5 New Messages
Digest #4535
Messages
Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:40 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.
Voice of Russia
October 31, 2012
US to give up Internet dominance
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) can compete with the United States in controlling the Internet via a new global system, SCO Business Club’s Director Denis Tyurin said Wednesday.
“Russian and international experts have a lot of doubts about the existing system of Internet controls. By and large, it’s the US that has a hold over the world wide web,” he said, adding SCO member states could influence the Internet.
“Internet should be governed though international organizations,” Mr. Denisov said. He proposed to make SCO a prototype of such institution.
------------
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
October 31, 2012
SCO may create new global Internet management system
====
“The Internet should be managed through international structures. Possibly, the SCO as the organization serving as an example to other international structures can become a prototype of a global Internet management system.”
This issue was...high on the agenda of the SCO Youth Forum that opened in the Altai Territory on Wednesday and will last until November 2.
It brought together around 300 young business people from Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan.
====
BELOKURIKHA, Altai Territory: Member-states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have real opportunities to create a new global Internet management system, the director of the SCO Business Club, Denis Tyurin, told Itar-Tass on Wednesday.
“The Russian and international expert community have many questions about the modern Internet management system. Generally speaking, we continue to observe a situation in which the United States keeps the cut-out tool from the global information network in its hands. Despite efforts of the international community to make this system more balanced, the Americans have no plans to hand over the levers of control,” Tyurin said.
He expressed confidence that SCO member-states will be able to influence these processes.
“Many countries that united within the framework of the SCO demonstrate similar approaches to this problem,” he said. “The Internet should be managed through international structures. Possibly, the SCO as the organization serving as an example to other international structures can become a prototype of a global Internet management system.”
“The system should be based on collective decision making,” he said, expressing the opinion that the creation of an SCO domain extension by analogy with domain extensions created by the European Union or the United Nations may significantly contribute to resolving this issue.
The idea of creating its domain extension appeared a year ago and is now being actively discussed by SCO member-states.
This issue was also high on the agenda of the SCO Youth Forum that opened in the Altai Territory on Wednesday and will last until November 2.
It brought together around 300 young business people from Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan.
According to organizers, the forum will create a platform for direct communication among young entrepreneurs and business leaders of the SCO member-states.
============
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@
============
Voice of Russia
October 31, 2012
US to give up Internet dominance
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) can compete with the United States in controlling the Internet via a new global system, SCO Business Club’s Director Denis Tyurin said Wednesday.
“Russian and international experts have a lot of doubts about the existing system of Internet controls. By and large, it’s the US that has a hold over the world wide web,” he said, adding SCO member states could influence the Internet.
“Internet should be governed though international organizations,” Mr. Denisov said. He proposed to make SCO a prototype of such institution.
------------
http://www.itar-
Itar-Tass
October 31, 2012
SCO may create new global Internet management system
====
“The Internet should be managed through international structures. Possibly, the SCO as the organization serving as an example to other international structures can become a prototype of a global Internet management system.”
This issue was...high on the agenda of the SCO Youth Forum that opened in the Altai Territory on Wednesday and will last until November 2.
It brought together around 300 young business people from Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan.
====
BELOKURIKHA, Altai Territory: Member-states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization have real opportunities to create a new global Internet management system, the director of the SCO Business Club, Denis Tyurin, told Itar-Tass on Wednesday.
“The Russian and international expert community have many questions about the modern Internet management system. Generally speaking, we continue to observe a situation in which the United States keeps the cut-out tool from the global information network in its hands. Despite efforts of the international community to make this system more balanced, the Americans have no plans to hand over the levers of control,” Tyurin said.
He expressed confidence that SCO member-states will be able to influence these processes.
“Many countries that united within the framework of the SCO demonstrate similar approaches to this problem,” he said. “The Internet should be managed through international structures. Possibly, the SCO as the organization serving as an example to other international structures can become a prototype of a global Internet management system.”
“The system should be based on collective decision making,” he said, expressing the opinion that the creation of an SCO domain extension by analogy with domain extensions created by the European Union or the United Nations may significantly contribute to resolving this issue.
The idea of creating its domain extension appeared a year ago and is now being actively discussed by SCO member-states.
This issue was also high on the agenda of the SCO Youth Forum that opened in the Altai Territory on Wednesday and will last until November 2.
It brought together around 300 young business people from Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Belarus, Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Iran, India and Pakistan.
According to organizers, the forum will create a platform for direct communication among young entrepreneurs and business leaders of the SCO member-states.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:40 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://rt.com/
RT
October 31, 2012
‘Latin America needs independence to prosper’ – President of Nicaragua
Video at URL above
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega believes Latin America requires freedom from external influence to flourish. For Nicaragua, this means building a canal for self-sustainability
====
I believe this is an election where the American people should vote for their government to commit itself to a peaceful foreign policy agenda. That is what I see as most important. The best thing the United States could do for the world is pursue peace, not war. A policy of peace would enable the US to be more successful in addressing its domestic as well as global economic challenges – provided that they choose to seek an alternative to the neoliberal policies that were predominant among capitalist economies in recent years, and have proved to be such a failure.
====
Ortega argues that the world needs multi-polarity. Moreover, it is already heading in that direction.
The only option for hegemonic nations “is to change themselves, and to that end, they need to evolve, and to promote a world order that would be in line with international law, UN principles and the laws of international trade in a multi-polar world.”
He also believes that capitalism has failed to resolve problems such as “unemployment and poverty.”
He says that US “aid” equals “debt” and for Latin American nations to achieve prosperity they need independence.
“Political independence is impossible without social and economic independence,” argues Ortega. “Today, a new reality is gradually emerging in Latin American and Caribbean nations. They have more freedom today to determine their future.”
For Ortega’s country, this means first of all building a canal, which would “complement” the Panama Canal and would make Nicaragua self-sufficient by connecting the Caribbean to the Pacific.
RT: Recently, Hugo Chavez won the presidential election in Venezuela and stayed in office. A year ago, the people of Nicaragua re-elected you for another term. Does this mean that socialism has proved its viability and is now established in Latin America?
DO: The neoliberal model has failed. In other words, capitalism reached the highest stage, where it was expected to resolve all the economic and social problems overnight, resolve the problems of unemployment and poverty. But this model failed. It failed not only in Latin America; it is also failing in developed economies. Today we see it failing in the US and Europe. This is why people in our part of the world gladly embraced the idea of a radical change.
Our countries need sovereignty and independence in every area. Political independence is impossible without social and economic independence. Today, a new reality is gradually emerging in Latin American and Caribbean nations. They have more freedom today to determine their future. President Hugo Chavez’s recent victory will definitely help Latin America and the Caribbean to continue on the path of change.
RT: But this election has been the closest that Venezuela’s opposition has ever come to victory. Some say the people of Venezuela are tired of the present government. What do you make of it?
DO: The truth is, a one-point advantage already counts as victory, in politics as well as in sports.There is no such thing as “a greater victory”. No matter if you are one point or a hundred points ahead, victory is victory. I think what we have seen in Venezuela was this: there had been considerable efforts invested to prevent Hugo Chavez from winning the election, but all in vain. I see it as a fiasco of the entire rightwing trend, which had been supported by the United States and Europe.
RT: Following the toppling of President Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, there was speculation that we are into a new era of coups d’état. How likely do you consider such a scenario today?
DO: In fact, we in Latin America have never managed to make coups a thing of the past, and I’m afraid this might never happen. I believe there will be an implicit threat of a coup as long as the conservative forces in the United States take interest in disrupting any development aimed at upsetting the current global hierarchy. These forces engage local groups in our countries in covert activities, and we have seen it happen across Latin America and the Caribbean.
RT: So you think there is a connection between the events in Paraguay, the attempted coup in Ecuador and the military coups in Honduras?
DO: Yes, that is a fact. Take the attempt at overthrowing President Chavez in Venezuela in April 2002, for example.
Next came a coup in Honduras, aimed at hampering the development of a unified Latin America. Then there was an explicit and very forceful attempt at a coup in Bolivia, aimed against President Evo Morales.
Then there was an attempted coup against President Raphael Correa in Ecuador. And most recently, the plot to force the Paraguayan president out of power.
I think this will remain an implicit threat, but it will gradually lose in ability over time, due to the rising drive for change that we see gaining momentum in Latin America. This movement is based on respect for the will of the people, and this is what will make coups increasingly harder to pull off, time after time. Yet we shouldn’t rule out such a possibility altogether, not as long as we remain at odds with the forces that strive for global domination and believe that the world is supposed to bend the knee to them. They still don’t realize that we no longer live in an era of hegemony. So there will remain a hidden, latent menace for the time being.
RT: In July 2012, the National Assembly of Nicaragua adopted a law to build a canal that would connect the Caribbean to the Pacific. This would not merely give a boost to the Nicaraguan economy, but actually promote your country to one of the region’s richest economies. When is the canal scheduled for completion?
DO: Indeed, a vision of such a canal goes back as long as the history of Nicaragua.
RТ: Five centuries?
DO: Ever since the Spanish conquest. Later on, Great Britain rivaled Spain for control of Nicaragua, thinking there was a natural waterway here. It sort of existed, by way of the San Juan River that springs from Lake Nicaragua. But one section was missing – a canal across the narrow isthmus of Rivas. Because of that, our country ended up in the middle of geopolitical disputes and became a target for US expansionist policies.
Nicaragua lost all independence after the US invasion. But what’s important here is that this project has always been on the books. Over a century ago, the Americans themselves looked into building a canal in Nicaragua, but then they decided to invest in the Panama Canal. Once we became independent, we revisited this vision, and now we are working to make it real. We feel that the project is getting on track now. As a matter of fact, the region does need one more transit route.
The Panama Canal cannot satisfy the current demand for international transportation, especially freight traffic. Even with a view to expanding the Panama Canal, which is currently underway, it will still leave a lot to be desired in terms of traffic speed and waiting time.
Our canal would not serve to substitute the Panama Canal, but rather to complement it.
There is similar logic here as in urban planning: the more roads you have in your city, the better the traffic. We are looking at providing our region with two major waterway routes instead of one. This would enhance the region’s transit capabilities, bring down transit costs and thus benefit global trade in general, serving not just our own interests as an economy, but those of the entire international community.
For Nicaragua, it would also mean independence, giving us access to resources and the kind of revenues that would enable us to become entirely self-sufficient. As of now, we are a dependent economy. There is nothing wrong with interdependence and complementariness, but one-way dependency is bad for anyone.
RТ: So when will Nicaragua finally get its chance?
DO: Very soon, I hope. There is a lot of work being done. Chinese companies are in charge of the project, and we expect it to be accomplished rather quickly.
RТ:It was initially expected to take ten years, if I’m not mistaken.
DO: We think it is possible to get it done within a shorter period. The exact timeline will be determined by the companies involved in the project, once they assess its profitability and get down to construction. After that, we will have a better idea about the timeframe.
RT: This year the United States has terminated its annual aid commitments to Nicaragua. How has that affected your country?
DO: Nicaragua is highly vulnerable as an economy. Throughout our history, our economy has suffered at the hands of the US and its policies. The city of Granada, for example, was burnt to the ground, falling prey to America’s expansionist policies. All those wars and military invasions the US has sponsored or provoked. There has even been a ruling by the International Court of Justice, binding the United States to compensate Nicaragua for all our losses, but the US has ignored this verdict.
Of course, the fact that the US has terminated what they call “aid” to Nicaragua has had negative consequences for our people and our country. But in reality, that was no aid. What the Americans call “aid” was really tiny installments in payment of the enormous debt the US owes to Nicaragua.
That was no aid and no cooperation. That was merely an allowance they paid us, passing it for “aid” and “cooperation”.
And it came with tight conditions attached, too. So we cannot talk of Nicaragua as a sovereign and independent nation as long as we remain critically dependent upon the United States and its current political trends, its prevalent frame of mind and the amount of influence radical groups enjoy there at any given moment of time. Because those are the groups that largely determine US foreign policies. They are the ones who contest in court all US cooperation programs with Nicaragua, and even call for using force against Latin American nations that dare stand up for our independence.
That is why terminating any format of cooperation is bound to have a negative impact on Nicaragua. But that is exactly what makes it so important for us to ensure that our nation should no longer be dependent upon this sort of conditional cooperation with either the United States or the European Union.
The US has essentially pursued a policy of a racket vis-à-vis Nicaragua and its people. This is unfair and undemocratic. They are not supporting liberty, they are promoting servitude.
This is what prompts us to get the canal done as soon as possible. It would relieve us of our present dependency upon the US and Europe and their hegemonic policies.
RT: The United States is all set for a presidential election. What are Nicaragua’s expectations in this regard?
DO: I believe this is an election where the American people should vote for their government to commit itself to a peaceful foreign policy agenda. That is what I see as most important. The best thing the United States could do for the world is pursue peace, not war. A policy of peace would enable the US to be more successful in addressing its domestic as well as global economic challenges – provided that they choose to seek an alternative to the neoliberal policies that were predominant among capitalist economies in recent years, and have proved to be such a failure.
RT: What is your idea of a perfect world? And what role would you see in it for Latin America, the United States or Russia?
DO: I am sure we are already heading that way, despite efforts from certain forces to prevent this kind of a change. I mean the American far-right, who won’t even tolerate a president such as Barack Obama: they denounce him merely because of his African origins and the color of his skin.
Yet these forces grow ever weaker with time. The same is happening in Europe.
Reality itself sends a signal to the nations that used to feel like they ruled the world until recently, telling them the world can no longer go on with hegemonic attitudes.
It was reality that has shaped what we know today as a multi-polar world. And regardless of whether hegemonic powers choose to move along with the rest of the world, the world favors multi-polarity, and we are moving in that direction.
We hope that those in power in the world’s most advanced economies will finally realize that the path they had been following, thinking it to be a path toward peace, stability, growth and development, has eventually brought them to the verge of disaster, and they are the ones heading toward a cliff.
In the past, they used to drive us toward self-destruction, but this time, they are themselves set on a path to collapse. Their only option is to change themselves, and to that end, they need to evolve, and to promote a world order that would be in line with international law, UN principles and the laws of international trade in a multi-polar world.
RT: So you believe this is reality rather than wishful thinking?
DO: It is reality, I am sure of that. We already see it happening.
============
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@
============
RT
October 31, 2012
‘Latin America needs independence to prosper’ – President of Nicaragua
Video at URL above
Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega believes Latin America requires freedom from external influence to flourish. For Nicaragua, this means building a canal for self-sustainability
====
I believe this is an election where the American people should vote for their government to commit itself to a peaceful foreign policy agenda. That is what I see as most important. The best thing the United States could do for the world is pursue peace, not war. A policy of peace would enable the US to be more successful in addressing its domestic as well as global economic challenges – provided that they choose to seek an alternative to the neoliberal policies that were predominant among capitalist economies in recent years, and have proved to be such a failure.
====
Ortega argues that the world needs multi-polarity. Moreover, it is already heading in that direction.
The only option for hegemonic nations “is to change themselves, and to that end, they need to evolve, and to promote a world order that would be in line with international law, UN principles and the laws of international trade in a multi-polar world.”
He also believes that capitalism has failed to resolve problems such as “unemployment and poverty.”
He says that US “aid” equals “debt” and for Latin American nations to achieve prosperity they need independence.
“Political independence is impossible without social and economic independence,” argues Ortega. “Today, a new reality is gradually emerging in Latin American and Caribbean nations. They have more freedom today to determine their future.”
For Ortega’s country, this means first of all building a canal, which would “complement” the Panama Canal and would make Nicaragua self-sufficient by connecting the Caribbean to the Pacific.
RT: Recently, Hugo Chavez won the presidential election in Venezuela and stayed in office. A year ago, the people of Nicaragua re-elected you for another term. Does this mean that socialism has proved its viability and is now established in Latin America?
DO: The neoliberal model has failed. In other words, capitalism reached the highest stage, where it was expected to resolve all the economic and social problems overnight, resolve the problems of unemployment and poverty. But this model failed. It failed not only in Latin America; it is also failing in developed economies. Today we see it failing in the US and Europe. This is why people in our part of the world gladly embraced the idea of a radical change.
Our countries need sovereignty and independence in every area. Political independence is impossible without social and economic independence. Today, a new reality is gradually emerging in Latin American and Caribbean nations. They have more freedom today to determine their future. President Hugo Chavez’s recent victory will definitely help Latin America and the Caribbean to continue on the path of change.
RT: But this election has been the closest that Venezuela’s opposition has ever come to victory. Some say the people of Venezuela are tired of the present government. What do you make of it?
DO: The truth is, a one-point advantage already counts as victory, in politics as well as in sports.There is no such thing as “a greater victory”. No matter if you are one point or a hundred points ahead, victory is victory. I think what we have seen in Venezuela was this: there had been considerable efforts invested to prevent Hugo Chavez from winning the election, but all in vain. I see it as a fiasco of the entire rightwing trend, which had been supported by the United States and Europe.
RT: Following the toppling of President Fernando Lugo in Paraguay, there was speculation that we are into a new era of coups d’état. How likely do you consider such a scenario today?
DO: In fact, we in Latin America have never managed to make coups a thing of the past, and I’m afraid this might never happen. I believe there will be an implicit threat of a coup as long as the conservative forces in the United States take interest in disrupting any development aimed at upsetting the current global hierarchy. These forces engage local groups in our countries in covert activities, and we have seen it happen across Latin America and the Caribbean.
RT: So you think there is a connection between the events in Paraguay, the attempted coup in Ecuador and the military coups in Honduras?
DO: Yes, that is a fact. Take the attempt at overthrowing President Chavez in Venezuela in April 2002, for example.
Next came a coup in Honduras, aimed at hampering the development of a unified Latin America. Then there was an explicit and very forceful attempt at a coup in Bolivia, aimed against President Evo Morales.
Then there was an attempted coup against President Raphael Correa in Ecuador. And most recently, the plot to force the Paraguayan president out of power.
I think this will remain an implicit threat, but it will gradually lose in ability over time, due to the rising drive for change that we see gaining momentum in Latin America. This movement is based on respect for the will of the people, and this is what will make coups increasingly harder to pull off, time after time. Yet we shouldn’t rule out such a possibility altogether, not as long as we remain at odds with the forces that strive for global domination and believe that the world is supposed to bend the knee to them. They still don’t realize that we no longer live in an era of hegemony. So there will remain a hidden, latent menace for the time being.
RT: In July 2012, the National Assembly of Nicaragua adopted a law to build a canal that would connect the Caribbean to the Pacific. This would not merely give a boost to the Nicaraguan economy, but actually promote your country to one of the region’s richest economies. When is the canal scheduled for completion?
DO: Indeed, a vision of such a canal goes back as long as the history of Nicaragua.
RТ: Five centuries?
DO: Ever since the Spanish conquest. Later on, Great Britain rivaled Spain for control of Nicaragua, thinking there was a natural waterway here. It sort of existed, by way of the San Juan River that springs from Lake Nicaragua. But one section was missing – a canal across the narrow isthmus of Rivas. Because of that, our country ended up in the middle of geopolitical disputes and became a target for US expansionist policies.
Nicaragua lost all independence after the US invasion. But what’s important here is that this project has always been on the books. Over a century ago, the Americans themselves looked into building a canal in Nicaragua, but then they decided to invest in the Panama Canal. Once we became independent, we revisited this vision, and now we are working to make it real. We feel that the project is getting on track now. As a matter of fact, the region does need one more transit route.
The Panama Canal cannot satisfy the current demand for international transportation, especially freight traffic. Even with a view to expanding the Panama Canal, which is currently underway, it will still leave a lot to be desired in terms of traffic speed and waiting time.
Our canal would not serve to substitute the Panama Canal, but rather to complement it.
There is similar logic here as in urban planning: the more roads you have in your city, the better the traffic. We are looking at providing our region with two major waterway routes instead of one. This would enhance the region’s transit capabilities, bring down transit costs and thus benefit global trade in general, serving not just our own interests as an economy, but those of the entire international community.
For Nicaragua, it would also mean independence, giving us access to resources and the kind of revenues that would enable us to become entirely self-sufficient. As of now, we are a dependent economy. There is nothing wrong with interdependence and complementariness, but one-way dependency is bad for anyone.
RТ: So when will Nicaragua finally get its chance?
DO: Very soon, I hope. There is a lot of work being done. Chinese companies are in charge of the project, and we expect it to be accomplished rather quickly.
RТ:It was initially expected to take ten years, if I’m not mistaken.
DO: We think it is possible to get it done within a shorter period. The exact timeline will be determined by the companies involved in the project, once they assess its profitability and get down to construction. After that, we will have a better idea about the timeframe.
RT: This year the United States has terminated its annual aid commitments to Nicaragua. How has that affected your country?
DO: Nicaragua is highly vulnerable as an economy. Throughout our history, our economy has suffered at the hands of the US and its policies. The city of Granada, for example, was burnt to the ground, falling prey to America’s expansionist policies. All those wars and military invasions the US has sponsored or provoked. There has even been a ruling by the International Court of Justice, binding the United States to compensate Nicaragua for all our losses, but the US has ignored this verdict.
Of course, the fact that the US has terminated what they call “aid” to Nicaragua has had negative consequences for our people and our country. But in reality, that was no aid. What the Americans call “aid” was really tiny installments in payment of the enormous debt the US owes to Nicaragua.
That was no aid and no cooperation. That was merely an allowance they paid us, passing it for “aid” and “cooperation”.
And it came with tight conditions attached, too. So we cannot talk of Nicaragua as a sovereign and independent nation as long as we remain critically dependent upon the United States and its current political trends, its prevalent frame of mind and the amount of influence radical groups enjoy there at any given moment of time. Because those are the groups that largely determine US foreign policies. They are the ones who contest in court all US cooperation programs with Nicaragua, and even call for using force against Latin American nations that dare stand up for our independence.
That is why terminating any format of cooperation is bound to have a negative impact on Nicaragua. But that is exactly what makes it so important for us to ensure that our nation should no longer be dependent upon this sort of conditional cooperation with either the United States or the European Union.
The US has essentially pursued a policy of a racket vis-à-vis Nicaragua and its people. This is unfair and undemocratic. They are not supporting liberty, they are promoting servitude.
This is what prompts us to get the canal done as soon as possible. It would relieve us of our present dependency upon the US and Europe and their hegemonic policies.
RT: The United States is all set for a presidential election. What are Nicaragua’s expectations in this regard?
DO: I believe this is an election where the American people should vote for their government to commit itself to a peaceful foreign policy agenda. That is what I see as most important. The best thing the United States could do for the world is pursue peace, not war. A policy of peace would enable the US to be more successful in addressing its domestic as well as global economic challenges – provided that they choose to seek an alternative to the neoliberal policies that were predominant among capitalist economies in recent years, and have proved to be such a failure.
RT: What is your idea of a perfect world? And what role would you see in it for Latin America, the United States or Russia?
DO: I am sure we are already heading that way, despite efforts from certain forces to prevent this kind of a change. I mean the American far-right, who won’t even tolerate a president such as Barack Obama: they denounce him merely because of his African origins and the color of his skin.
Yet these forces grow ever weaker with time. The same is happening in Europe.
Reality itself sends a signal to the nations that used to feel like they ruled the world until recently, telling them the world can no longer go on with hegemonic attitudes.
It was reality that has shaped what we know today as a multi-polar world. And regardless of whether hegemonic powers choose to move along with the rest of the world, the world favors multi-polarity, and we are moving in that direction.
We hope that those in power in the world’s most advanced economies will finally realize that the path they had been following, thinking it to be a path toward peace, stability, growth and development, has eventually brought them to the verge of disaster, and they are the ones heading toward a cliff.
In the past, they used to drive us toward self-destruction, but this time, they are themselves set on a path to collapse. Their only option is to change themselves, and to that end, they need to evolve, and to promote a world order that would be in line with international law, UN principles and the laws of international trade in a multi-polar world.
RT: So you believe this is reality rather than wishful thinking?
DO: It is reality, I am sure of that. We already see it happening.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:57 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.thelocal
The Local/Agence France-Presse
October 31, 2012
Sweden agrees to help monitor Nato airspace
====
[Finland] is the only non-Nato European state bordering Russia, and its non-alignment with the military bloc is seen as an important tool for maintaining good relations with its mighty neighbour. [Belarus and Ukraine border Russia. Finland is the only European Union member not a full member of NATO that borders Russia.]
In June, Russian armed forces chief Nikolai Makarov issued a warning to Helsinki over its close cooperation with Nato.
====
Sweden said Wednesday that it and Finland, two countries outside any military alliances, would help monitor the airspace of Nato member Iceland for a few months in early 2014 in what is seen as a sensitive step.
Iceland has no armed forces of its own. The United States guaranteed the North Atlantic island's defence with a permanent military presence from 1951 until 2006 under an agreement between the two countries.
But the US closed its Naval Air Station at Keflavik in 2006, and since then Nato member Norway has helped Reykjavik monitor its airspace.
"In connection with the Nordic Council of Ministers session in Helsinki today, Sweden and Finland have expressed their willingness to take part in monitoring Iceland's airspace together with Norway for the first four months of 2014," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said in a statement.
Bildt later told the Swedish news agency TT the decision was "about solidarity with Nordic neighbours and nothing to do with Nato. And keep in mind that Nato has sought assurances that we will not be carrying out Nato missions, that is for Nato countries."
Both Nato and the parliaments in Finland and Sweden have to give the green light for the operation, though no dates have yet been set for those decisions.
While Finland and Sweden are not members of the North Atlantic alliance, the two countries cooperate closely with it and regularly take part in exercises and peacekeeping operations through NATO's Partnership for Peace programme.
While increasing Nato cooperation is sensitive in both countries, it is particularly so in Finland.
It is the only non-Nato European state bordering Russia, and its non-alignment with the military bloc is seen as an important tool for maintaining good relations with its mighty neighbour.
In June, Russian armed forces chief Nikolai Makarov issued a warning to Helsinki over its close cooperation with Nato.
"Finland's participation in Nato exercises proves that Finland is gradually joining Nato activities. Under certain circumstances this can create a dangerous situation regarding Russia's military security," Makarov said in a speech in Helsinki.
Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen has said his government will not discuss the issue of possible Nato membership during the current cabinet term, which ends in 2015.
============
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@
============
The Local/Agence France-Presse
October 31, 2012
Sweden agrees to help monitor Nato airspace
====
[Finland] is the only non-Nato European state bordering Russia, and its non-alignment with the military bloc is seen as an important tool for maintaining good relations with its mighty neighbour. [Belarus and Ukraine border Russia. Finland is the only European Union member not a full member of NATO that borders Russia.]
In June, Russian armed forces chief Nikolai Makarov issued a warning to Helsinki over its close cooperation with Nato.
====
Sweden said Wednesday that it and Finland, two countries outside any military alliances, would help monitor the airspace of Nato member Iceland for a few months in early 2014 in what is seen as a sensitive step.
Iceland has no armed forces of its own. The United States guaranteed the North Atlantic island's defence with a permanent military presence from 1951 until 2006 under an agreement between the two countries.
But the US closed its Naval Air Station at Keflavik in 2006, and since then Nato member Norway has helped Reykjavik monitor its airspace.
"In connection with the Nordic Council of Ministers session in Helsinki today, Sweden and Finland have expressed their willingness to take part in monitoring Iceland's airspace together with Norway for the first four months of 2014," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said in a statement.
Bildt later told the Swedish news agency TT the decision was "about solidarity with Nordic neighbours and nothing to do with Nato. And keep in mind that Nato has sought assurances that we will not be carrying out Nato missions, that is for Nato countries."
Both Nato and the parliaments in Finland and Sweden have to give the green light for the operation, though no dates have yet been set for those decisions.
While Finland and Sweden are not members of the North Atlantic alliance, the two countries cooperate closely with it and regularly take part in exercises and peacekeeping operations through NATO's Partnership for Peace programme.
While increasing Nato cooperation is sensitive in both countries, it is particularly so in Finland.
It is the only non-Nato European state bordering Russia, and its non-alignment with the military bloc is seen as an important tool for maintaining good relations with its mighty neighbour.
In June, Russian armed forces chief Nikolai Makarov issued a warning to Helsinki over its close cooperation with Nato.
"Finland's participation in Nato exercises proves that Finland is gradually joining Nato activities. Under certain circumstances this can create a dangerous situation regarding Russia's military security," Makarov said in a speech in Helsinki.
Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen has said his government will not discuss the issue of possible Nato membership during the current cabinet term, which ends in 2015.
============
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@
============
Wed Oct 31, 2012 8:55 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://dawn.
Dawn
October 31, 2012
Imperialism on a budget
Rafia Zakaria*
====
In fact, the reason for their camaraderie — Mitt Romney even offered a sportsmanlike compliment to President Obama on his drone doings — goes beyond their campaigns. It speaks instead of the difficult task of being a face-saving, still savage, still hegemonic superpower when the money for the grandstanding required of the job simply isn’t there.
As far as issues of intervention or foreign policy are concerned, the challenge faced by the two candidates is not each other but the onerous task of being sufficiently imperial without the cash to make the threats and the drama that surrounds them sufficiently forbidding and regal.
It is economics, then, that promises a new kind of superpower, an end to the traditional kinds of wars with hundreds of thousands of troops, the military industrial complex of old-time imperialism financed by billions of dollars and an accompanying ecosystem of puppet governments and defence contracts.
====
Last week’s presidential debate bet-ween President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Governor Mitt Romney was supposed to focus on foreign policy, on giving each man seeking to lead the world’s sole superpower an opportunity to articulate his vision for existence in the world at large.
As most commentators not located on the North American mainland have concluded, the debate’s avowed theme was misleading. What the world got, instead, was a smorgasbord of countries’ names — Mali and Libya and China and the ‘stans’ — sandwiched between macho posturing of who, if given the opportunity, could promise to kill the most people (if needed of course) in the name of American security.
If you fell asleep you were not the only one, as one satirical commentator noted. Most undecided voters, those uncut gems for whom both campaigns are toiling so earnestly, were probably lost to slumber after the first 10 minutes. While there could be many reasons for their disinterest, remaining ‘undecided’ in the US is in itself a turning away from things political.
The rest of the world had more than mere boredom to weep over. The two candidates avoided articulating, beyond the most superficial of paeans (Obama does pronounce Pakistan correctly even if he likes to bomb it by remote control), a substantive vision of how they differed on the subject (they don’t) or how American foreign policy in any shape or form would be different for either man in the Oval Office (it won’t).
In fact, the reason for their camaraderie — Mitt Romney even offered a sportsmanlike compliment to President Obama on his drone doings — goes beyond their campaigns. It speaks instead of the difficult task of being a face-saving, still savage, still hegemonic superpower when the money for the grandstanding required of the job simply isn’t there.
A case in point was the two candidates’ somewhat staged spat over Syria. Governor Romney might have taken some tongue-clicking pleasure in implying that the Obama administration was too late and doing pathetically little to aid Syrians beset with a civil war that has killed thousands. But there was little in his accusations (relying too much on the UN and not being terse enough with Iran) that would lead any watching voter to conclude that a President Romney would order immediate intervention in Syria with a solid American troop presence.
As far as issues of intervention or foreign policy are concerned, the challenge faced by the two candidates is not each other but the onerous task of being sufficiently imperial without the cash to make the threats and the drama that surrounds them sufficiently forbidding and regal.
Drones have solved some of the problem — flying robots that kill can be quite handy in intimidating this or that country and counting down lists of bearded enemies — but they have their limits.
What they cannot do is continue with the impression that America can still, as Romney put it, “install governments we like” in countries where the old dictators supported by the US have become dated.
Nation-building has proved a costly exercise and no ordinary American, after having finally wised up to the cost of such expeditionary machismo, is willing anymore to pay for it.
However, the debacles of Iraqs and Afghanistans past have not killed the kick of supremacy nor the addiction to a bossy hauteur. What Obama and Romney must construct is a way to be imperial on a budget, to retain the trappings of supremacy but without the infinitude of surplus or the naiveté of overtures that promised to remake all corners of Iraq or Afghanistan in the likeness of Nebraska and Kansas.
What the candidates’ stances demonstrated (since all their responses can be confidently known to have been vetted by significant research of the desires of the voters they wish to convert) is that while the cash for colonialist ventures may no longer be there, the desire for them persists.
If the American voters of today will roll their eyes at the prospect of another war or another plan for putting troops here or there, it is not because they don’t think such meddling is wrong. It’s simply because they don’t like the bill they got the last time they ordered a meal as lavish as that.
American presidential candidates are no different.
If Obama appears less hawkish than Romney, less inclined to promise a bombing of Iran or to intervene in Syria, he worked hard to sound just as martial in lauding his trigger-happy alacrity in catching Osama bin Laden, in wanting to spank whatever other country that happened to have terrorists holed up. Governor Romney, not having the burden of a record, did what challengers — especially Republican ones — do: help their constituencies imagine many wars, all of which could still be indulged in without a concern for cost.
It is economics, then, that promises a new kind of superpower, an end to the traditional kinds of wars with hundreds of thousands of troops, the military industrial complex of old-time imperialism financed by billions of dollars and an accompanying ecosystem of puppet governments and defence contracts.
The saving-face imperialism of the next decade is hegemony on a budget, interest in the remote control, the shortcut, the 100 schools instead of the 100-member legislature.
It is something that looks kind of like democracy instead of the whole circus of fair voting and legal institutions and other such expensive things.
Like a fat, rich man suddenly finding himself poor, who must eat the salad and imagine the steak, who tells himself that he could still have his steak if he wished and convinces himself that he has chosen self-denial, the superpower on a budget must practise a new, frugal, imperialism.
This imperialism is less grand and more automated, but perhaps no less cumbersome for the world that must endure it.
*The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
Dawn
October 31, 2012
Imperialism on a budget
Rafia Zakaria*
====
In fact, the reason for their camaraderie — Mitt Romney even offered a sportsmanlike compliment to President Obama on his drone doings — goes beyond their campaigns. It speaks instead of the difficult task of being a face-saving, still savage, still hegemonic superpower when the money for the grandstanding required of the job simply isn’t there.
As far as issues of intervention or foreign policy are concerned, the challenge faced by the two candidates is not each other but the onerous task of being sufficiently imperial without the cash to make the threats and the drama that surrounds them sufficiently forbidding and regal.
It is economics, then, that promises a new kind of superpower, an end to the traditional kinds of wars with hundreds of thousands of troops, the military industrial complex of old-time imperialism financed by billions of dollars and an accompanying ecosystem of puppet governments and defence contracts.
====
Last week’s presidential debate bet-ween President Barack Obama and his Republican challenger Governor Mitt Romney was supposed to focus on foreign policy, on giving each man seeking to lead the world’s sole superpower an opportunity to articulate his vision for existence in the world at large.
As most commentators not located on the North American mainland have concluded, the debate’s avowed theme was misleading. What the world got, instead, was a smorgasbord of countries’ names — Mali and Libya and China and the ‘stans’ — sandwiched between macho posturing of who, if given the opportunity, could promise to kill the most people (if needed of course) in the name of American security.
If you fell asleep you were not the only one, as one satirical commentator noted. Most undecided voters, those uncut gems for whom both campaigns are toiling so earnestly, were probably lost to slumber after the first 10 minutes. While there could be many reasons for their disinterest, remaining ‘undecided’ in the US is in itself a turning away from things political.
The rest of the world had more than mere boredom to weep over. The two candidates avoided articulating, beyond the most superficial of paeans (Obama does pronounce Pakistan correctly even if he likes to bomb it by remote control), a substantive vision of how they differed on the subject (they don’t) or how American foreign policy in any shape or form would be different for either man in the Oval Office (it won’t).
In fact, the reason for their camaraderie — Mitt Romney even offered a sportsmanlike compliment to President Obama on his drone doings — goes beyond their campaigns. It speaks instead of the difficult task of being a face-saving, still savage, still hegemonic superpower when the money for the grandstanding required of the job simply isn’t there.
A case in point was the two candidates’ somewhat staged spat over Syria. Governor Romney might have taken some tongue-clicking pleasure in implying that the Obama administration was too late and doing pathetically little to aid Syrians beset with a civil war that has killed thousands. But there was little in his accusations (relying too much on the UN and not being terse enough with Iran) that would lead any watching voter to conclude that a President Romney would order immediate intervention in Syria with a solid American troop presence.
As far as issues of intervention or foreign policy are concerned, the challenge faced by the two candidates is not each other but the onerous task of being sufficiently imperial without the cash to make the threats and the drama that surrounds them sufficiently forbidding and regal.
Drones have solved some of the problem — flying robots that kill can be quite handy in intimidating this or that country and counting down lists of bearded enemies — but they have their limits.
What they cannot do is continue with the impression that America can still, as Romney put it, “install governments we like” in countries where the old dictators supported by the US have become dated.
Nation-building has proved a costly exercise and no ordinary American, after having finally wised up to the cost of such expeditionary machismo, is willing anymore to pay for it.
However, the debacles of Iraqs and Afghanistans past have not killed the kick of supremacy nor the addiction to a bossy hauteur. What Obama and Romney must construct is a way to be imperial on a budget, to retain the trappings of supremacy but without the infinitude of surplus or the naiveté of overtures that promised to remake all corners of Iraq or Afghanistan in the likeness of Nebraska and Kansas.
What the candidates’ stances demonstrated (since all their responses can be confidently known to have been vetted by significant research of the desires of the voters they wish to convert) is that while the cash for colonialist ventures may no longer be there, the desire for them persists.
If the American voters of today will roll their eyes at the prospect of another war or another plan for putting troops here or there, it is not because they don’t think such meddling is wrong. It’s simply because they don’t like the bill they got the last time they ordered a meal as lavish as that.
American presidential candidates are no different.
If Obama appears less hawkish than Romney, less inclined to promise a bombing of Iran or to intervene in Syria, he worked hard to sound just as martial in lauding his trigger-happy alacrity in catching Osama bin Laden, in wanting to spank whatever other country that happened to have terrorists holed up. Governor Romney, not having the burden of a record, did what challengers — especially Republican ones — do: help their constituencies imagine many wars, all of which could still be indulged in without a concern for cost.
It is economics, then, that promises a new kind of superpower, an end to the traditional kinds of wars with hundreds of thousands of troops, the military industrial complex of old-time imperialism financed by billions of dollars and an accompanying ecosystem of puppet governments and defence contracts.
The saving-face imperialism of the next decade is hegemony on a budget, interest in the remote control, the shortcut, the 100 schools instead of the 100-member legislature.
It is something that looks kind of like democracy instead of the whole circus of fair voting and legal institutions and other such expensive things.
Like a fat, rich man suddenly finding himself poor, who must eat the salad and imagine the steak, who tells himself that he could still have his steak if he wished and convinces himself that he has chosen self-denial, the superpower on a budget must practise a new, frugal, imperialism.
This imperialism is less grand and more automated, but perhaps no less cumbersome for the world that must endure it.
*The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
