Born from a poor family and executed [hanged to death at dawn ] -Saddam Hussein
Today a dicatator was killed ...but violence is still present in all the way he went through ..
The question remain who will benefit from his death ??
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
Comment of anonymous [answer from Yusha Prisheela Mottee]
Anonymous
its all BULLSHIT guys.just go and fuck yourselfs sons of bitchs.go sell ya dicks and pussy.then u'll lots of commentshahah!!!fuck your full of crap!!!!!!!!!!!
Whoever you are .. I ..Prisheela Yusha MOttee do respect your point of view,you seem to be immature to use such a language or perhaps its due to anger you ve written so ..
If the blog is crap ,i propose u to become a member and contact me on yusha_16@hotmail.com
to get the password to post your articles
Its a challenge change the blog
yusha
its all BULLSHIT guys.just go and fuck yourselfs sons of bitchs.go sell ya dicks and pussy.then u'll lots of commentshahah!!!fuck your full of crap!!!!!!!!!!!
Whoever you are .. I ..Prisheela Yusha MOttee do respect your point of view,you seem to be immature to use such a language or perhaps its due to anger you ve written so ..
If the blog is crap ,i propose u to become a member and contact me on yusha_16@hotmail.com
to get the password to post your articles
Its a challenge change the blog
yusha
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Does the Future Belong to China?(Nasif)
China's rise is no longer a prediction. It is a fact. It is already the world's fastest-growing large economy, and the second largest holder of foreign-exchange reserves, mainly dollars. It has the world's largest army (2.5 million men) and the fourth largest defense budget, which is rising by more than 10 percent annually. Whether or not it overtakes the United States economically, which looks to me like a distant prospect, it is the powerful new force on the global scene.
China's growth has obvious and amazing benefits for the world, and in particular for America. A report shows that cheap imports from China have saved American consumers more than $600 billion in the past decade. They have saved manufacturers even more. The Economist magazine notes that "it was largely thanks to China's robust growth that the world as a whole escaped recession after America's stockmarket bubble burst in 2000-01." And by buying up U.S. Treasury bills, China—along with other Asian countries—have allowed Americans and their government to keep borrowing and spending, and thus to keep the world economy going.All thes probably r the effects of the 11/09....still haunting america!!!
There have been two great shifts in global power.The first was the rise of Europe, which around the 17th century became the richest, most enterprising and ambitious part of the world. The second was the rise of the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it became the single most powerful country in the world, the globe's decisive player in economics and politics.Still today,amerique is said to be the sole world power,but for how much time further???
For centuries, the rest of the world was a stage for the ambitions and interests of the West's great powers. China's rise, along with that of India and the continuing weight of Japan, represents the third great shift in global power—the rise of Asia.
Great powers are not born every day. The list of current ones—the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia—has been mostly the same for two centuries. The arrival of a new one usually produces tension if not turmoil, as the newcomer tries to fit into the established order—or overturns it to suit its purposes. Think of the rise of Germany and Japan in the early 20th century, or the decline of the Ottoman Empire in that same period, which created the modern Middle East.
Great-power conflict is something the world has not seen since the cold war. But if it were to begin, all the troubles we worry about now—terrorism, Iran, North Korea—would decrease in comparison. It would mean arms races, border troubles, and perhaps more. Even without those dire scenarios, China complicates international life. Take relations between the United States and Europe. Iraq was a temporary problem. But differing attitudes on the rise of China are likely to produce permanent strains in the Western Alliance.
Inevitably, the China challenge looms largest for the United States. Historically, when the world's leading power is challenged by a rising one, the two have had a difficult relationship. And while neither side will ever admit it publicly, both China and the United States worry and plan for trouble. To say this is not to assume war or even conflict, but merely to note that there is likely to be tension between the two countries. How both sides handle it will determine their future relations—and the peace of the world.Lets just watch it!!!
China's growth has obvious and amazing benefits for the world, and in particular for America. A report shows that cheap imports from China have saved American consumers more than $600 billion in the past decade. They have saved manufacturers even more. The Economist magazine notes that "it was largely thanks to China's robust growth that the world as a whole escaped recession after America's stockmarket bubble burst in 2000-01." And by buying up U.S. Treasury bills, China—along with other Asian countries—have allowed Americans and their government to keep borrowing and spending, and thus to keep the world economy going.All thes probably r the effects of the 11/09....still haunting america!!!
There have been two great shifts in global power.The first was the rise of Europe, which around the 17th century became the richest, most enterprising and ambitious part of the world. The second was the rise of the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it became the single most powerful country in the world, the globe's decisive player in economics and politics.Still today,amerique is said to be the sole world power,but for how much time further???
For centuries, the rest of the world was a stage for the ambitions and interests of the West's great powers. China's rise, along with that of India and the continuing weight of Japan, represents the third great shift in global power—the rise of Asia.
Great powers are not born every day. The list of current ones—the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia—has been mostly the same for two centuries. The arrival of a new one usually produces tension if not turmoil, as the newcomer tries to fit into the established order—or overturns it to suit its purposes. Think of the rise of Germany and Japan in the early 20th century, or the decline of the Ottoman Empire in that same period, which created the modern Middle East.
Great-power conflict is something the world has not seen since the cold war. But if it were to begin, all the troubles we worry about now—terrorism, Iran, North Korea—would decrease in comparison. It would mean arms races, border troubles, and perhaps more. Even without those dire scenarios, China complicates international life. Take relations between the United States and Europe. Iraq was a temporary problem. But differing attitudes on the rise of China are likely to produce permanent strains in the Western Alliance.
Inevitably, the China challenge looms largest for the United States. Historically, when the world's leading power is challenged by a rising one, the two have had a difficult relationship. And while neither side will ever admit it publicly, both China and the United States worry and plan for trouble. To say this is not to assume war or even conflict, but merely to note that there is likely to be tension between the two countries. How both sides handle it will determine their future relations—and the peace of the world.Lets just watch it!!!
Monday, December 25, 2006
Encouragement comment ...from anonymous
What i sincerely think about this blog is that (without taking in consideration about the prior contents) (First thought) is that Politics still has its interest.Thats very interesting ang shocking too abt the high, deep and level of thoughts about particular topics about politics.Some makes us think even though some are baseless.
[Thanks from the team ]
[Thanks from the team ]
Thursday, December 21, 2006
“…under the name of religion”: Religion or misinterpretation of Religion???? [Bilaal Mauntah]
The first thing that comes in my mind when I read your post is misinterpretation and mixed up ideas. Your emphasis is more on RELIGION rather than fascism itself.
First of all, I want to clear something. Islam puts a lot of emphasis on respect and tolerance of other faiths. Don’t think that if some radicalised Muslims have so much hatred vis-à-vis other religions, it is the case for all Muslims over the world. The Koran is full of exhortations asking you as to why you “hear not”, “see not”, “think not”, “use not reason”, “ponder not”. The Koran encourages you to stop, think and make your conclusion. Your point of view on a subject may be different to mine. This is why it exists much school of thoughts in Islam. Still, false dogmas are created and used by radicals.
In addition, I quote from your post, “Women are forced to wear gloves and veils, civil servants and professors are subjected to religious and political tests.” My question to you is: Is it the religion that imposes such things or is it statesmen or individuals??? Are they driven by religion or is it that religion is used as a disguise to exert some sort of power? Does these organizations use religion to have maximum people at their side? Does they use such comments like you did to radicalise people and attract them at their side? My question here is: do you have any clues of the type of religious organization in operation in the country you mentioned? Any individual from any faith, be it you or I, have the right to follow any religion he/she wishes in all Islamic countries. Someone born in a Muslim family has the right to follow Islam if he/she wishes or not. A Muslim woman may choose to wear veil or not. It’s HER choice. Do not blame the RELIGION but blame,
(a) The persons who have false dogmas of religion and who imposed such things against women or else blame those false dogmas simply
(b) The authority they enjoy, blame those civilians who keep quiet of the actions of these organizations
This is the most important error you made. Because these persons has misinterpreted Islam and you have come to conclusions without proper research and study.
Lastly, I must say that it’s a topic to be talked of but your approach was not appropriate. I have not written all this to justify Islam. Islam needs no justification but to justify democracy and the liberty to choose religion and to avoid any further misunderstanding or misinterpretation like you were subject.
I have posted the whole critic I made as a comment to your post. You can see to it.
First of all, I want to clear something. Islam puts a lot of emphasis on respect and tolerance of other faiths. Don’t think that if some radicalised Muslims have so much hatred vis-à-vis other religions, it is the case for all Muslims over the world. The Koran is full of exhortations asking you as to why you “hear not”, “see not”, “think not”, “use not reason”, “ponder not”. The Koran encourages you to stop, think and make your conclusion. Your point of view on a subject may be different to mine. This is why it exists much school of thoughts in Islam. Still, false dogmas are created and used by radicals.
In addition, I quote from your post, “Women are forced to wear gloves and veils, civil servants and professors are subjected to religious and political tests.” My question to you is: Is it the religion that imposes such things or is it statesmen or individuals??? Are they driven by religion or is it that religion is used as a disguise to exert some sort of power? Does these organizations use religion to have maximum people at their side? Does they use such comments like you did to radicalise people and attract them at their side? My question here is: do you have any clues of the type of religious organization in operation in the country you mentioned? Any individual from any faith, be it you or I, have the right to follow any religion he/she wishes in all Islamic countries. Someone born in a Muslim family has the right to follow Islam if he/she wishes or not. A Muslim woman may choose to wear veil or not. It’s HER choice. Do not blame the RELIGION but blame,
(a) The persons who have false dogmas of religion and who imposed such things against women or else blame those false dogmas simply
(b) The authority they enjoy, blame those civilians who keep quiet of the actions of these organizations
This is the most important error you made. Because these persons has misinterpreted Islam and you have come to conclusions without proper research and study.
Lastly, I must say that it’s a topic to be talked of but your approach was not appropriate. I have not written all this to justify Islam. Islam needs no justification but to justify democracy and the liberty to choose religion and to avoid any further misunderstanding or misinterpretation like you were subject.
I have posted the whole critic I made as a comment to your post. You can see to it.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
"Mussolini beliefs " [Prisheela Yusha Mottee ]
Mussolini had openely said
"We aristocrats and democrats ,revolutionaries and reactionaries ,proletarians and anti- proletarians ,pacifists and anti-pacifists.It is sufficient to have a single aim _the nation.The rest is obvious " [BASIC FACTS SERIES POLITICAL SCIENCE ,Page 250 ],
individual liberty not being preserved under facism rule,led to dictatorship and broke out in world war 2 due to the misinterpretation of the meaning of democracy.
Reaching the year 2006 ,the meaning of democracy is still wrongly interpreted in certain part of the muslim world where religious organisations rule as dictators .In a seminal article written in the Newsweek 13 February 2006 Fareed http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10966808/site/newsweek/ Zakaria said democracy and individual liberty is one of the most important fact which the muslim world want to achieve.The main reasons for preserving individual libery in Iraq is because human rights are not respected.The examples given by Zakaria are as follows: Women are forced to wear gloves and veils ,civil servants and professors are subjected to religious and political tests .Such a situation occured because inidividual liberty was not preserved and thus , the democratic state transfomed into tyranny under the name of religion.
Mussolini s belief is born again in form of religious organisation acting as dictators ...ITS A SHAME
"We aristocrats and democrats ,revolutionaries and reactionaries ,proletarians and anti- proletarians ,pacifists and anti-pacifists.It is sufficient to have a single aim _the nation.The rest is obvious " [BASIC FACTS SERIES POLITICAL SCIENCE ,Page 250 ],
individual liberty not being preserved under facism rule,led to dictatorship and broke out in world war 2 due to the misinterpretation of the meaning of democracy.
Reaching the year 2006 ,the meaning of democracy is still wrongly interpreted in certain part of the muslim world where religious organisations rule as dictators .In a seminal article written in the Newsweek 13 February 2006 Fareed http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10966808/site/newsweek/ Zakaria said democracy and individual liberty is one of the most important fact which the muslim world want to achieve.The main reasons for preserving individual libery in Iraq is because human rights are not respected.The examples given by Zakaria are as follows: Women are forced to wear gloves and veils ,civil servants and professors are subjected to religious and political tests .Such a situation occured because inidividual liberty was not preserved and thus , the democratic state transfomed into tyranny under the name of religion.
Mussolini s belief is born again in form of religious organisation acting as dictators ...ITS A SHAME
Power and Dominance [Bilaal Mauntah]
Even abstract and complex, power and dominance in the international system are worth discussing. The actions of a state are guided by motives. The primary motive of states and therefore statesman is power. A sort of domination on another individual or a state. They will protect their own interest at any cost. Even killing that is war. But don’t you think that for present times where anyone can speak freely, we have free press and so on, this fact is savage, barbarian and meant for the past. Why is it not changing? How can we change it?? First of all, we normal people can we make things change? Or else can we aspire to make things change? Difficult question…
Let’s take the case of a superpower. In a unipolar world we are living, USA doesn’t have any constraints exerted from other states (external constraints). The root of change may come from inside that is internally, from the people within the state. But is it working? So many strikes were organised against the war in Iraq to the point that Bush popularity came at its lowest level ever. But nothing happened. Even through the votes, no one will be able to change things. Each newly elected will have the same role, the same target and the same goal like his predecessor he wants it or not. This is the system. He/she has the responsibility to maintain the state at its powerful crescendo. Failing to do so, he/she may loose in future elections and may loose power and privileges of being at the head of the state. Therefore USA has a complete dominance over the international system.
It is this dominance that I am perpetually pointing out and which I term as vicious and outrageous. For sure, this dominance is the kiss of death of USA as a superpower. Maybe the EU will become a future superpower in the coming 10 years with NATO starting to distant from USA and so to the major allies of USA in Europe like Spain, Italy and probably UK with the fall of the labour party in the upcoming election. But will the EU be able to stand against the overwhelming power of the USA or will it be China in the coming decades???
Let’s take the case of a superpower. In a unipolar world we are living, USA doesn’t have any constraints exerted from other states (external constraints). The root of change may come from inside that is internally, from the people within the state. But is it working? So many strikes were organised against the war in Iraq to the point that Bush popularity came at its lowest level ever. But nothing happened. Even through the votes, no one will be able to change things. Each newly elected will have the same role, the same target and the same goal like his predecessor he wants it or not. This is the system. He/she has the responsibility to maintain the state at its powerful crescendo. Failing to do so, he/she may loose in future elections and may loose power and privileges of being at the head of the state. Therefore USA has a complete dominance over the international system.
It is this dominance that I am perpetually pointing out and which I term as vicious and outrageous. For sure, this dominance is the kiss of death of USA as a superpower. Maybe the EU will become a future superpower in the coming 10 years with NATO starting to distant from USA and so to the major allies of USA in Europe like Spain, Italy and probably UK with the fall of the labour party in the upcoming election. But will the EU be able to stand against the overwhelming power of the USA or will it be China in the coming decades???Questions without answers... [Reply to Prisheela Yusha Mottee by Bilaal Mauntah]
I think that there are questions that will be left unanswered. You talked about facts as being an illusion. Yes there are facts which are only illusion. For example, to protect its own interest, a statesman can use all sort of stratagem…propaganda through the press with false information for instance. It can also use the tv to spread images which do not really reflect the truth. These are illusions and this is the game, the bet of politicians to remain on top. “The secrets” like you termed it, is the reality of facts and it is well preserved unless there are leaks! Politics is a very complex subject, be it international or domestic…there are certain answers that we won’t find but we can guess…but are our guess right? Shall we better study decisions, take the place of the decider/s (whoever it may be or whoever they may be), study each perspective of the solution and find how to elude from popular critics, our guess will come closer to the reality of facts. EVIDENCE, you will find them afterwards or maybe not because like you have said, everything is SECRET!!! But then, as a student of Political Science, will you be satisfied by “blackouts”???
Questions without answers ...[Prisheela Yusha Mottee]
So ...Bill what you have written is nice ..we have to stop and have a moment of reflexion ..as you know there are many questions in our mind with no answers ..its true you have based yourself on many facts ..and lot of reading ...
Are they real facts ?? i m not sayin they are false but THE SOURCE of those facts ,the ideas ..are they real or just an illusion ?? .. in this international system there are many secrets ..The only truth is death ..death of soldiers ,civils, innocent and DEMONS..
Well after reading what you said ,the questions in my mind are ..Who gave orders to kill? Who is behind this master plan ??Is it one person or a group of person ...
I guess its just the system ...the international system
The system cannot be changed but a virus can destroy it ..
Are they real facts ?? i m not sayin they are false but THE SOURCE of those facts ,the ideas ..are they real or just an illusion ?? .. in this international system there are many secrets ..The only truth is death ..death of soldiers ,civils, innocent and DEMONS..
Well after reading what you said ,the questions in my mind are ..Who gave orders to kill? Who is behind this master plan ??Is it one person or a group of person ...
I guess its just the system ...the international system
The system cannot be changed but a virus can destroy it ..
Monday, December 18, 2006
Iraq after Invasion: For Better or Worse?
A prominent American journalist writes: "Despite the investment that has undoubtedly taken place, virtually all basic services are in a worse state now than they were before the invasion. There is less clean water, less sewage control, less gas, less petrol, less power. Baghdad now has an average of only 5.8 hours of electricity a day. At present Iraq is producing 1.8 million barrels of oil a day; just before the invasion the figure was 2.5 million barrels a day.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
According to Dr. Muqtedar Khan ,"much of this isn't the fault of the coalition: power, water and oil are particular targets for the insurgents. But the failure of the coalition to protect these supplies makes people angry."
He just published one of his works:Jihad for Jerusalem .It advances a theory of agency in international politics. This theory of agency is based on a reconstituted constructivist paradigm. The theory is tested by an examination of the foreign policy decision making of Iran, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia towards Israel from 1967-1997. The book uses the foreign policy of these states as cases to test the tension between religion and rationality, between identity and reason, between power and morality, and advances a constructivist theory of choice that explains the importance of the role of culture, religion, identity, and core values in international politics.
Is Saddam Hussein really culprit of genocide? [Bilaal Mauntah]
During Saddam’s trial, the prosecution estimates that “180,000 Kurds were killed when Saddam's army waged a scorched-earth campaign against Kurdish separatist guerrillas, allegedly destroying hundreds of villages, killing or forcing their residents to flee”.According to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, approved and proposed for signature and ratification or accession by General Assembly resolution 260 A (III) of 9 December 1948; entry into force 12 January 1951. Article 2 defines genocide as follows: Article 2: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Therefore Saddam is culprit of genocide according to a, b and c.
Iraq's invasion led by US forces [Bilaal Mauntah]
As students of political science should we left the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was necessary and legal. Was the Iraqi regime a real threat to world’s security or more particularly a threat to US security? As per the reasons of Colin Powell at the Security Council…yes. Backed with satellite pictures he implicitly and clearly admitted that US agencies in particular the CIA found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But then was the government of USA really interested to free the Iraqis from dictatorship and tyranny and most importantly free the world from such a supposedly big threat namely Saddam and his weapons of Mass Destruction? Certainly not. Why?
Foremost, we must try to find out when was the decision to invade Iraq taken. Certainly not after September 11. It's clear that the US-led invasion had little to do with national security or the events of September 11. The former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that just 11 days after Bush's inauguration in early 2001, regime change in Iraq was "Topic A" among the administration's national security staff. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld then said it was important to bomb Iraq the day after the attacks in New York and Washington occurred. The decision was therefore not taken after September 11 but the government led by Bush started to talk of it after that date… We can then say that all those reasons brought forward by the administration was a pretext. A pretext for what? Economic reasons more exactly OIL??? Why not. Bush’s company Petro-Cartel almost has Iraq’s oil at present time. We can easily determine that during Saddam’s reign, USA would difficultly be able to trade with Saddam. Still the oil in Iraq represent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy “112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves!!!
One problem came across the plans of the administration of invading Iraq and benefit this large reserve of oil: How to convince the Security Council that their future plans to invade Iraq is necessary, important and a question of US’ and World’s security. Then came the episode of Colin Powell at the Security Council and his supposedly weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Did these weapons really exist?? On March 7, 2003, two weeks before the United States attacked Iraq, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the inspections protocol had improved to the point where it was "active or even proactive," and that the inspectors would be able to certify that Iraq was free of prohibited weapons within a few months' time. That same day, IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei reported that there was no evidence of a current nuclear program in Iraq and flatly refuted the administration's claim that the infamous aluminium tubes cited by Colin Powell in making his case for war before the Security Council were part of a reconstituted nuclear program. Even then the government pursue in attacking Iraq and therefore this invasion by the coalition led by US forces is illegal as it was carried out without the proper approval of U.N. Security Council.
Foremost, we must try to find out when was the decision to invade Iraq taken. Certainly not after September 11. It's clear that the US-led invasion had little to do with national security or the events of September 11. The former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that just 11 days after Bush's inauguration in early 2001, regime change in Iraq was "Topic A" among the administration's national security staff. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld then said it was important to bomb Iraq the day after the attacks in New York and Washington occurred. The decision was therefore not taken after September 11 but the government led by Bush started to talk of it after that date… We can then say that all those reasons brought forward by the administration was a pretext. A pretext for what? Economic reasons more exactly OIL??? Why not. Bush’s company Petro-Cartel almost has Iraq’s oil at present time. We can easily determine that during Saddam’s reign, USA would difficultly be able to trade with Saddam. Still the oil in Iraq represent, according to the U.S. Department of Energy “112 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the second largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia), along with roughly 220 billion barrels of probable and possible resources. Iraq's true potential may be far greater than this, however, as the country is relatively unexplored due to years of war and sanctions." For perspective, the Saudis have 260 billion barrels of proven reserves!!!
One problem came across the plans of the administration of invading Iraq and benefit this large reserve of oil: How to convince the Security Council that their future plans to invade Iraq is necessary, important and a question of US’ and World’s security. Then came the episode of Colin Powell at the Security Council and his supposedly weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Did these weapons really exist?? On March 7, 2003, two weeks before the United States attacked Iraq, the U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, told the U.N. Security Council that Saddam Hussein's cooperation with the inspections protocol had improved to the point where it was "active or even proactive," and that the inspectors would be able to certify that Iraq was free of prohibited weapons within a few months' time. That same day, IAEA head Mohammed ElBaradei reported that there was no evidence of a current nuclear program in Iraq and flatly refuted the administration's claim that the infamous aluminium tubes cited by Colin Powell in making his case for war before the Security Council were part of a reconstituted nuclear program. Even then the government pursue in attacking Iraq and therefore this invasion by the coalition led by US forces is illegal as it was carried out without the proper approval of U.N. Security Council.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Can you elaborate....[Prisheela Yusha Mottee]
Can you elaborate more on how "This Aristotelian concept is appearing today again ....in our life as the bourgeois democracy is taking over the third world countries like [ Mauritius ] little by little". Show us some proofs.I'm a free guy and I do not see any sign of despotic control in Mauritius. -Yan
Open your eyes and see real world ...In Greek period there were two categories of people those who owned resources the MASTERS ,having access to education and participated in politics and the others were slaves their aim was to serve their master,these people were human labour considered as "aliens".
In todays world country 's like United States _The greatest power possess resources ,they own capital ,and countries like Mauritius we don t have anything else apart human labour.
Take for example call centres in Mauritius,like France Telecom _ they came to invest in Mauritius Why ?? One we already have infrastruture and secondly cheap labour ..Mauritians are cheap labour ..thus we are indirectly exploited = modern slaves .
What will happen when these companies get labour even cheaper than we have in Mauritius ..it will lead to mass unemployement ..just like the EPZ sector story .
Open your eyes and see real world ...In Greek period there were two categories of people those who owned resources the MASTERS ,having access to education and participated in politics and the others were slaves their aim was to serve their master,these people were human labour considered as "aliens".
In todays world country 's like United States _The greatest power possess resources ,they own capital ,and countries like Mauritius we don t have anything else apart human labour.
Take for example call centres in Mauritius,like France Telecom _ they came to invest in Mauritius Why ?? One we already have infrastruture and secondly cheap labour ..Mauritians are cheap labour ..thus we are indirectly exploited = modern slaves .
What will happen when these companies get labour even cheaper than we have in Mauritius ..it will lead to mass unemployement ..just like the EPZ sector story .
Foundation of our society [Prisheela Yusha Mottee]
According to Aristotle [Aristotle s Politics and Poetics ,1957,Page x],slave and master classes is the foundation for any social structure that is we have one who rule and the other obey orders.
This Aristotelian concept is appearing today again ....in our life as the bourgeois democracy is taking over the third world countries like [ Mauritius ] little by little ,now we have the MODERN SLAVES... but abolition of slavery was done long ago in most third world countries.
Well Aristotle ..what you said was it a curse ?? Who knows .....
A small quote from Harold Pinter [Bilaal Mauntah]
“The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis”, Harold Pinter, Nobel Prize for Literature (2005).
Role of Soft Power in International Relations [Nasif Joomratty]
In the new century, the world is increasingly developing into a multi-polar one with swift economic globalization, scientific and technological improvement, and intensifying international competition over comprehensive national power. Soft power is an important component of comprehensive national power. The competition over soft power is playing a rising role in the evolution of international relations. Culture, a kind of soft power, has even more significant impacts on international relations. It is phenomenal in today's world for most countries to focus on the power of culture in the international competition, over comprehensive national power.
The meaning of soft power??
The comprehensive national power includes hard power, soft power, and influential power of them on international relations. Soft power is a concept versus hard power. It is an important component of comprehensive national power. American scholar Joseph Nye first developed the concept of soft power¡±. He summarized the soft power as a directing, attracting and imitating power, in one word, a co-optive power. Co-optive power is the ability of a country to attract other countries by ideas, values and ideology or the ability of a country to let other countries to think what it thinks. This power is closely related to formless powers like culture, ideology and social system. A country's cultural universality and its ability to determine norms, rules and regimes that regulate international behaviors are key resources of a country's power. Therefore, he believes that the intangible power can be estimated from a nation's cohesiveness, cultural popularity in the globe, and role in international institutions. Another American scholar Ray Cline proposed a function of national power¡as early as the 1970s. In his formulation, Cline set strategic goal± and ¡national will ± as important components of national power. Strategic goal reflects a country's fundamental national interests. A nation's strategy defines strategic goals in lieu of specific international environment. The will to implement national strategy derives from the degree of confidence and support from domestic mobilizable people for both national defense policy and foreign policy. And people's confidence and support come from such factors as national cohesiveness, political leadership and efficacy of government, and people's concern over national strategy and national interests. Both national strategy and national will are complex and intangible, which cannot be judged by static and tangible standards.
The Institute of Comprehensive Studies in Japan compiled Japan's Comprehensive National Power, in which three major factors to calculate a country¡¯s comprehensive national power were suggested, i.e., international contribution capacity, survival ability and coercive capability. The international contribution capacity includes positive attitude to involve into international affairs and contributive activities in international society. The survival ability concerns national will and friendly alliance. The coercive capability emphasizes on a country's capability in managing its foreign relations. While developing these ideas, Japan's Comprehensive National Power also pays much attention to soft power. Without strong national spirit, a nation cannot effectively deal with potential international crises. Without culture intensive commodity and global influence of cultural appeal, a nation cannot have a say in international activities.
Furthermore, many international scholars have touched upon the issue of soft power in their writings. Robert Thompson from England sees will as a kind of national power. In Grand Strategy, John M. Collins, from the Unite States, lists the following as elements of national power: political forces with impacts in both domestic and international arenas, the people's character, ethics and education, and any other leading factors as well. American scholar Joseph Frankel wrote in his International Relations that national power is the ability to affect psychology and behavior of others. It is distinguished for Frankel to stress on psychological factor. From his point of view, psychology, society and international strategic status are all parts of national power. Another German American scholar Hans Morgenthau holds that nationality, national ethics, diplomatic quality, and attribute of government make up national power in his Politics among Nations. Nicholas Spykman, from the United States again, also thinks soft power an important part of national power. In his terms, the soft power is national homogeneity, social comprehensiveness, political stability, and national ethics.
Huang Shuofeng, a well-known Chinese scholar, wrote in his On Comprehensive National Power that comprehensive national power is a nation's whole power and international influence including both material power and mental power that the nation has for survival and development. The mental power can also be called soft power, which comprises soft elements like psychology and intelligence. These soft elements determine the role of hard power in tangible shape. Soft power is composed of political power, cultural and educational power, diplomatic power, and synergic power. Political power includes political system, strategic goals, social stability, national cohesiveness, and national system of leadership, organization and policy-making ability. Cultural and educational power includes educational power and cultural power, concerning quality of laborers, development of human resources, educational investment, education system, education universality, quality of teachers, quality of cultural workers, publication power of broadcasting, television, film, book, periodical, journal and their influence in the international stage. Diplomatic power includes foreign relations, foreign policy, foreign activity, and ability to contribute to international community. Synergic power refers mainly to the capability of macro control and synergic development.
In sum, soft power, a kind of mental power, is an important part of comprehensive national power. Soft elements of mental power are all in the category of culture. The core of culture is values. As to the content of culture, in a broad sense, culture is the sum of material and spiritual wealth created in the history of human society. In a narrow sense, culture is social ideology and related systems and institutions, including ideas, thoughts and related systems in politics, law, morality, art, religion, and science. Nonetheless, from whichever angle, culture is not a static entity but a dynamic process. As soft power, culture is relative to politics, economy and military. We should mainly explore the role of culture in international relations from the angle of human nature and ideology.
The meaning of soft power??
The comprehensive national power includes hard power, soft power, and influential power of them on international relations. Soft power is a concept versus hard power. It is an important component of comprehensive national power. American scholar Joseph Nye first developed the concept of soft power¡±. He summarized the soft power as a directing, attracting and imitating power, in one word, a co-optive power. Co-optive power is the ability of a country to attract other countries by ideas, values and ideology or the ability of a country to let other countries to think what it thinks. This power is closely related to formless powers like culture, ideology and social system. A country's cultural universality and its ability to determine norms, rules and regimes that regulate international behaviors are key resources of a country's power. Therefore, he believes that the intangible power can be estimated from a nation's cohesiveness, cultural popularity in the globe, and role in international institutions. Another American scholar Ray Cline proposed a function of national power¡as early as the 1970s. In his formulation, Cline set strategic goal± and ¡national will ± as important components of national power. Strategic goal reflects a country's fundamental national interests. A nation's strategy defines strategic goals in lieu of specific international environment. The will to implement national strategy derives from the degree of confidence and support from domestic mobilizable people for both national defense policy and foreign policy. And people's confidence and support come from such factors as national cohesiveness, political leadership and efficacy of government, and people's concern over national strategy and national interests. Both national strategy and national will are complex and intangible, which cannot be judged by static and tangible standards.
The Institute of Comprehensive Studies in Japan compiled Japan's Comprehensive National Power, in which three major factors to calculate a country¡¯s comprehensive national power were suggested, i.e., international contribution capacity, survival ability and coercive capability. The international contribution capacity includes positive attitude to involve into international affairs and contributive activities in international society. The survival ability concerns national will and friendly alliance. The coercive capability emphasizes on a country's capability in managing its foreign relations. While developing these ideas, Japan's Comprehensive National Power also pays much attention to soft power. Without strong national spirit, a nation cannot effectively deal with potential international crises. Without culture intensive commodity and global influence of cultural appeal, a nation cannot have a say in international activities.
Furthermore, many international scholars have touched upon the issue of soft power in their writings. Robert Thompson from England sees will as a kind of national power. In Grand Strategy, John M. Collins, from the Unite States, lists the following as elements of national power: political forces with impacts in both domestic and international arenas, the people's character, ethics and education, and any other leading factors as well. American scholar Joseph Frankel wrote in his International Relations that national power is the ability to affect psychology and behavior of others. It is distinguished for Frankel to stress on psychological factor. From his point of view, psychology, society and international strategic status are all parts of national power. Another German American scholar Hans Morgenthau holds that nationality, national ethics, diplomatic quality, and attribute of government make up national power in his Politics among Nations. Nicholas Spykman, from the United States again, also thinks soft power an important part of national power. In his terms, the soft power is national homogeneity, social comprehensiveness, political stability, and national ethics.
Huang Shuofeng, a well-known Chinese scholar, wrote in his On Comprehensive National Power that comprehensive national power is a nation's whole power and international influence including both material power and mental power that the nation has for survival and development. The mental power can also be called soft power, which comprises soft elements like psychology and intelligence. These soft elements determine the role of hard power in tangible shape. Soft power is composed of political power, cultural and educational power, diplomatic power, and synergic power. Political power includes political system, strategic goals, social stability, national cohesiveness, and national system of leadership, organization and policy-making ability. Cultural and educational power includes educational power and cultural power, concerning quality of laborers, development of human resources, educational investment, education system, education universality, quality of teachers, quality of cultural workers, publication power of broadcasting, television, film, book, periodical, journal and their influence in the international stage. Diplomatic power includes foreign relations, foreign policy, foreign activity, and ability to contribute to international community. Synergic power refers mainly to the capability of macro control and synergic development.
In sum, soft power, a kind of mental power, is an important part of comprehensive national power. Soft elements of mental power are all in the category of culture. The core of culture is values. As to the content of culture, in a broad sense, culture is the sum of material and spiritual wealth created in the history of human society. In a narrow sense, culture is social ideology and related systems and institutions, including ideas, thoughts and related systems in politics, law, morality, art, religion, and science. Nonetheless, from whichever angle, culture is not a static entity but a dynamic process. As soft power, culture is relative to politics, economy and military. We should mainly explore the role of culture in international relations from the angle of human nature and ideology.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
What is reality ?? [ Prisheela Yusha Mottee]
Well Bill that was really a nice topic you talked about ....Its true many people died for the cause of the so called PEACE ,if we humans want peace so why so much violence in this world,why so many death ..So lets get to real ..no one go to war without a personal motive its in human instinct ..POWER is what everyone want ..its a fact that no one can deny ..The question is who wants power and to what extent can someone go to have power ..which is in form of nuclear power ,military power and gold...we normal people we don t know what is really happening ...who takes decisions ?Is it really Bush who give orders or someone who controls him ? Was it really Saddam who gave orders or someone else in the shadow...
International Politics [ Bilaal Mauntah]
Is the question of how to create peace in our chaotic and fucking society we actually live so difficilt. Thinking of the majority of head of states…maybe yes. Those head of states deserve no better treatment like being inflicted to terrorists…yes, you guess it…am talking of Bush and his fellow peer Elmud Olmert. I still have faith in the UN to restore peace with people like Al Baradei still managing to counteract malicious views of certain peolple…It’s a difficult job or maybe imposible thinking of these “certain people” at the head of such powerful armies controlling the world…OUR WORLD and every one like dogs behind their master impossible to utter any word. It’s really sad to see so many people being killed everyday in Palestine or Iraq. During Sadam’s years, we didn’t assisst to such violence between chites and sunnies. They are all brothers of Islam afterall. Anger comes when you see beautiful people being killed in Lebanon and anyone reacting for so many days to stop the evil-Israel! Pity to the Arab League to have teken so much time to organise their meeting. Here I must say bravo to James Burty David and all those big names in Mauritius who declared openly and loudly their opposition to that war. It’s pathetic to watch news on CBS, BBC or CNN…During the Iraqi invasion, 24 hours a day you are being annouced that cohalition soldiers are being killed, helicopters brought down, tanks which has exploded…we do feel some sad for these soldiers killed during the operation but what does those reporters upfront or maybe they are not to blame, but what are these suposedly news channels doing of all the civilians being killed??? Did anyone ask them to mask the attrocities inflicted to the civillians??? Does the US indutries’ thirst for petrol or maybe Bush thirst for petrol account for all these lives lost??? A more annoying question: where are those weapons of mass destruction that the US announced to have found in Iraq??? They announced that in such convicton at the UN and pressed with satelite pictures, we could difficultly doubt lt’s authenticity but where are they now…lost? Man, those guys on tv are lost not the weapons…they never existed at that period. Coming to the question of Iran…does they not have the right to develop an autonomous source of electric power??? Is their nuclear development more menacing or does the posession of nuclear weapons by Israel more frightening???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
