It may be an uphill to try on new perspectives over the morality in the historical line of Brazilian people. Although some have to think about out of the box, or rather, inside it. In the couple of the past weeks, Brazilians have yield to news like no others. An overwhelming array of headlines brings to the public’s eyes the mischievous issue that nobody, if patriotic, want to wait for. Renan Calheiros, a senator and a great politician in Alagoas, one of  the states of Brazil, vent his spleen on that institution. Battered by roguish accusation of cheating too much, his inequities was discovered by magazines. 

The heyday was in 11 October, when he  takes a license to be far, for a while, from the senate. Calheiros was skewered in during yet largest months, which made him seem unabashed and owner of a handful of power on one hand, and on the other arrogant and owner of depravity and a disposable morality. To discuss that, so to start with, a line is a merciless road.  Calheiros is civilian from Alagoas, a state from which some of some stars in Brazil’s early political lifetime came, like Heloisa Helena, Collor, and himself.  

Heloisa Helena was a former, too, candidate in the presidential running in 2006. Great voice, poor mind, a lot of elusive theories about state, these were the curriculum which cause her to perform a scarecrow of a communist party. Collor, in his improper turn, is well known as the first president to crudely suffer an impeachment process, turgid with faults, flattery, and so forth. Both have power and influence there. Calheiros, therefore or not, outperform them, as seen by the magazines. There is a moat between the morality of law, which predicts things in no accordance with people, and the normal Brazilian morality, regarded as tolerant and quite distant from law. 

It is undoubtedly believable that Brazil begs for a reform not only in its revenue and budget but also in its sense of duties, morality or simply culture in order to put together its moral standard and its spirit of law, and self-respect. Why not?   

Gabriel Raposo Steinbach

There are many lines of forces counteracting the unflappable presidents in the Middle East. Sown by great states around –Russia, European Union, and across the world China and the USA–, the population have pointedly pull down all stab at influencing them in an uphill tactical of cultural defense. It is well known that the Middle East was the place where a large field of social fabric are cross and to some extent cut itself across. However, they go on doing their routine practices, spilling relentless methods of interpreting our Western world, although any other country have bowed to at least a half of the same foreign pressure. 

What make them, however embattled they are, seem so querulous? Arguably, such answer will not be found here, but the ‘nature’ of their culture, which thus far  riddle with bullets the western values and otherwise crown themselves’. In the human being history, all type of society sought to shield from innovation its functional structure of production, the economy basin, as impossible as it was, and its tenets that cause them to believe to survive against the power’s nature. So, Middle East is doing well with respect to that struggle. Within a momentum of not defending but attacking, the fundamentalism was created so as to give them a new hazardous hope in its own ditch. What would be the a hope or a good battle was transformed into a ditch where the conservative values are to be sank. 

Osama, one of the leaders of a clash of civilizations, has born with money and could live in the USA by spending on the licentious pleasures. By the contrary, he choose to bring renewed values from the core of Middle East to fight against a kind of natural and social erosion. From our point of view it is hard to see and say what force them to act like that and what has triggered the burst of terrorism. One thing is undoubtedly now. To understand them and carve out the way to reach peace by a perilous social integration, based pointedly on the facts that cause them to be terrorist and clean up the area. Perhaps, in the USA, such view is being brought to the horizon from now to the next campaign. 

Gabriel Raposo

For nearly one century the world, at least the West, have gone through the influence of the American society, 1918-2007, mainly by the prism of the entrepreneurial culture, although the Europe has yet reared the industrial revolution and the North America have also embrace foreign movements. Entrepreneurship is a pivotal role of them, and it is based on a moral tenet, the liberty.  Such standard of them evince the quality of politics which they regard as normal or as good standards of governance as said. So far there isn’t anything new. But, as it were, when we set in motion our thinking out of the box, things change.

The USA is particular and overall in line of its so-called melting pot structure, which gives it a great confidence and character of a world inside a world, which sometimes has a backbone of nonchalance. It causes its politics to lost steam or gain power in accordance with the country they try to counteract or try to be connected with. Not to lost steam is the proposal of all government, of course. And the diplomacy towards Latin American is particularly paltry, because it falls short of what Latin world expect them to do. The development in the world is not  their accountability, the USA, but it is important to know how the poor countries would be helped, not destabilized.

The Latin American has not the same structure of tenets, like the liberty as pivotal guidance. There the main reason for a life is the development, both through the individual liberty and through the state’s entrepreneurship, without distinguishing them. The paucity of understanding to reach that principle have force the USA to lost steam inside the region, as well as some regional governments. The USA could take the opportunity, in which its market is faltering in shallow credence, exactly in the inner part of the financial market, in order to capitalize on the real economy by means of Brazil by focusing on investments in infra-structure and so forth,  pushing back the steady populism, while it is steady in the region.  

Gabriel Raposo Steinbach

Iran has agreed a timeline with the International Atomic Energy Agency to answer all outstanding questions regarding the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme.

However, it will not be enough to reverse America’s decision to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guards a terrorist group.

This is a bold and dangerous decision. It will be the first time the list, which includes the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaida, will feature a government agency.

The US claims the Guards, particularly its elite Quds Force, has been training and supplying weapons to insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan while supporting extremists across the Middle East. In 2006, Condoleezza Rice described Iran as “a kind of central banker for terrorism”.

Iran — which America has since 1984 accused of being a state sponsor of terrorism and which George W Bush labelled part of an “axis of evil” in 2002 — has strenuously denied these claims.

Revolutionary Guards leader General Yahya Rahim Safavi refused to mince words, telling the conservative newspaper Kayhan: “America will receive a heavier punch from the guards in the future. We will never remain silent in the face of US pressure and we will use our leverage against them.” The nature of this leverage is unclear.

George W Bush: Included Iran as part of the ‘axis of evil’

The move comes under a presidential bill that authorizes the US to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities.

According to the Washington Post, this allows America to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that “provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists. Whether or not it has a major impact in real terms will only become clear over time, but it is worth looking at the possible effects.

Rasool Nafisi, a Washington-based expert on the Middle East and Iran at the private Strayer University, Virginia, says:

“[I]f the policy is carried out, the movement of IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp] members abroad would become very, very hard — especially in neighbouring countries. They could easily be detained as terrorists. So I think that’s a major blow to the status and movement of the IRGC. Secondly, because it is a large conglomerate with a tremendous amount of assets and is involved in business, it would not be able to do business with Afghanistan, with Iraq, with neighbouring countries; and that’s going to be another major issue.”

The blacklisting represents a continuing policy of isolating and containing Iran, which following the collapse of Iraq and Afghanistan only has Israel as a serious rival in the Middle East. As such, labelling the Guards as terrorists is strategic.

The US has been allies with Israel for many years, while Iraq and Afghanistan are within its sphere of influence, at least nominally, so long as troops remain on the ground. Strategically, it makes sense to isolate a relatively powerful and unallied nation that could swing the balance of power against America.

Certainly it has concerns regarding an Iran/Syria pact, however loose such an arrangement between the two so-called rogue states might be. When one throws Gaza into the mix the chances for greater instability in the Middle East grow significantly.

Meanwhile, Robert McMahon, writing for the Council on Foreign Relations, feels the US plan “set in motion what is expected to be a lively round of new diplomacy aimed at getting Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program”.

Days after the US decision was reported, Iranian officials met with the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to discuss their country’s nuclear programme — although the two were not related.

In an agreement hailed as a “milestone” by IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen, both sides have established a timeline whereby the Islamic republic will answer outstanding questions. The US has said it must co-operate with inspectors and end nuclear work if it is to avoid further sanctions — though these face opposition from China and Russia.

However, by designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organisation, the US will discourage foreign investment and the sale of goods and supplies to the country — few firms wish to be associated with terrorism.

The Guards, while having few business interests abroad, is a major force in the Iranian economy and has significant interests in construction and the oil industry.

By indirectly pressuring foreign companies and potential investors, the US is undermining the economic weight and effectiveness of the Guards, who exist to safeguard the Islamic revolution. Sitting governments are the natural target for blame in a failing or weakened economy and this would open the door to unrest and dissatisfaction with the regime. Strikes and demonstrations helped topple the Shah in 1979 and usher in the Islamic regime (though there was no financial crisis at this time).

With some 45% of the state’s budget based on oil revenues, anything that could restrict the Guards’ business interests here will eat into government finances.

Iran has one large economic vulnerability — petrol. Although it is one of the world’s biggest oil producers, domestic consumption is so high it must import 40% of its petrol. If the Guards have any interests in this sector it could have a massive knock-on effect for the country, which is in the midst of petrol rationing. There were bitter protests when the scheme was brought in and further restrictions on supply could lead to more.

In addition, a fall-off in available capital will have a detrimental impact on the nation’s infrastructure, feeding into any political dissatisfaction.

Condoleezza Rice: Described Iran as a “kind of central banker for terrorism” but has lead the diplomatic initiative

There is, of course, no concrete evidence that the United States has political change in mind by adding the Guards to the terror list, though a more amenable Iran would certainly be a great advantage when it comes to oil access. Sanctions and blacklisting are not effective means of ousting rulers; Saddam remained in power despite the suffering of his citizens due to UN sanctions more swingeing than the limitations imposed by including a group on a list of terror organisations. Gaddafi ruled Libya despite the country being an international pariah for years.

Even so, Iranians may be left with the impression that America desires regime change through stealth rather than force. Also, economic weaknesses could exacerbate ethnic tensions within Iran, and this in turn could allow the US to gain valuable allies within the country — it is believed to be backing rebel groups near the Iraq border.

US intelligence sources and officials have linked Iranian elements to several attacks on US forces. The most significant of these was in Karbala, Iraq, in January.

Media reports in July claimed the Quds Force had been involved in the deaths of five US soldiers. However, an analysis by The American Prospect’s Gareth Porter of what the military spokesman actually said that day shows his only words regarding Iran were that men captured over the attack claimed the Quds “knew of and supported the Karbala attack”. This is not the same as being involved — and the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, had in April denied any Iranian involvement in the Karbala incident.

Nonetheless, these sorts of reports are what are feeding those in the Bush administration who favour conflict with Iran.

One has to remark on the double standard the US is displaying toward Iran.

On one hand, it is engaging with the Islamic republic on issues such as security in Iraq, while on the other hand it is blacklisting a major agency of the Iranian government. This represents a split in the Bush administration about how to deal with Iran: ‘doves’ such as Condoleezza Rice are eager to pursue and optimistic about a diplomatic approach, while ‘hawks’ such as Dick Cheney want to take a hardline and confrontational stance.

Some in the administration are keen for an attack against Iran, perhaps at Israeli instigation. Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric on Israel has increased tensions between that nation and his own. He has at various times called for the state to be eliminated, said the Holocaust was a myth and most recently said Israel was “the standard bearer of Satan. His aggressive words — though he has also said he respects Jews and his grievance is with the state of Israel — could in the minds of some military figures justify actions against Iran.

Steven Clemons of The Washington Note reported some time ago:

“The thinking on Cheney’s team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran’s nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz [one of Iran’s nuclear sites] using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).”

This would provoke an Iranian military response, thus forcing George Bush — who has described Iran “as a very troubling nation right now” — to abandon diplomacy in favour of armed retaliation. In 2006, he delivered a speech in Cleveland where he said that while America’s “objective” was diplomacy, it “will use military might to defend our ally Israel” because of Iran’s “stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel”. This lends further weight to Clemons’ report.

Former CIA officer Robert Baer, writing for Time.com, says American neo-cons believe “the IRGC is the one obstacle to democratic and a friendly Iran. They believe that if we were to get rid of the IRGC, the clerics would fall, and our thirty-years war with Iran over”.

While stressing this is a “delusion”, he points out that the administration may feel justified because

“the IRGC has had a long, established history of killing Americans, starting with the attack on the Marines in Beirut in 1983. And that’s not to mention it was the IRGC that backed Hezbollah in its thirty-four day war against Israel last year. The feeling in the administration is that we should have taken care of the IRGC a long, long time ago”.

While there may be a burning desire among some US hawks to attack Iran, unless it has adequate provocation the US can not afford to turn economic and ideological conflict with Iran into military action. In a CBS/New York Times poll in March, only 10% of people favoured this strategy against Iran. Meanwhile the US military, which is designed to fight a two-front war, has no troops left to deploy. All of its resources are committed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

But even if it did have the manpower and might to send against Iran, geography is against them. Iran is a mountainous country and its population is three times that of Iraq — and America has had a tough enough job securing that nation.

However, short-term action is possible given the size of US forces in the Persian Gulf. Faced with the inability to invade Iran, a series of air strikes may become a tempting option — particularly if intended to knock out specific targets such as nuclear plants and research facilities.

Dick Cheney: One of the main hawks in the Bush administration

The US envoy to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, has dismissed the recent agreement between the Iran and agency as an attempt to deflect “attention from its… bomb-making activities”. So it would appear the administration is unwilling to compromise on the nuclear programme, although Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Ayatollah has declared a fatwa against such weapons.

However, the fact its programme was kept secret for nearly two decades has led to mistrust on the part of nations such as Britain and the US. Iran has also failed to stop enriching uranium despite UN resolutions urging it to do so.

According to Noam Chomsky, the US invasion of Iraq

“virtually instructed Iran to develop a nuclear deterrent. Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld writes that after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, ‘had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy’. The message of the invasion, loud and clear, was that the US will attack at will, as long as the target is defenceless. Now Iran is ringed by US military forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, Turkey and the Persian Gulf and close by are nuclear-armed Pakistan and particularly Israel, the regional superpower, thanks to US support”.

America’s plan to give Middle Eastern nations billions of dollars in defence aid to contain Iran’s military and nuclear ambitions is another tension-building move. As the Syrian foreign ministry said of the plan: “He who wants to make peace does not start out with an arms initiative.”

It would appear the US administration is thinking long-term in its attitude toward Iran, which Rice has described as the “single most important single-nation strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of Middle East we would like to see”, and the region as a whole.

Of the three nations named by Bush as “the axis of evil”, only Iran remains a major player. Saddam Hussein has been vanquished, while North Korea has engaged with the IAEA on its nuclear programme. It has even taken the extraordinary step of shutting down its reactors and acquiescing to UN inspections. Iran, while co-operating with inspectors, has not shut down its enrichment programme, saying it needs nuclear plants to generate electricity (which it imports) and therefore free up more of its vast oil and gas reserves for export.

America’s actions will be eagerly accepted by elements within the Iranian regime. Although president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — a former member of the Guards who wrote to he US administration in 2006 saying that his nation condemned all forms of terrorism — can be overruled at any time by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he would probably welcome conflict with the US.

It would be a significant propaganda victory for a man who has failed to deliver on pre-election economic promises and whose government only has a 39% approval rating (according to a recent poll by Terror Free Tomorrow). An American attack would allow him to rally his people behind him by focussing their attention on an enemy — a classic political move. Although naming the Guards as a terrorist group is intended to curtail its activities, it could just as easily consolidate the organisation’s position within Iran.

It could also give Iran a reason to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

The Iranian people have no quarrel with America, or at least with Americans. Clemons points out that on September 11, 2001, “Tehran was the only place in the Middle East where thousands of people walked out into the streets holding candles and expressing grief and empathy for Americans who died that day”.

Attacking Iran would only bolster the regime. One should never underestimate the rallying effect an external enemy can have on a population, especially in the short term. Not only could such a move consolidate the government’s position, but it could direct it to seek more concrete alliances elsewhere.

Ultimately, China will have a defining say in actions against Iran. Sanctions can not clear the UN Security Council while the Asian superpower’s veto is in effect, while any terror blacklisting by the US can be undermined if China decides it will ignore it.

Iran has observer status with the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation, an emerging bloc addressing security concerns in Central Asia whose members include China and Russia. Iran has applied for full membership of the group, which governments and observers in the west have described as an emerging military bloc.

China accounts for 13% of Iran’s exports and 10.6% of its imports, while Russian suppliers make up 4.5%. This is a solid enough foundation for a stronger alliance. One thing weighing against Iran’s membership of the SCO is the group’s mutual defence treaties. Although Russia, which helped Iran with its nuclear programme, backs full membership for Iran, it would be easy for other members to argue it only wants to join so it can activate these treaties in the event of military conflict with the United States.

However, as China’s economy grows and modernises its desire for oil increases. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, 40% of oil-demand growth worldwide since 2001 has come from China alone. In Africa, and particularly Sudan, China has allowed its oil and mineral needs to dictate its foreign policy.

With this in mind, it is not a great stretch of the imagination to consider that energy demands could motivate it to seek a more secure alliance with Iran — particularly if a proper pipeline infrastructure could be built between the countries. This would have to pass through the likes of Pakistan or Afghanistan, and its construction could get around the terror blacklisting if a Chinese firm builds it.

Iran’s oil fields need enormous investment, and China has the capital and will to become involved in this. The two would seem a perfect fit should Iranian companies such as those run by the Guards become unable to do business with other nations, though it seems unlikely China and the US will risk a major showdown.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Says his country condemns all forms of terrorism

The signs are ominous. A strike against Iran may come within months. But what would be the outcome of such an attack?

British military historian Corelli Barnett has gone so far as to say it would cause “World War III”. This is an apocalyptic point of view but it would certainly be a disastrous move, both for America and for the region. The international standing of the United States, which is already tarnished because of Iraq, would be depleted even further.

Iran may lack the ability for its military to retaliate on American soil, but it has the missile capabilities to do severe damage to US forces in the Persian Gulf as well as installations across the Middle East. While the US has the capability to intercept these attacks, it only takes one rocket to cause great loss of life. Israel may also come under attack, as it did during the first Gulf War.

Even a short-term land engagement could lead to many deaths on both sides, as well as potentially sucking the US into another long-term occupation/military deployment that would only serve to crush its credibility in the Middle East.

While Iran may not have the armaments of the United States, it does have an important weapon: oil. Any attack on Iran, the second-biggest producer in OPEC, would immediately cause a rise in oil prices. If the country were to cut off its supply the price per barrel would soar. In addition, Iranian oil may instead go to countries non-hostile to it.

As well as the economic weapon, it could ramp up its contacts with militant groups across the Middle East and elsewhere in an effort to strike at American targets wherever possible. It could easily ramp up its involvement with the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas to wreak unpredictable havoc.

While there is a history of enmity between Iran and Iraq, this is due to Saddam Hussein’s attempt to take advantage of the Islamic revolution. The recent announcement that oil pipelines would be built between the two seems to indicate that either Iraqi officials don’t take reports of Iran-trained militants fighting inside its borders seriously, or that the positives outweigh the negatives. A Shia to Shia accord may also be a factor here. Regardless, it makes sense for Iraq to build regional alliances ahead of the inevitable withdrawal by US forces.

Both Iraq and Afghanistan have said Iran is necessary for peace and security to come about in their nations — and if Iran is weakened or collapses the ensuing power vacuum will mean chaos in three bordering nations. This will inevitably draw Pakistan into Iran in a bid to protect its frontier; though given its track record along the border with Afghanistan there is a sizeable chance it will not succeed.

Are there other options than force? Diplomacy will always be a possible avenue, though it can be slow and delayed. Academic Marc Gopin and US Congressman Gregory Meeks have advocated reaching out directly to the Iranian people, thus going over the heads of the ruling administration:

“[T]he perfect way to isolate the Revolutionary Guard, the Iranian president, and the radical clerics, is to invite the Iranian people into an ever more hopeful relationship with the West… The internal vulnerabilities of Iran’s ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers.”

This is an idealistic approach but it illustrates there are alternatives to force. Whether they will be attempted or not remains to be seen.

David O’Mahony
www.tinyplanetblog.com

Since the end of the WWII, the United States of America have played a role in the world of geo-politics which should be at least consired essencial. Not only did the USA fight the so called Cold War against the USSR, but they also found solutions to many unsolved matters in Eastern Europe, mainly to the Kosovian issue. The North American role, however, can no longer be considered as crutial as it used to be and some would even dare saying that America has lost its trace on politics. After all, what is the true role the USA are playing nowadays?

The Berlin Wall materialized a division line in the middle of Europe for no less than three decades, separating two antagonic blocks: USA’s and Russia’s. Not until the Berlin Wall fell did both countries stop fighting fiercely for influence and control over Europe and Asia. The Fall of the Berlin Wall, therefore, marks the end of the Cold War era, followed also by the self-destruction of the USSR only two years later, in 1991.

Throughout the Cold War a peculiar international system was shaped whose main aspects revolved around two spheres of power. The USA and the USSR would set up a conflict of economic systems, political institutions, ideology, advertising and even military equipment. Somehow the world could still count on a cooperation between the two hegemons: both of them did respect each others’ area of influence. As it can be argued, the USSR and the USA have become “enemy-brothers” fighting each other.

The balance of power during the Cold War was kept due to unbelievable advances in mass-destruction weaponry. These weapons were not meant to prepare a final battle, but to avoid it. In an age in which  having more and more nuclear warheads  could only account for mutual destruction – with absolutely no chances of victory for neither side – the accumulation of nuclear arsenal became an autonomous policy. In layman’s terms: mass-destruction weaponry didn’t alter the balance existing between the USA and the USSR, it was created only as a mean of maintenance of power. Since then, and upto today, military strenght became a synonym for world domination.

However, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR have made the North American foreign policy pointless. There is no need to enlarge their nuclear arsenal once there is no more visible opponent nor threat. Being the only world hegemon has given unimesurable power to the USA, but it has also forced them to immediately find a new trace for their affairs. Since then, Washington has been trying to spread its influence throughout the world; sometimes suceeding, others, failing. Kosovo is the best example in which the USA were able to enforce their strategic lead. The wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, ended only after OTAN’s interference and the signing of the Daytons Accords, have once again strenghthened Washington’s key-role in the United Nations Security Council.

On September 11th 2001, the North American population was traumatized after the terrorist attacks which destroyed the two towers of the WTC (World Trade Center) in New York City. Never since their Independence War had the United States been attacked in their own territory. This latest strike commanded by Osame Bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaeda, has paved roads for a declaration of “war agaisnt terror” – as Mr Bush himself stated.

Ever since 09/11/01, the USA have been pursing terrorists groups over the edge of the world, obtaining in exchange nothing more than the world’s dislike. In other words, the USA have tried to impose themselves as a world leader through military pressure against the Axis of Evil (yet another laughable concept invented by Mr Bush as an excuse for raiding on any country he finds “potentially dangerous to the USA“). The USA are immersed into a barbaric policy of military strenght, while the world shows that economical power is what trully matters.

What is most likely to happen (if it is not happening yet) is that the USA will have to cope with the economical development of countries such as Germany, Japan and England. The EU has limitless influence over the world and the USA cannot simply close their eyes to it. The world will certainly be based on a brand new structure: the unimultipolar society. The USA will still have their power as world hegemon (constituting the UNI-polar system), while the other countries will also enlarge their influence as well (MULTI-polar system).

This new world setting is completely unavoidable, as says Samuel Huntington. Balance will be found, whether at the terms of the Pax Americana or at the terms of the power of money. Which one is more likely to happen? None can say. What we can ascertain is that none of them can be ignored, for if one fails, all fail.

Rodrigo Machado Fonseca

One of the most impressive economies of the world, South Korea has a great range of qualities to teach and to show. With 99,237 Km² and a GDP of US$ 787.5 billion, that country has improve its working ethic to reach that outstanding economic boom during the last decades. In 1962, for instance, to be aware of the raising, it had a GNI of US$ 87 dollars, and yet now it is around US$ 16,291. The path to that achievement was a massive program of education, especially in the primary one, and a rampant investment in infra-structure linking the main cities to the YSEB (Yellow Sea Economic Basin)..

.

Through such space, South Korea could improve its economic integration with Japan, Taiwan, and Singapore. On the other hand, they could insulate itself from China and North Korea, two big ideological problems within the region. As yet, nevertheless, a better relationship with China has gained room each lesser in political life and more in a working ethic. Those standards may be split off in order to regard the gap done in the imagination of their prosperity. On one side they wield politics, and on the other hand productivity and increasing income over time.. 

.

the American’s point of view, economy, or a working ethic, is inherently close together with the liberty of expression and therefore politics, which make the capability of fearless innovation. Although there are many examples of a development pushed by the state, the so-called Developmental State, inside that continent, mainly or barely in Latin America, this sort of development, in which the state and its liberties do not have nothing to do with that principles of the North American’s economy and it is a new way to look at this process. Perhaps it is a good manner for many countries whose income needs to be higher faster than usual..

.

Gabriel Raposo Steinbach

July was the month when the leaders of several countries of Africa have elicited anew the idea of a pan-African union. Bred by Kwame Nkrumah, the leader of Ghana’s independence in 1957, such project have rambled through Africa across years, but clash into vanity now, in 2007. The bureaucracy of its countries together and firmly possesses the classical and sometimes perennial problems, at least in the developing world, cherished of course by its bureaucrats, a powerful gap of wages between the public sector and the private sector, as for instance Uganda which has a ration of 10 to 1, a lack of culture to run the government, as standards of efficiency and respect for the people’s desire.    

Africa has good qualities over its territory, position, clime, and the like. Yet there is those things which do under no circumstances be delayed, although it has made upswing from 1960’s to now. Remember that Africa freed from the European states by that time, period in which it has lived on the highlighted influence of them (Congress of Berlin Nov. 1884 to Feb. 1885). Now, if we consider an African Union, it has 924 million of people, 795 billion of dollars of GDP, 38% of people living in the cities, and 14% of people out of the world. Although it has a poor ratio between the GDP and the population, Africa may resolve such opprobrium rapidly, through charity business, and good standards of governance.  

Africa and its bureaucrats have fight with each other to get the jobs of the state desperately by virtue of the hunger and the poverty out of it, vg Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. An African Union may convey progress to them by organizing the society, fighting against corruption across this continental island inside every single country. If this project, however, is to be made only in order to shape a big state with useless jobs, they will be undermined by the world, and hence they could be forgotten as a humble actor, but regarded as a rogue state. That is the problem.

.

Gabriel Raposo Steinbach

Two car bombings: one in London and the other at Glascow airport. Four suspects detained and interrogated. Police impose a strict surveillance over the entire United Kingdom, specially over London. It looks like it will be another period of endless tension for all those who live by the Queen.

Since the last two car bombings showed the British their Metropolitan Police are not as efficient as they supposed, Ms. Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary of the UK, set the stage for a new police action. “Our message to those who wish to destroy our way of life and freedoms is that we will not be intimidated by terror”, she said. An anti-terror scheme is now being worked out to ensure security in the UK. Some of the measures proposed by Ms. Smith are: strict traffic control, anti-bomb inspections in public and private areas and detention of those suspected of dalliance with terrorism.

Countless detectives and inspectors are currently working to find the instigator of the two attacks in the UK. By collecting nails inside of one the cars, Police were able to trace the airport bomb suspects: two men, aged 25 and 28, who were already detained in the Paisley area west of Glasgow. It was what police called a “massive investigation operation” on Paisley.

However, the British are not the only ones taking preventive measures on terrorism. Americans as well have set their alarms on. In Chicago, for instance, the International Airport is already undergoing severe inspections against explosive devices. So is Kennedy International Airport, in Manhattan. Even though another terrorist attack is most unlikely to happen in the near future, Police are doing what they can to instigate the feeling of world-wide safety.

Will those actions really prevent another terrorist attack? Or are they only a way of enforcing the so called feeling of national security? Yet, no connection was made between the car bombings and any terrorist faction, and investigators rely on little evidence. One thing is for sure: none can ascertain how long this terror will last.

In 1975 a group gathering together the USA, Japan, Italy, United Kingdom, Canada, and Germany, held a summit in Rambouillet, in France. Triggered partly by the collapse of the  petrol market in 1973, those countries created then the G-7. But the point belongs to a geographical  giant in the world. The Russian, after giving up the communism regime and its natural failures, have started to open up their economy and political life, the perestroika and the glasnost, in the 80’s. In the 90’s Moscow have demanded a seat within the G-7, which results in an invitation to the Nápoles summit in 1994, thereafter in the Birmingham summit in 1998. Thus it was finally accepted in the G-7, or rather G-8. 

The turning point to be discussed is that what kind of irrelevant or relevant role is Russia to take part in the world? Over decades, from 1917 to now, many generations of Russians have lived under the pressure of the government, bureaucracy, taxes, and bribery, along with a chain of consequences that are lodged in that system, mob and lack of supplies for example. Today Mr. Putin, a former agent from the KGB, had gained his power from the support of Yieltsin, and was elected in 2000 and reelected in 2004.  

In this outset of 2007 Russian have drawn attention to the civilization about issues which they do not want to thrive. Although its economy is booming, political aspects concerning the liberty of the press and the human rights have been putting apart despite its participation in the G-8, and its natural trend to imagine itself to be European. The virtue and qualm counted untill now are the huge amount of petroleum 6.2% out of the total of the world, 12.1% of production, and its biggest supply of gas, 26.6% of the world. But the civilized world had stimulated Russian to grow up its companies and sell the surplus up, but who is to make them improve their culture (values and self-image) in relation to the democracy and the respect to the peace and the human rights abroad?

Gabriel Raposo Steinbach

Since its very beginning the North Korean nuclear issue has been widely regarded as problematic and not easy to solve. Indeed, most of what was done come up with no positive results, and a step towards a peaceful solution is most unlikely to be taken. Even the United Nations coupled with international pressure were not able to force Mr. Kim Jong Il, president of North Korea, to shut down his nuclear reactors. Should the International Community take a strong measure against North Korea? Yet the threat Mr. Kim poses to the world is no less strong.

When North Korea first started its nuclear programme, the world took suspicious view of it. Not many were the countries that believed Mr. Kim only planned of acquiring nuclear-produced energy – and those that didn’t were quite reasonable not to. The same technology used in enriching plutonium can be used in a nuclear warhead and thus North Korea could technically have nuclear bombs – some would dare saying it already has. One question remains unanswered: what should be done with Mr. Kim’s stubbornness?

Some say an embargoe is necessary, others would rather bet on a sanctions regime, and there are even those who believe no action is needed. However, making this decision is still very complicated, for countries such as the USA, China and Russia have not yet come up with an agreement on North Korea. Whatever decision is made, it must be a consent of the United Nations Security Council.

It is clear the United States of America expect the imposition of a sanctions regime on North Korea and are willing to impose one themselves, should the International Community remain frozen. Nonetheless, one cannot forget that to Russian eyes, Mr. Kim has the undeniable right of developing atomic technology. In other words, the two biggest countries in the world, both of which can veto in the UNSC, view the issue through completely opposite perspectives.

To make matters even worse, China stands a position of its own. Unlike the Japanese, which vow not to “normalise” relations with North Korea, the Chinese tend to accept the North Korean nuclear programme. Actually, only a small aspect differenciates China from Russia: while the first tolerates short-term UN sanctions, the latter rejects them vehemently. Even though Russian and Chinese regards are somewhat alike, they remain irrevocably opposite, making thus a consensus even more unprobable.

Were the deal closed in February between South Korea, North Korea, China, Japan, Russia the USA to be fulfilled, agents and inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) would have already “closed and sealed” (with the clear purpose of abandonment)  Yongbyon – a North Korean nuclear facility. Also, Mr. Kim would have already provided the International Community with a full list of all his nuclear programmes and nuclear facilities.

Neither progress nor a peaceful solution is certain. We see now what chess players call “mutual zugswang“: a position where no one wants to make the first move. Maybe, the best solution is for America to offer aid in exchange for North Korean nuclear programmes. If Mr. Kim gets the US$ 25m promissed by Mr. Bush, he might actually shut down his factories for good.

Rodrigo Machado Fonseca