|
At the beginning of the 21st century, the United States is still a superpower. But it's a superpower facing competition from beyond its borders as well as internal difficulties. Its lower and middle classes are turning out to be the losers of globalization. |
|
|
Kenya's Masai people, herders to the core, have found they can increase their meager income by leasing land to onion farmers. The farmers build fences, which dice up elephant migration corridors surrounding the country's famous Amboseli National Park. So wildlife groups have devised a novel system of payments to the Masai that cover the income difference between grazing and leasing. |
|
|
Critics have exposed how globalization's benefits have been unequally distributed around the world. Many of the world's poorer regions have become poorer still in relation to the regions that gained. And within regions, it turns out that globalization often worsens wealth and income inequalities. However, critics admit and defenders boast that at least for some -- for example, the US -- globalization has meant higher wealth, income, or consumption levels. But a closer look raises questions about these beneficiaries of globalization. |
|
 On Oct. 9, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to economist Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh and the Grameen Bank that he founded. Yunus and the bank were recognized for finding a way to help the poor negatively affected by globalization and capitalism. When contrasted with the current climate of fear following North Korea's nuclear test, Yunus' method of promoting peace by tackling poverty becomes an even more meaningful example of positive peace.
We live in a time in which the technology humans have developed has been used to produce unimaginably awful weapons, and in which we are constantly threatened by mass destruction. Not only has violence released the damaging power of war itself and disrupted international order, but it also threatens the very conditions for human existence.
However, we should not seek to promote peace by using violence to deal with violence. Nor should we limit ourselves to relying on diplomacy or deterrence to protect national security.
The key lies in discovering how to advance all of humanity and use "the science of survival" to confront all forms of violence.
|
|
 A Review of Hugo Chavez: Oil, Politics, and The Challenge to the United States by Nikolas KozloffThe reaction of most mainstream US politicians to Hugo Chavez's recent rhetorical flourish during his speech at the United Nations where he called George Bush the devil certainly showed the world how much of a threat the Washington powermongers consider his Bolivarian revolution to be. From the liberal Nancy Pelosi of California to the far-right, Chavez's comparison provoked a virtual flood of angry criticism. Interestingly enough, the White House did not issue a denial, leaving it open to speculation as to whether or not Chavez's characterization of Mr. Bush was more accurate than previously acknowledged.
At any rate, the point I'm trying to make here is that Hugo Chavez does not really seem to care what the politicians in Washington and their backers in the boardrooms of the US think about him. Furthermore, by adopting this attitude and expressing it at forums like the UN, Mr. Chavez has vocalized the sentiments of millions of people the world over. Yet, his words matter little when compared to his actions to subvert the neoliberal/neoconservative agenda of Washington and its cohorts. It is these actions that strike at the heart of the Empire and which have drawn the true wrath of those whom interests they attack. |
|
|
Since hunger and famine are still widespread in parts of Africa and Asia, the international community is in violation of the right to food as a basic universal human right, according to a new study released by the United Nations. "Despite promises to eradicate hunger, there has been little progress in reducing the global number of victims of hunger," said Jean Ziegler, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food and author of the report. More than 852 million people -- about 13 percent of the world population -- do not have enough food each day to sustain a healthy life, according to the Rome-based Food and Agriculture organization (FAO). |
|
|
NEW DELHI: Economic growth may have been spectacular since 1993 — that is, post-economic reforms — but it seems to be trickling down rather slowly.
A soon-to-be-released official report has estimated that poverty declined by a mere 0.74% during the 11-year period ended 2004-05. Although there are signs of things moving a little faster, at 0.79%, between 1999-2000 and 2004-05, going by another measure, the number of people below poverty line may have remained unchanged.
National Sample Survey Organisation’s (NSSO) findings show the number of people living below poverty line (BPL) at 22.15% in 2004-05, compared with 26.09% in 1999-2000. In the same period, the country’s GDP grew at around 6%.
|
|
 Plummeting gas prices have been good news for the motoring public. They also raise the questions: Why? How? Since their August highs, oil prices dropped from $77 to $60 per barrel. Gas prices have fallen from an average of $3.04 to $2.25 per gallon. In a September USA Today poll 42 percent of Americans thought there was a direct connection between the Republicans wanting to keep control of Congress and gas prices falling. Free-market types went to town. Oil is set by market forces, not Washington, rang the unified voice of analysts. "If only Bush had that kind of control," mused White House spokesman Tony Snow. But subtle manipulation is a form of control. |
|
|
19th October 2006 - Jim Lobe, IPS Five years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the U.S. public has become increasingly anxious about world events and the role that their country is playing in them, according to the latest "Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy" survey released here Wednesday by a non-partisan group, Public Agenda, and Foreign Affairs journal. |
|
 For decades development cooperation has been based on the assumption that countries of the global South need to be helped in their development with monies coming from the rich North. A symbol of this “partnership” (a euphemism for what are too frequently paternalistic donor-recipient relationships) is the 35-year-old unfulfilled promise by developed countries to allocate 0.7% of their gross domestic product to official development assistance (ODA). Since the time this pledge was made, the discourse about development financing has concentrated on the question of how to mobilize more money for the South, whether through an increase in ODA or through new financial instruments like global taxes. Yet, however useful, “aid” is not the solution. It is not sufficient and, in the long term, Southern countries can only overcome their dependency on rich donors when their governments are able to mobilize enough domestic resources to guarantee universal access to reasonable quality essential public goods and services. New perspectives are needed. |
|
|
