Рассылка закрыта
Вы можете найти рассылки сходной тематики в Каталоге рассылок.
Nuclear Free Middle East: Desirable, Necessary, and Impossible
|
Nuclear Free Middle East: Desirable, Necessary, and Impossible 2012-02-14 09:54
Finally, there is some argumentation in the West supportive of a nuclear free zone for the Middle East. Such thinking is still treated as politically marginal, and hardly audible above the beat of the war drums. It also tends to be defensively and pragmatically phrased as in the NY Times article by Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull (I.15..2012) with full disclosure title, “Preventing a Nuclear Iran.” The article makes a prudential argument against attacking Iran based on prospects of a damaging Iranian retaliation and the inability of an attack to destroy Iran’s nuclear program at an acceptable cost. The most that could be achieved for would be a short delay in Iran’s acquisition of weaponry, and maybe not even that. An attack seems likely to create irresistible pressure in Iran to everything possible to obtain a nuclear option with a renewed sense of urgency. This argument is sensibly reinforced by pointing to respected public opinion surveys that show Israeli attitudes to be less war-inclined than had been generally assumed. According to a Israeli recent poll, only 43% of Israelis favoring a military strike, while 64% favored establishing a nuclear free zone (NFZ) in the region that included Israel. In effect, then, establishing a NFZ that includes Israel would seem politically feasible, although not a course of action that would be entertained by the current Tel Aviv governmental political climate. We can conclude that the silence of Washington with respect to such an alternative approach to the dispute with Iran confirms what is widely believed, namely, that the U.S. Government adheres to the official Israeli line, and is not particularly sensitive to the wishes of the Israeli public even to the extent of serving America’s own strong national interest in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict. The Failure of Neoliberalism and the Roads to the Future 2012-02-14 13:56
The first week of October of 2011 I had the chance to attend the 9th Edition of Rhodes World Public Forum for the Dialogues of Civilization. Among the 600 invitees few of us were based in Western Europe or the US. The vast majority came from Russia, India, China, North Africa, and the Middle East. That is to say, from the non-Western world. The following week, I attended the 11th Edition of the Biarritz Forum “European Union-Latin America Relations: Where are we and where are we going.” The overwhelming presence here was from France, Spain and Spanish American countries. Scholars, journalists, NGOs, Foundations and former Presidents of Spanish American countries were present. I was surprised by the consensus of the two Forums, particularly because there was no connection between the two. I was also pleased that I was the only person attending both back to back--the first during the first week of October and the second during the second week. The surprising consensus was about the failure of the Washington Consensus and the Neoliberal Doctrine. Curiously enough, the War in Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq were the political counterpart of the economic liberalization promoted and the victorious chant to the final triumph of globalism. Globalism was the imperial designs of the Washington Consensus and the Neoliberal Doctrine that was sold as “globalization.” The signs of the failure were obvious and painful enough to provoke the “indignation” of the participants of both Forums. Not surprising then that the US is looking for a new orientation for its global designs. Albeit no doubt the presence of the US in the global orders is and will be very important, it is also obvious that its global leadership is ending. War in WANA : a Threat to Humanity 2012-02-15 12:41
Any conflict in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) is a threat to world peace. For WANA is of tremendous strategic, economic, political and religious significance to the whole of humanity. This is why it is the responsibility of the entire human family to ensure that war does not break out in that region. Why is WANA of such great importance? One, it is the only region in the world where three continents - Asia, Africa and Europe - meet. WANA is home to some of the world’s most critical sea routes and most strategic waterways, including the Mediterranean, the Suez, the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. Two, WANA is the world’s major oil exporting region. And oil is the life-blood of contemporary civilisation. The majority of OPEC (the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) members are in WANA. Three, most of the wars that have shaken the world since World War II have occurred in WANA. The Israel-Arab conflicts, Israeli aggression against the Palestinians, Israel’s invasions of Lebanon, the Suez War, the Iraq- Iran War, the Kuwait War, the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the NATO-led assault upon Libya would be the outstanding examples. Needless to say, millions of lives have been lost in these wars. Last Stop for the U.S. Dollar? 2012-02-17 10:11
An article by Mario Lettieri and Paolo Raimondi translated By Simone Urru and published at http://watchingamerica.com/News/120489/last-stop-for-the-u-s-dollar/ on 26 August 2011 Edited by Janie Boschma Italy - Europa - Original Article (Italian) On Aug. 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon decided to break the dollar from the value of gold. The 1944 International Monetary Fund was established to re-stabilize the post-war economy and tied Western countries' dollar reserves to gold. In theory, countries with dollar reserves could at any time request their conversion into gold. In the '60s, the U.S. dollar could no longer maintain the old rate of exchange with gold following a series of economic and monetary crises, of inflationary surges, and in particular of growing debts determined by the costs of the war in Vietnam. The U.S. administration had two options: devalue the dollar and start to produce again from scratch, or blow up the Bretton Woods system. It chose the second alternative. "We must protect the dollar from the attacks of international money speculators," said Nixon in his famous speech. He also announced the freezing of wages and prices and the introduction of duties on imports. The transition held a flexible monetary exchange rate system hostage to currency markets. Neither Washington, Nor Beijing Consensus, But the New Pragmatism 2012-02-17 13:39
First things first. In the short run, the expansion of the social market economy is not on the agenda, because more urgent challenges must be addressed. However, in the longer run a kind of global social market economy seems to be the only sensible option for the future of mankind. A social market economy implies that the core of economic activity is based on private ownership motivated by the desire to maximize profits, yet at the same time it takes care of social cohesion. The power of the market must be used for facilitating the needs of the people and not just for the purpose of people’s exploitation. Therefore, a social market economy is not just incompatible with neoliberalism which works on behalf of the few at the cost of the many; it is contradictory to it. One must not be naïve. The world, with 7 billion people already and 9 billion expected 35 years from now, with great inequality and contradictions, with a variety of hardly compatible values and agendas, will never look like the social market economies of the social-democratic countries of Scandinavia. Yet, progress can be achieved only if there will be balanced and sustainable development. As I write in my book, “It is not possible to get to a perfect world, yet it is worth it to keep moving there”. Regarding neoliberalism, which is confusing the means with the ends of economic policy, it is just a recipe for disaster. We must get rid of this biased type of a market economy. The recent crisis should help to do so, however – and strangely – so far it hasn’t. |
An article by Richard Falk an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years published at his 
An article written by Chandra Muzaffar, President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST) and Professor of Global Studies in Universiti Sains Malaysia, and published at 
| В избранное | ||
