Group items tagged

Haug pursues two objectives in this essay. First, he wants to develop a better understanding of the global conflicts at the beginning of the twenty-first century. To reach that understanding, it is, he argues, necessary to get beyond the crude empiricist language of the mainstream. Secondly, therefore, he elaborates and further develops certain key aspects of Antonio Gramsci's theory of hegemony (consensual leadership through multilateralism vs. mere supremacy, "hegemonic sacrifice," etc.) in order better to grasp the lines of conflicts in national as well as international politics. Haug takes as his starting point the guiding question of a 2006 conference in Athens, namely whether the current political conjuncture should be interpreted as one of imperialism or, in Hardt and Negri's sense, as empire. He recasts this question from one of interpretation to one of history, and in so doing he rearticulates the concepts of empire vs. imperialism. He sees transnational high-tech capitalism as having arrived at a crossroads. One path from this crossroads, he argues, leads to rival imperialisms; and the other path leads to the formation of a regulated world market flanked by world ecological and social politics, to, in short, an "empire" of transnational capitalism. The big question underlying Haug's project is this: Will the United States succeed, after the political, military, and economic debacle of the phase of the unilateral "imperialist" politics of George W. Bush, in recovering a political leadership role in the world? The effort of the United States under President Obama to do so must contend with the Bush legacy, consisting of two unwinnable wars, a deep economic crisis that began as a financial crisis, and a politically and culturally divided nation. Haug's essay does not pretend to answer this larger question; its more modest purpose is foundational, that is, to articulate the question more clearly and to establish the prerequisites and criteria for a pro

As President Barack Obama spoke a few words in Portuguese at Rio de Janeiro's Municipal Theatre drawing upon similarities between Brazilian and U.S. Histories and making reference to Brazilian culture, analysts believe that Brazil's relationship with the United States over trade and foreign policy has warmed as a sustained applause echoed throughout the theatre. "Our journeys began in similar ways," Obama said during his speech. "We became colonies claimed for distant crowns, but soon declared our independence. We welcomed waves of immigrants to our shores, and eventually cleansed the stain of slavery from our land," Obama said. Eduardo Eugenio Gouvea Viera, who represents FIRJAN Brazil's leading industry federation said "It was an historic speech. The message he gave was that the most worthy value to Brazilians and Americans is freedom," Viera told Brazil's official Agencia Brasil reports CNN. Abdias Nascimento, a representative of Brazil's Movimento Negro, said Obama's speech was "profound. Obama succeeded in striking the most sensitive chords in the souls of Brazil and Americans." In stark contrast, former Environment Minister Marina Silva, criticized Obama for abstaining from mentioning the environment and emissions trade negotiations, issues that have divided Brazil and the U.S. Early Sunday, President Obama's entourage made its way to Rio de Janeiro's infamous favela (a Portuguese word for "shanty") Cidade de Deus, whose social issues of drug wars and racial disparity were memorialized in the film "City of God" oringally "Cidade de Deus," directed by Fernando Mirreille and Katia Lund that was nominated for an Academy Award. The Obamas' visit to the favela was a symbolic if not an historic gesture that was well received by the Brazilian public in a nation known for its strong African heritage but a less than favorable record on racial and class discrimination. Favela residents cheered the arrival of the first family and Cidade de Deus schoolchildren watche

Although globalisation has been an increasingly important characteristic of United States higher education for over two decades, there has been little historical analysis of the process or its origins. This article argues that beginning in the early 1970s, institutional, national, and international events established a powerful context for the development of college and university goals that focus on globalisation. These goals are substantially different from the goals of improving the democracy and opportunities for full citizenship articulated in the report of the 1947 President's Commission on Higher Education and subsequently affirmed in other national reports as late as 1971.

Is Chinese "soft power" really transforming the world? Joshua Kurlantzick and Yale University Press provide us with a neat, definitive answer: yes. In 2007, Kurlantzick published a book entitled Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power is Transformingthe World. Looking closely at the period from approximately 1999 to 2006 (virtually all his sources were published during those years), Kurlantzick makes the following case. The prestige of the United States and its relations with China were not going well. There was the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, followed by an unpopular war in Iraq launched by an increasingly unpopular U.S. president (George Bush). The glory days of the Clinton presidency were over. With respect to Sino-American bilateral relations, there was the U.S. missile strike on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 and then the nasty spy plane incident off the coast of Hainan in 2001. At approximately the same time, China was becoming an extremely important world economic force. For the first time in its modern history, China was a major actor in international relations and had plenty of money to spend on upgrading its global prestige and influence. "Since most economists," Kurlantzick asserted, "project that China's economy will continue to expand between 7 and 10 percent per year, Beijing can continue its rapid growth in trade" (p. 94).

In the seven and a half years since September 11, the United States has witnessed one of the greatest expansions of executive authority in its history, at the expense of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. President Obama, as only the thir