"Everyone knows there’s a catastrophe unfolding, that few can afford to live in their own city. It was not always so." - China Miéville on
Apocalyptic London
posted by timshel
on Mar 1, 2012 -
58 comments
End of Empire : A collaboration of all areas of geopolitics affecting countries of the world in relation to the 'Empire' of the United States of America, and the 'sub-Empires', such as the United Kingdom, Europe, Australia and any other country which seeks to exploit poorer nations and their people in the quest for domination.
posted by adamvasco
on Nov 27, 2007 -
11 comments
icdiss.org looks, at first glance, like your run-of-the-mill think tank website. Two recent articles,
one in The Economist and
another on economist.com, say that the
International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty is, in reality, geopolitical
astroturf for the Kremlin and the rulers of
Transdniestria. Both of these articles are by journalist
Edward Lucas (his
blog).
The organization even has a
wikipedia entry. The entry has a fascinating
talk page, with Edward Lucas contributing additional research he's done since the articles were published.
So...
want to become a member? Before deciding, maybe you want to read an
interview with the program director. It's in the Transdniestrian English-language publication
The Tiraspol Times & Weekly Review (slogans: "daily news, independent and objective" and "Get the Facts!").
posted by Kattullus
on Aug 11, 2006 -
10 comments
Spotlight on Military News and International Affairs (SOMNIA) A news aggregator since when there weren't many news aggregators. SOMNIA is a great geopolitical gift from the Canadian Forces College. From the Guardian to the Christian Science Monitor, from the Washington Times to the Washington Post, many military and geopolitical news articles aggregated on a daily basis, segregated into Canadian News, Canadian Commentary, International News and International commentary I myself have been a fan since before the war on Kosovo. Enjoy!
posted by furtive
on Mar 31, 2005 -
5 comments
The Likudization of the World "....he has cast the United States in the very same role in which Israel casts itself, facing the very same threat. In this narrative, the U.S. is fighting a never ending battle for its very survival against utterly irrational forces that seek nothing less than its total extermination. "
posted by troutfishing
on Sep 12, 2004 -
42 comments
World wants Bush out. "Only one in five want to see Bush re-elected," "Senator Kerry was particularly favoured in traditionally strong US allies." Should America take into consideration the international support of their presidential hopefuls, or can they really go it alone in today's global community?
posted by krisjohn
on Sep 8, 2004 -
32 comments
A View from the Eye of the Storm. An Arab intellectual in Europe ponders on the Muslim world and comes to some interesting conclusions. Israel is a sideshow. Iran is the most dangerous country in the world.. in the long run the only way for us (the West) to win the war of terror is to force the problem nations to reform both politically and culturally.
via Steven Den Beste weblog
posted by stbalbach
on Jun 25, 2004 -
45 comments
Stumbling Into War by James P. Rubin, From
Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003
Why did most of the world abandon Washington when it went after Saddam Hussein? The war in Iraq could never have been an easy sell, but nor should it have been such a difficult one. The Bush administration badly botched the prewar maneuvering, presenting a textbook study in how not to wage a diplomatic campaign.
posted by y2karl
on Sep 21, 2003 -
16 comments
Joshka Fischer Said What? That The U.S. Needs Another Boston Tea Party? Hidden in the depths of this very interesting article by
Timothy Garton-Ash, on Europe's misplaced anti-Americanism, is a very interesting revelation from Germany's Green Party-carrying Foreign Minister. To what extent are relations between the pro-American and the anti-American Europe and the United States - the so-called "Old and New Europe" - based on misperceptions? Is Europe, like the Middle East and, well, the whole wide world, too complex for the current U.S. administration to understand? Is it really possible for American foreign to swerve round France and Germany?
[Fwiw, my two centimes is that it is.]
posted by MiguelCardoso
on Jun 14, 2003 -
8 comments
Waging Peace: Dr. Robert Muller, former assistant secretary general of the United Nations, and one of the people who witnessed the founding of the U.N., says the global body is fulfilling its ultimate purpose:
"Never before in the history of the world has there been a global, visible, public, viable, open dialogue and conversation about the very legitimacy of war".
posted by alms
on Mar 16, 2003 -
19 comments
Is hypocrisy essential to the New World Order?
Whilst I appreciate the seductive insights and plausible analysis offered by Lee Harris in
this lengthy and generally intelligent essay, I worry that the linking of themes in the intellectual form here merely provides, if not more ammo to the hawks in GWB's Cabinet, the justification for his unending 'war on terror'. There's thinly veiled xenophobia, I'm sure; but also some self-limiting principles compatible with a new kind of 'liberal hegemony' - called 'neo-sovereignty', viz.,
"It (neo-sovereignty) will only be viable if the U.S. scrupulously refuses to intervene in the self-determination of any state except for the purposes of maintaining the double standards in respect of nuclear weapons... At the heart of the dialectically emergent concept of neo-sovereignty is precisely the double standard that Mr. (Richard, the Chief Arms Inspector of the United Nations)
Butler denounced - a double standard imposed by the U.S. on the rest of the world, whereby the U.S. can unilaterally decide to act, if need be, to override and even to cancel the existence of any state regime that proposes to develop WMD, especially in those cases where the state regime in question has demonstrated its dangerous lack of a sense of the realistic." [More inside]
posted by dash_slot-
on Mar 11, 2003 -
30 comments
Well known for speaking the truth about governments and getting pressured for it [7th paragraph from the top], Alain Labrousse recently published his
Dictionnaire géopolitique des drogues [Geopolitical Dictionary of Drugs]. I don't think it's been translated in English yet, but all his previous works have, so I'm sure an English version is on the way.
His latest book is being well received by everyone who's interested in "open source" information about drugs, particularly how the various national economies profit from them.
A
recent review [in French], cites one example of twisted international relations concerning drugs [my translation]: Europe speaks no evil about activities in Morocco, the most important source of cannabis in the world, or in Turkey, where scores of laboratories transform afghan opium into heroin, simply because these two countries provide a frontline of resistance to radical Islam. In North America, in Mexico, the United States tolerated for 70 years the Institutional Revolutionary Party (
Partido Revolucionario Institucional - PRI), even though its leaders supported, and even chose mexican drug cartels. Geostrategic interests outweigh the most basic needs of the war against drugs.
posted by titboy
on Feb 5, 2003 -
0 comments
The End of Empire? "You can't sustain an empire from a debtor's weakening position--sooner or later the creditors pull the plug. That humiliating lesson was learned by Great Britain early in the last century, and the United States faces a similar reckoning ahead."
posted by homunculus
on Sep 9, 2002 -
39 comments
Is a 'Pax Americana' possible? And if it
is possible, is it a good thing or a bad thing?
It depends on who you ask. And if not the US, then who?
Europe has neither the force of arms nor the political cohesiveness.
China seems to be the only other contender, but it begs the question: should America even
try to mediate world disputes, or intervene when (and
only when) our national interests are at stake?
posted by mrmanley
on Aug 14, 2002 -
28 comments
(.) (.) The United Nations: Non partisan independant arbiter of international matters or hyper-politicized arena? You make the call
posted by BentPenguin
on May 1, 2002 -
20 comments
Saudis in the worst squeeze play yet. SA is in a triangulation of criticism from Afghanistan, from within the country, and from Washington. The fall of this Muslim regime, a US ally, with a horrible human rights record and repressive culture, the largest supplier of oil in the world, and huge supplier of contract business for the US, is not something to take lightly. Catch-22.
posted by mmarcos
on Oct 28, 2001 -
10 comments
