6 New Messages
Digest #4490
Messages
Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:02 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.defense.
Department of Defense
September 14, 2012
Dempsey Arrives in Romania for NATO Talks
By Jim Garamone
SIBIU, Romania: Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey arrived here today to participate in NATO Military Committee talks.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will meet with his fellow chiefs of defense to discuss Afghanistan and other NATO issues. The meeting, hosted by Romanian Air Force Lt. Gen. Stefan Danila, lasts through Sept. 16.
This is the first Military Committee meeting since the NATO Summit in Chicago. The chiefs of defense will examine progress made in a number of areas. The meeting will concentrate on challenges in the wider security environment, as well as ongoing operations in Afghanistan and in the Western Balkans. Discussions will also focus on NATO’s transformation stages, including the structural revision of the International Military Staff.
NATO nations agreed in Chicago in May to ensure the alliance can perform the full range of missions even during austere times.
Danish Army Gen. Knud Bartels, the chairman of the committee, will preside. Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Operations, and Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force and commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, are attending.
This is the first time Romania has hosted the Military Committee meeting, but Bucharest, the capital, hosted the NATO Summit in 2008. Romania has been an active member of the alliance even before officially joining in 2004.
Romania sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002 and now has roughly 1,800 service members in that country. Romania has also been active in the Balkans and had troops deployed to Iraq.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Department of Defense
September 14, 2012
Dempsey Arrives in Romania for NATO Talks
By Jim Garamone
SIBIU, Romania: Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey arrived here today to participate in NATO Military Committee talks.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will meet with his fellow chiefs of defense to discuss Afghanistan and other NATO issues. The meeting, hosted by Romanian Air Force Lt. Gen. Stefan Danila, lasts through Sept. 16.
This is the first Military Committee meeting since the NATO Summit in Chicago. The chiefs of defense will examine progress made in a number of areas. The meeting will concentrate on challenges in the wider security environment, as well as ongoing operations in Afghanistan and in the Western Balkans. Discussions will also focus on NATO’s transformation stages, including the structural revision of the International Military Staff.
NATO nations agreed in Chicago in May to ensure the alliance can perform the full range of missions even during austere times.
Danish Army Gen. Knud Bartels, the chairman of the committee, will preside. Navy Adm. James G. Stavridis, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Operations, and Marine Corps Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force and commander of U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, are attending.
This is the first time Romania has hosted the Military Committee meeting, but Bucharest, the capital, hosted the NATO Summit in 2008. Romania has been an active member of the alliance even before officially joining in 2004.
Romania sent troops to Afghanistan in 2002 and now has roughly 1,800 service members in that country. Romania has also been active in the Balkans and had troops deployed to Iraq.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:03 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.maltatod
Malta Today
September 14, 2012
Nato ship for Malta visit as part of Partnership for Peace Standing Nato Maritime Group 2 port visit scheduled for 15-18 September
The FGS Bayern will be making a port visit to Malta this weekend.
The Standing Nato Maritime Group 2 will be making a port visit to Malta between 15-18 September as part of an extensive programme for the group aimed at furthering and increasing cooperation and understanding between NATO and Malt
As part of the 2012 SNMG2 schedule, the NATO Defence Planning Committee approved a port visit to Malta within the framework of the Partnership for Peace Programme.
The visit seeks to have Nato units to foster relationships with civilian and military authorities building further on the excellent relations already developed under Nato's Partnership for Peace (PfP) Programme. It also offers national authorities the opportunity to apprise themselves of SNMG2's capabilities.
This is the fourth visit of the SNMG 2 group. SNMG1 visited Malta in November 2007.
...
SNMG2 is presently comprised of frigates from France Germany and Turkey and a Portuguese submarine.
The SNMG2 units visiting Malta are: FGS BAYERN, Command & Control, German Navy (Flagship); ITS MAESTRALE, Frigate, Italian Navy; TCG GEDIZ, Frigate Turkish Navy; NRP ARP AO, Submarine, Portuguese Navy.
SNMG2 is a multinational, integrated maritime force - made up of vessels from various allied nations, training and operating together as a single team.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Malta Today
September 14, 2012
Nato ship for Malta visit as part of Partnership for Peace Standing Nato Maritime Group 2 port visit scheduled for 15-18 September
The FGS Bayern will be making a port visit to Malta this weekend.
The Standing Nato Maritime Group 2 will be making a port visit to Malta between 15-18 September as part of an extensive programme for the group aimed at furthering and increasing cooperation and understanding between NATO and Malt
As part of the 2012 SNMG2 schedule, the NATO Defence Planning Committee approved a port visit to Malta within the framework of the Partnership for Peace Programme.
The visit seeks to have Nato units to foster relationships with civilian and military authorities building further on the excellent relations already developed under Nato's Partnership for Peace (PfP) Programme. It also offers national authorities the opportunity to apprise themselves of SNMG2's capabilities.
This is the fourth visit of the SNMG 2 group. SNMG1 visited Malta in November 2007.
...
SNMG2 is presently comprised of frigates from France Germany and Turkey and a Portuguese submarine.
The SNMG2 units visiting Malta are: FGS BAYERN, Command & Control, German Navy (Flagship); ITS MAESTRALE, Frigate, Italian Navy; TCG GEDIZ, Frigate Turkish Navy; NRP ARP AO, Submarine, Portuguese Navy.
SNMG2 is a multinational, integrated maritime force - made up of vessels from various allied nations, training and operating together as a single team.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:14 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.
Trend News Agency
September 13, 2012
NATO Secretary-General urges Russia to declassify information about Caucasus-2012 exercises
N. Kirtzkhalia
-"Georgia has already confirmed this interest," he said. "NATO made a decision at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 that Georgia will be in its ranks...."
Tbilisi: NATO regrets that Russia does not provide information on the "Caucasus-2012" exercises, planned to be held near the Georgian border, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview with "Euronews" TV channel today.
Rasmussen stressed that NATO is not against the exercises, but urges Russia for transparency.
"We think that the exchange of information about the exercises as the foundation of mutual trust, because we need to know the purpose of the exercises, where and how they will be conducted," he said. "We have not received any official information from Russia. We are very sorry about this."
Rasmussen has also raised the issue of Georgia's membership in NATO, saying that any country has the right to voluntarily decide to join the alliance.
"We adhere to the basic principle prescribed by the countries of the Euro-Atlantic area in the OSCE Charter in 1999," he added. "The right of each country to resolve the issue of joining the Alliance has been clearly determined there. I hope Russia remembers this."
NATO Secretary-General said that Georgia will decide to join or not to join NATO.
"Georgia has already confirmed this interest," he said. "NATO made a decision at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 that Georgia will be in its ranks, of course, if it meets the necessary conditions."
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Trend News Agency
September 13, 2012
NATO Secretary-General urges Russia to declassify information about Caucasus-2012 exercises
N. Kirtzkhalia
-"Georgia has already confirmed this interest," he said. "NATO made a decision at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 that Georgia will be in its ranks...."
Tbilisi: NATO regrets that Russia does not provide information on the "Caucasus-2012" exercises, planned to be held near the Georgian border, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in an interview with "Euronews" TV channel today.
Rasmussen stressed that NATO is not against the exercises, but urges Russia for transparency.
"We think that the exchange of information about the exercises as the foundation of mutual trust, because we need to know the purpose of the exercises, where and how they will be conducted," he said. "We have not received any official information from Russia. We are very sorry about this."
Rasmussen has also raised the issue of Georgia's membership in NATO, saying that any country has the right to voluntarily decide to join the alliance.
"We adhere to the basic principle prescribed by the countries of the Euro-Atlantic area in the OSCE Charter in 1999," he added. "The right of each country to resolve the issue of joining the Alliance has been clearly determined there. I hope Russia remembers this."
NATO Secretary-General said that Georgia will decide to join or not to join NATO.
"Georgia has already confirmed this interest," he said. "NATO made a decision at the Bucharest Summit in 2008 that Georgia will be in its ranks, of course, if it meets the necessary conditions."
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 14, 2012 12:35 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globalti
Global Times
September 14, 2012
Backing off not an option for China
A total of six Chinese surveillance ships carried out a patrol and law enforcement mission in waters around the Diaoyu Islands and its affiliated islets Friday. The move marks China's disdain for Tokyo's so-called "control" over the islands.
The "control" of the uninhabited islands is only reflected by the presence of the Japanese Coast Guard in the waters. The political dynamics surrounding the Diaoyu Islands will surely be reshaped once China routinely dispatches ships to patrol the islands.
China's maritime enforcement will then serve as a strong deterrent against Japanese right-wing activists who seek to land on the islands. The situation would further change if China seized Japanese nationals who illegally enter China's sovereign waters.
China should seek to gather momentum toward such a direction and achieve these objectives.
The consequences of China strengthening its law enforcement within 12 nautical miles of the islands include possible confrontation with the Japanese Coast Guard. As China firmly stands determined to safeguard its own sovereignty, Japan is more than likely to change its mind.
China's strong expression of its anger and countermeasures are legitimate and reasonable.
Intense friction entails high geopolitical risks and the possibility of negative impacts to both economies. But with a high level of support from the public, China is gaining the upper hand psychologically in such a contest.
China is diplomatically resourceful in Northeast Asia compared to Japan, which is notorious in its sovereignty disputes with regional players.
It is clear that Japan touched probably the thorniest issue in bilateral ties, which in turn serves as an opportunity for China. We should seize the chance and make historic advancements in safeguarding our sovereignty by breaking Japan's "administration" of the islands.
China should be confident about strategically overwhelming Japan. The People's Liberation Army's Navy and Air Force, as well as its Second Artillery Corps, are advised to increase their preparation and intensify their deterrence against Japan's Self-Defense Forces.
China will not shy away if Japan chooses to resort to its military. As friction escalates, it is more likely for Japan to retreat in the face of unreliable US security assurances and China's strengthened strategic combat capabilities.
The standoff broke out at a time when neither side appeared ready. The result of the spat will deeply influence the way the two countries engage with each other in the future.
For China, triumphing will cement cohesion and public confidence in the country. We cannot back off and we must win.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Global Times
September 14, 2012
Backing off not an option for China
A total of six Chinese surveillance ships carried out a patrol and law enforcement mission in waters around the Diaoyu Islands and its affiliated islets Friday. The move marks China's disdain for Tokyo's so-called "control" over the islands.
The "control" of the uninhabited islands is only reflected by the presence of the Japanese Coast Guard in the waters. The political dynamics surrounding the Diaoyu Islands will surely be reshaped once China routinely dispatches ships to patrol the islands.
China's maritime enforcement will then serve as a strong deterrent against Japanese right-wing activists who seek to land on the islands. The situation would further change if China seized Japanese nationals who illegally enter China's sovereign waters.
China should seek to gather momentum toward such a direction and achieve these objectives.
The consequences of China strengthening its law enforcement within 12 nautical miles of the islands include possible confrontation with the Japanese Coast Guard. As China firmly stands determined to safeguard its own sovereignty, Japan is more than likely to change its mind.
China's strong expression of its anger and countermeasures are legitimate and reasonable.
Intense friction entails high geopolitical risks and the possibility of negative impacts to both economies. But with a high level of support from the public, China is gaining the upper hand psychologically in such a contest.
China is diplomatically resourceful in Northeast Asia compared to Japan, which is notorious in its sovereignty disputes with regional players.
It is clear that Japan touched probably the thorniest issue in bilateral ties, which in turn serves as an opportunity for China. We should seize the chance and make historic advancements in safeguarding our sovereignty by breaking Japan's "administration" of the islands.
China should be confident about strategically overwhelming Japan. The People's Liberation Army's Navy and Air Force, as well as its Second Artillery Corps, are advised to increase their preparation and intensify their deterrence against Japan's Self-Defense Forces.
China will not shy away if Japan chooses to resort to its military. As friction escalates, it is more likely for Japan to retreat in the face of unreliable US security assurances and China's strengthened strategic combat capabilities.
The standoff broke out at a time when neither side appeared ready. The result of the spat will deeply influence the way the two countries engage with each other in the future.
For China, triumphing will cement cohesion and public confidence in the country. We cannot back off and we must win.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:46 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thefault
Faultlines
September 13, 2012
The Chilean 9/11: a forgotten tale
Farooq Yousaf*
Thinking of 9/11, scenes of chaos in 2001 — of the Twin Towers plane crashes, the Pentagon crash and havoc in the US — come to our minds, but unfortunately the world has forgotten another important event in world history that not only shook Chile but also a major part of South America.
It was the same date, September 11, in 1973 that the Chilean president, Salvador Allende, was overthrown by an army general, Augusto Pinochet, with the presidential palace bombarded on Pinochet’s orders. Allende died resisting Pinochet’s men and Chile, along with five other South American states, entered into a phase of tyranny and oppression.
During his rule, Pinochet ordered strict measures against dissidents, especially Marxists. He was responsible for the murder of more than 3,000 Chileans, whereas his alliance with South American dictatorships such as those in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay — Operation Condor — resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people. The major purpose of this alliance was to root out socialist and communist influence from the region and suppress any potential opposition. The US was again the chief supporter of this alliance, providing the countries with important intelligence and technological support.
In all these states citizens were abducted, murdered and extra-judicially killed to silence and curb any possible opposition. Some 200,000 Chileans went into exile to different parts of Europe. Many of them took up murder charges against Pinochet in European courts but all their efforts were in vain.
The Condor alliance was initially encouraged by the CIA but that later backfired on the US as it received criticism from all sections of the media and society for supporting dictators. John Dinges, the award-winning journalist, writes in his book, The Condor Years that, initially tagged as “remarkable” by Foreign Affairs magazine, this association of the US, CIA and South American dictators was nothing less than a terrorist organisation responsible for the massacre of thousands of innocent civilians.
A famous Chilean journalist and writer, Antonio Castillo, tells his childhood story in the following words: “Soon we realised that the brutality of the armed forces would reach us too. On 13 September, my father did not come home from work. He had been arrested, and his workplace — a nido de comunistas (nest of communists) for the new authorities — became a military concentration camp, where the cancer marxista (Marxist cancer) would be extirpated. My father survived. Many of my friends’ fathers or mothers didn’t.”
The Pinochet Files, a classified document of the US-Chile transactions, proved that the US’s policymakers and ‘securocrats’ (military officers having policy making power) backed Pinochet to overthrow Allende. “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup,” reads a CIA document from October1970 leaked in these files. “It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [US government] and the American hand be well hidden,” stated another document. Two days after this document was written, top US intelligence officials ordered the launching of campaigns to persuade people to accept a military coup. "Concur giving tear gas canisters and gas masks...working on obtaining machineguns,
Another handwritten note by the then-CIA director, Richard Helms, having orders from President Nixon, stated: “One in 10 chances perhaps, but save Chile! Worth spending; not concerned; no involvement of embassy; $10,000,000 available, more if necessary; full-time job — best men we have; game plan; make the economy scream; 48 hours for plan of action. This presidential directive initiates major covert operations to block Allende’s ascension to office, and promote a coup in Chile.”
Although publicly disowning the Pinochet regime amid criticisms of human rights abuses, the US still helped Chile in international business transactions. Manuel Contreras, the Chilean secret police chief and also allegedly on the CIA’s payroll, when he visited Washington was asked to meet officials from Anaconda (Copper) and General Motors for possible investments in Chile.
It was not because the US sensed a threat from Allende, being a Marxist and pro-USSR, but because he was elected by a narrow margin, represented a weak left wing in the country, and his economic policies were gaining unpopularity among the masses. That is why overthrowing a weak president was never a hard task to achieve by backing a strong military general, such as Pinochet.
It is indeed interesting to see that many of Condor’s perpetrators and murderers were never brought to justice, with many of them enjoying a dignified retired life in America. So much so that criminal charges could never be brought even against Pinochet, as before any level of conviction he died. Support for such a dictator by the then-Nixon administration may fog many minds, as Pinochet was well known for his human rights violations. Furthermore, overthrowing a democratically-
Western media, as always, remains silent on the first major 9/11 and the human atrocities committed as a result. With no statement or report covering the grief of Chileans, it will not be wrong to say that the modern day media works on its own agenda and narrative.
*The writer works as a research analyst, programme consultant and content editor at the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad, along with pursuing his Research Studies in Public Policy from Germany. He can be reached at farooq@crss.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Faultlines
September 13, 2012
The Chilean 9/11: a forgotten tale
Farooq Yousaf*
Thinking of 9/11, scenes of chaos in 2001 — of the Twin Towers plane crashes, the Pentagon crash and havoc in the US — come to our minds, but unfortunately the world has forgotten another important event in world history that not only shook Chile but also a major part of South America.
It was the same date, September 11, in 1973 that the Chilean president, Salvador Allende, was overthrown by an army general, Augusto Pinochet, with the presidential palace bombarded on Pinochet’s orders. Allende died resisting Pinochet’s men and Chile, along with five other South American states, entered into a phase of tyranny and oppression.
During his rule, Pinochet ordered strict measures against dissidents, especially Marxists. He was responsible for the murder of more than 3,000 Chileans, whereas his alliance with South American dictatorships such as those in Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay — Operation Condor — resulted in the deaths of more than 60,000 people. The major purpose of this alliance was to root out socialist and communist influence from the region and suppress any potential opposition. The US was again the chief supporter of this alliance, providing the countries with important intelligence and technological support.
In all these states citizens were abducted, murdered and extra-judicially killed to silence and curb any possible opposition. Some 200,000 Chileans went into exile to different parts of Europe. Many of them took up murder charges against Pinochet in European courts but all their efforts were in vain.
The Condor alliance was initially encouraged by the CIA but that later backfired on the US as it received criticism from all sections of the media and society for supporting dictators. John Dinges, the award-winning journalist, writes in his book, The Condor Years that, initially tagged as “remarkable” by Foreign Affairs magazine, this association of the US, CIA and South American dictators was nothing less than a terrorist organisation responsible for the massacre of thousands of innocent civilians.
A famous Chilean journalist and writer, Antonio Castillo, tells his childhood story in the following words: “Soon we realised that the brutality of the armed forces would reach us too. On 13 September, my father did not come home from work. He had been arrested, and his workplace — a nido de comunistas (nest of communists) for the new authorities — became a military concentration camp, where the cancer marxista (Marxist cancer) would be extirpated. My father survived. Many of my friends’ fathers or mothers didn’t.”
The Pinochet Files, a classified document of the US-Chile transactions, proved that the US’s policymakers and ‘securocrats’ (military officers having policy making power) backed Pinochet to overthrow Allende. “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup,” reads a CIA document from October1970 leaked in these files. “It is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [US government] and the American hand be well hidden,” stated another document. Two days after this document was written, top US intelligence officials ordered the launching of campaigns to persuade people to accept a military coup. "Concur giving tear gas canisters and gas masks...working on obtaining machineguns,
Another handwritten note by the then-CIA director, Richard Helms, having orders from President Nixon, stated: “One in 10 chances perhaps, but save Chile! Worth spending; not concerned; no involvement of embassy; $10,000,000 available, more if necessary; full-time job — best men we have; game plan; make the economy scream; 48 hours for plan of action. This presidential directive initiates major covert operations to block Allende’s ascension to office, and promote a coup in Chile.”
Although publicly disowning the Pinochet regime amid criticisms of human rights abuses, the US still helped Chile in international business transactions. Manuel Contreras, the Chilean secret police chief and also allegedly on the CIA’s payroll, when he visited Washington was asked to meet officials from Anaconda (Copper) and General Motors for possible investments in Chile.
It was not because the US sensed a threat from Allende, being a Marxist and pro-USSR, but because he was elected by a narrow margin, represented a weak left wing in the country, and his economic policies were gaining unpopularity among the masses. That is why overthrowing a weak president was never a hard task to achieve by backing a strong military general, such as Pinochet.
It is indeed interesting to see that many of Condor’s perpetrators and murderers were never brought to justice, with many of them enjoying a dignified retired life in America. So much so that criminal charges could never be brought even against Pinochet, as before any level of conviction he died. Support for such a dictator by the then-Nixon administration may fog many minds, as Pinochet was well known for his human rights violations. Furthermore, overthrowing a democratically-
Western media, as always, remains silent on the first major 9/11 and the human atrocities committed as a result. With no statement or report covering the grief of Chileans, it will not be wrong to say that the modern day media works on its own agenda and narrative.
*The writer works as a research analyst, programme consultant and content editor at the Centre for Research and Security Studies, Islamabad, along with pursuing his Research Studies in Public Policy from Germany. He can be reached at farooq@crss.
============
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@
============
Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:46 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thenews.
The News International
September 14, 2012
Globalisation as imperialism
Farooq Sulehria
====
The metropolitan West continues to hold exploitative sway over the peripheral rest. Here are some of the facts:
Economic globalisation: There are 65,000 MNCs in the world, with 860,000 affiliates. Only 200 transnational mega corporations, 96 percent of which are headquartered in eight rich countries, have a combined volume of sales that is higher than the GDP of all the countries in the globe except the nine largest.
Sixty-eight percent of global media exports originate from the US. The UK is a distant runner-up (9 percent), but British export is still three times as much as its nearest rivals, France and Australia.
From G8 to WTO, all international bodies worth their salt strengthen the US’ global hegemony. NATO reinforces US position as global cop. What’s so new here?
====
Globalisation is a fashionable but vague term. The ambiguity is owed largely to the mystification of globalisation by its enthusiastic proponents. Definitions offered by these enthusiasts disguise more than they reveal. In their bid to define globalisation, David Held and his colleague Anthony McGrew have paraphrased some leading scholars as follows:
“Globalisation has been variously conceived as action at a distance (whereby the actions of social agents in one locale can come to have significant consequences for ‘distant others’); time-space compression (referring to the way in which instantaneous electronic communication erodes the constraints of distance and time on social organisation and integration)
Having reworded other scholars, Messrs Held and McGrew coin their own definition. Globalisation, in their view, “denotes much more than a stretching of social relations and activities across regions and frontiers.” Unfortunately, what they offer as definition hardly improves our understanding. Globalisation, they suggest, is a “growing magnitude or intensity of global flows such that states and societies become increasingly enmeshed in worldwide systems and networks of interaction.”
And why has globalisation come about? The obvious answer is new information and communication technology.
Stanley Hoffman elaborates the technological logic. Globalisation, he says, has three forms. “First is economic globalisation, which results from recent revolutions in technology, information, trade, foreign investment, and international business...Next comes cultural globalisation. It stems from the technological revolution and economic globalization.
Unlike post-modernist and liberal mystifications to disguise globalisation as something ‘integrating’, inclusive, or beneficial, I argue that all these fashionable characteristics attributed to globalisation are baseless. Globalisation, to quote Robert McChesney, is capitalism “constituted on a transnational basis, not only in the trade of goods and services but, even more important, in the flow of capital and the trade in currencies and financial instruments” whereby, to quote Boyd-Barrett, the “underlying character of globalisation is similar to that of imperialism. Both are narratives of domination and exploitation.”
People like Held and McGrew, who self-servingly describe themselves as ‘globalists’, refuse to acknowledge unequal power relations embedded in the ‘growing magnitude and intensity of global flows’. The metropolitan West continues to hold exploitative sway over the peripheral rest. Here are some of the facts:
Economic globalisation: There are 65,000 MNCs in the world, with 860,000 affiliates. Only 200 transnational mega corporations, 96 percent of which are headquartered in eight rich countries, have a combined volume of sales that is higher than the GDP of all the countries in the globe except the nine largest. From 1972 to 1995, $4.5 trillion was transferred to North from South. Between, 1990-98, $700 billion left Latin America and ended up in Europe and USA.
Cultural globalisation: The global media, often presented as the epitome of globalisation, is the province of fewer than one hundred firms. Sixty-eight percent of global media exports originate from the US. The UK is a distant runner-up (9 percent), but British export is still three times as much as its nearest rivals, France and Australia. Cultural artefacts contribute some $110 billion to American GDP and £11.6 billion in the case of the UK.
Political globalisation: From G8 to WTO, all international bodies worth their salt strengthen the US’ global hegemony. NATO reinforces US position as global cop. What’s so new here?
The News International
September 14, 2012
Globalisation as imperialism
Farooq Sulehria
====
The metropolitan West continues to hold exploitative sway over the peripheral rest. Here are some of the facts:
Economic globalisation: There are 65,000 MNCs in the world, with 860,000 affiliates. Only 200 transnational mega corporations, 96 percent of which are headquartered in eight rich countries, have a combined volume of sales that is higher than the GDP of all the countries in the globe except the nine largest.
Sixty-eight percent of global media exports originate from the US. The UK is a distant runner-up (9 percent), but British export is still three times as much as its nearest rivals, France and Australia.
From G8 to WTO, all international bodies worth their salt strengthen the US’ global hegemony. NATO reinforces US position as global cop. What’s so new here?
====
Globalisation is a fashionable but vague term. The ambiguity is owed largely to the mystification of globalisation by its enthusiastic proponents. Definitions offered by these enthusiasts disguise more than they reveal. In their bid to define globalisation, David Held and his colleague Anthony McGrew have paraphrased some leading scholars as follows:
“Globalisation has been variously conceived as action at a distance (whereby the actions of social agents in one locale can come to have significant consequences for ‘distant others’); time-space compression (referring to the way in which instantaneous electronic communication erodes the constraints of distance and time on social organisation and integration)
Having reworded other scholars, Messrs Held and McGrew coin their own definition. Globalisation, in their view, “denotes much more than a stretching of social relations and activities across regions and frontiers.” Unfortunately, what they offer as definition hardly improves our understanding. Globalisation, they suggest, is a “growing magnitude or intensity of global flows such that states and societies become increasingly enmeshed in worldwide systems and networks of interaction.”
And why has globalisation come about? The obvious answer is new information and communication technology.
Stanley Hoffman elaborates the technological logic. Globalisation, he says, has three forms. “First is economic globalisation, which results from recent revolutions in technology, information, trade, foreign investment, and international business...Next comes cultural globalisation. It stems from the technological revolution and economic globalization.
Unlike post-modernist and liberal mystifications to disguise globalisation as something ‘integrating’, inclusive, or beneficial, I argue that all these fashionable characteristics attributed to globalisation are baseless. Globalisation, to quote Robert McChesney, is capitalism “constituted on a transnational basis, not only in the trade of goods and services but, even more important, in the flow of capital and the trade in currencies and financial instruments” whereby, to quote Boyd-Barrett, the “underlying character of globalisation is similar to that of imperialism. Both are narratives of domination and exploitation.”
People like Held and McGrew, who self-servingly describe themselves as ‘globalists’, refuse to acknowledge unequal power relations embedded in the ‘growing magnitude and intensity of global flows’. The metropolitan West continues to hold exploitative sway over the peripheral rest. Here are some of the facts:
Economic globalisation: There are 65,000 MNCs in the world, with 860,000 affiliates. Only 200 transnational mega corporations, 96 percent of which are headquartered in eight rich countries, have a combined volume of sales that is higher than the GDP of all the countries in the globe except the nine largest. From 1972 to 1995, $4.5 trillion was transferred to North from South. Between, 1990-98, $700 billion left Latin America and ended up in Europe and USA.
Cultural globalisation: The global media, often presented as the epitome of globalisation, is the province of fewer than one hundred firms. Sixty-eight percent of global media exports originate from the US. The UK is a distant runner-up (9 percent), but British export is still three times as much as its nearest rivals, France and Australia. Cultural artefacts contribute some $110 billion to American GDP and £11.6 billion in the case of the UK.
Political globalisation: From G8 to WTO, all international bodies worth their salt strengthen the US’ global hegemony. NATO reinforces US position as global cop. What’s so new here?
