cane mill conglomerate and several green ventures he’s set up. Yet he’s also among Thailand’s most intrepid naturalists, regularly heading off on bird-watching trips, freshwater fish photography missions, and cave explorations.

But it isn’t just his fieldwork and eco-friendly business practices that have helped him to be recognized as a “biodiversity hero” by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which called Nonn “a key figure in the area of business and biodiversity.” It’s also been his promotion of do-it-yourself zoology and grass-roots environmentalism in Thailand.

A largely self-taught naturalist, Nonn has been a relentless popularizer of his homeland’s rich biodiversity, partly through his Siamensis.org website. A comprehensive database with some 20,000 members, the site has nurtured a form of crowdsourced ecology. It allows Thai nature lovers from all walks of life to pool their knowledge about often overlooked species, from snakes to dragonflies.

Thailand has been doing a good job of guarding some protected areas, local conservationists say, but much of its natural environment elsewhere is being steadily eroded. Forests continue to be cleared, and wetlands continue to be drained or flooded. Many once-ubiquitous animals are now nowhere to be seen. Via social media Nonn has been inviting lay nature lovers and trained biologists alike to act as volunteer nature-watchers for neglected areas.

The members of his platforms are also keeping an eye on the spread of invasive species. Whether introduced by accident or design, foreign species such as New Guinea flatworms, South American apple snails, and Amazonian water hyacinths can trigger a cascade of environmental fallouts affecting fragile local ecosystems.

Nonn’s online community has added to the sum of knowledge on local species, too. Taxonomy can be a real asset for conservation, he stresses. “We want to generate and spread knowledge,” Nonn says. “One of our main themes is ‘If you don’t know it, you won’t love it.’ In the end, people will conserve only what they value and love.”

Finding and naming new species

Some of what is in Thailand’s environment has yet to be discovered by scientists. Over the years Nonn himself has found numerous new species. He named a small crustacean (Stenasellus mongnatei) that he discovered in a cave in Saraburi province in 2004 after a feisty village headman who had fought to protect his community’s environment from encroaching development.

“There’s more awareness of conservation issues in Thailand, but it’s limited to a few high-profile species like tigers and elephants,” observes Petch Manopawitr, a Thai zoologist who works for the prominent environmental organization International Union for Conservation of Nature. “Nonn has done valuable work in popularizing a broader view of wildlife conservation and advocating for lesser-known species.”

Nonn started out the way many nature lovers do: as a child with a restless curiosity about living things. That was in the 1980s, when he began collecting various animals as pets. “I learned everything about them on my own,” he says. “I even knew where ants nested in our house [in Bangkok].” He’d watch the insects for hours on end.

He also went on fishing trips – on rivers and lakes and at the seashore. “I wanted to learn about fish,” he says. “I wanted to learn their habits, their likings, their migratory patterns.”

Yet personal observations got him only so far. He often found himself stymied, especially with lesser-known species. While speaking to informed locals such as animal handlers and vendors at wildlife markets, he realized that “their knowledge was limited to their personal experience” with select animals.

Often, so was his. To fill the gaps in his knowledge, some two decades ago he began frequenting a nascent Thai web board where budding local naturalists shared insights about their favorite species. “I became fascinated by a group of freshwater fish called killies,” he recalls. “I started posting about them under the name ‘Killiman.’ I was very popular [with other users].”

Joining forces with other hobbyists

Inspired by the platform’s convenience, he joined forces with a few other hobbyists and launched Siamensis.org in 1999. “We started with fish and aquatic plants,” he says. “But soon we attracted the attention of other nature lovers.”

People with a passion for dragonflies began posting their pictures and articles. Then came people with a love of snakes. They were followed by others with a keen interest in turtles and lizards. Amphibian enthusiasts weren’t far behind. “We grew and grew,” Nonn says. “We turned into a community of people who had similar interests but had never had the chance to be a real community before.”

Trained biologists, schoolteachers, pet owners – they could all now be part of this community. “Say a researcher specializing in bats went into a cave and found a curious-looking gecko,” Nonn elucidates. “He would take a picture and share it on the site” for the benefit of other users.

These other users included Nonn, who decided to pursue a PhD in environmental science with a focus on the biology of rare endemic geckos living at limestone karsts. He did this despite both his bachelor’s and master’s degrees having been in business-related fields.

“Previously I’d never had any formal scientific training in biology or chemistry,” he concedes. Not surprisingly, some professors at Kasetsart University in Bangkok, where he had applied for a spot in the PhD program, were skeptical of his ability to complete his project. Yet complete it he did, becoming a recognized expert in the field.

A regular on Thai television

Today, Nonn is a regular on Thai television as a nature popularizer, and he frequently gives talks on environmental matters. He plays down his newfound fame, however. “Looking back, I’m probably the most surprised at how far I’ve come,” he muses. “How have I become a Southeast Asian ‘biodiversity hero’? I have no idea.”

He retains his childlike curiosity about the natural world. “I used to dream that one day when I walked into a forest I would know everything. I’d be able to name all the plant and animal species there, and I’d be able to tell how they all interacted with one another,” he says.

“I realize now I can’t do that,” he adds. “But at Siamensis we can. We have enough experts in every field. Since I know a little bit about everything, I can connect them.”

How to take action

UniversalGiving helps people give to and volunteer for top-performing charitable organizations around the world. All the projects are vetted by UniversalGiving; 100 percent of each donation goes directly to the listed cause. Below are links to three groups that are involved with the environment, research, or both:

• IPBio – Biodiversity Research Institute focuses on the biodiversity, ecology, and ethology of the fauna and flora in Brazilian ecosystems. Take action: Be a research assistant for this organization.

• Esperanza Verde, a conservation project in the Amazon Basin of Peru, rescues animals from the illegal wildlife trade and gives them a second chance. Take action: Help at this group’s Wildlife Rescue Centre.

• Compassion Soul Winners Outreach International provides necessities to refugee and other families in Ghana. Take action: Be a volunteer who shows the children of these families the importance of a school library.

AP Photo

People celebrate the April 23 resignation of Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan after massive anti-government protests.

In many countries of the former Soviet empire, people still live in fear of their regimes. In Armenia, a landlocked nation of nearly 3 million deemed “partly free” by Freedom House, that was certainly the case until this week.

Protesters could easily be killed, as they were in 2008. Two-thirds of people would not report a corrupt act if they witnessed one, according to a poll. Moscow keeps 3,000 troops in Armenia, whose oligarchs resemble those in Russia. And a quarter of the population has emigrated in the past quarter century under the dominant rule of the Republican Party of Armenia and its business cronies.

But on April 23, after 11 days of nonviolent protests in major cities, Armenians threw off their fears and began to “live in the truth,” as Vaclav Havel, the late Czech dissident, advised those living under the sham appearances of authoritarianism. They withdrew their consent to the effective one-party system and forced longtime ruler Serzh Sargsyan to step down after a blatant attempt to stay in power.

The size of the protests, which were largely leaderless and spontaneous, was so overwhelming that Mr. Sargsyan did not merely resign. He seemed contrite over his deceitful attempts to extend his tenure. “I was wrong,” he said in a statement, even admitting that the main opposition figure, Nikol Pashinyan, was right about the need for him to leave.

In recent decades, nonviolent civil resistance movements have reshaped much of the former Soviet empire, from Poland to Ukraine, as well as countries from Tunisia to the Philippines. Long-submissive people suddenly decided to no longer live a lie and instead chose to deny the legitimacy of repressive rulers. Armenia’s “velvet revolution” is particularly timely. In recent years, democracy in the former communist states of Europe has been in decline, according to Freedom House.

Armenians are a highly educated people. Yet nearly one-third live in poverty. In a global index on corruption, the country ranks among the worst. They have seen how Russian President Vladimir Putin has clung to power since 1999 by a mix of political tricks and repression. The protesters in Armenia said they did not want Sargsyan to “pull a Putin.”

Sargsyan is gone, but for now his party remains in power. The force of the mental shift away from fear by Armenians, however, has removed the pillars from under the regime. After rising up to live in truth, they may not be denied freedom.