Almost imperceptibly, the war marketing evolved into a new discipline. It seems that we got accustomed to that “science” very quickly and underestimating the risks. At present, even the non-professionals can easily recognize the pattern of preparing, propagating, and justifying all kinds of aggressions and instigating civil wars. The process comprises these steps: choosing the target; demonizing its legitimate leadership via the media; promises of democracy and fast “better life” that serve to disorientate the public; funding and, as necessary, arming the “pro-democratic” opposition; intensification of destabilizing actions of the NGOs; staging massacres/poisoning by chemical warfare/humanitarian disasters, i.e.: event brands like “Markale” in Sarajevo, “Racak” in Kosovo and Metohija, “Majdan” in Kiev; then follows instigating civil wars or armed aggression; toppling legitimate authorities; installing “pro-democratic” opposition in power; and, finally, assuming the target country’s natural and economic resources by the corporations and even by individuals from administrations of the aggressor countries by the so-called transition, also known as the predatory privatizations.
One of disturbing contemporary phenomena is a very extensive interpretation of the notion of national interests. The USA was the first to appropriate the right to proclaim its national interests in practical terms, in any corner of the Planet, and to defend them by armed force. European partners followed suite. Particular attention provoke statements of Joachim Gauck, President of Germany, that Germany must be ready to defend its national interests abroad by force, if needed. State sovereignty over its natural resources is derogated. Brzezinski and Albright openly claim that natural resources in Siberia cannot belong to Russia only, but rather to the so-called international community! The claims for redistribution of natural wealth of the planet are clearly articulated. Here, one may recall the consequences the humanity suffered owing to German ambitions for redistribution of colonies in the run-up to the World War I.…
Another great danger for the contemporary world stems from the presence of power centers which believe they are destined to govern the word, and entrusted with this mission by providence. They hold anyone else in the planet to be handicapped and obliged to do as told and obey directives of the “exceptional” ones. Such centers do not recognize profound changes bringing new distribution of global power. They apply the logic of uni-polar world order not recognizing that this concept is gone and that the history cannot be stopped.
Therefore, having regard to the lessons of history, we may conclude, that it is not the time to seek privileges and domination by force; it is in the interest of humanity to accommodate to the new multi-polar reality, to accept righteous compromises and work for peace.One can argue whether this is true, but what is evident is that it is a growing perception.
Global Research
Global Justice or World Domination
Živadin Jovanović
5 comments:
Imports are real benefit.
Exports are a real cost.
Foreign trade is no different from domestic trade.
Capital controls don't work.
The benefits of trade flow directly to consumers, and the benefits and far outweigh the costs.
Just thought I'd throw that in the mix as we read about all the external sector chaos! Sorry for the interruption. Please carry on.
In principle, but like everything, it depends on context.
Far more complicated. External considerations quickly outweigh economic benefits. If true, government would not use economic sanctions, wield businesses and valuable trade assets as weapons in sanctions before any real diplomatic, intelligence, or military options are utilized. Even hundreds of billions of dollars worth of private sector investments in foreign trade are destroyed without a second thought by political leaders. Something more is going on than just supplying real benefits to consumers!
If relationships were symmetrical and all factors flexible then economic liberalism would work theoretically. But this is a stylized model that will never be tested because the conditions cannot be met in societies based on the social stratification, the politics of interest, the structure and dynamics of modern monetary economies and other institutional arrangements that introduce asymmetries.
I am very much in favor of liberalization socially, politically and economically, and it seems to me that history exhibits a liberal bias.
However, I also recognize that this has been and is going to be a long process during which a lot of obstacles are going to be have to surmounted locally, regionally, nationally and globally.
Moreover, the challenge of liberalism is "E pluribus unum," or in spiritual terms, "Live unity and celebrate diversity," recognizing that all are equal as persons and also unique as individuals and groups, as well as cultures and even civilizations.
This means that one view cannot be forced upon all, or it won't actually be liberalism. Common ground on which diversity can flourish has to be worked out through a historical process that has been difficult so far, and there are different ways of doing this going forward.
The US hasn't even accomplished this yet as a country nor has any state. The neoliberal belief that this could happen quickly worldwide if the world is "democratized" at whatever social cost is just bonkers.
Post a Comment