The economic crash and the further militarization of world politics
By Peter Strutynski *
The issue in my unit is, of course, purely rhetorical art goes without saying that the current global economic crisis more dangerous than terrorism. And this for three reasons:
1. Much of what has been the 11th September 2001 as "terrorism" or perceived political and media communication, is for mankind, and to yes, it should go no specific threat; This applies in any case if we have the damage and effects of terrorist crimes relate to other impairments and impairments of people around a result of underdevelopment, hunger, pandemic disease, mass unemployment, poverty and environmental degradation. This just one example: 100,000 people die every day from hunger or its immediate consequences - usually in the 122 countries of the developing world where 4.8 billion people live. According to Jean Ziegler, the former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food, hunger has become a "weapon of mass destruction" has become (see Ziegler 2005). Since the Millennium Summit in 2000, where the United Nations solemnly to halve poverty by 2015 proclaimed, we do not step forward. Although there were, as a November 2007 report submitted by Development Welthungerhilfe and terre des hommes showed at the global level, by "positive trends", such as reducing the number of people who live in extreme poverty. They fell from 1.247 billion in 1990 to 986 million the 2004th "This (was), however, especially the positive economic development in China, while in Africa the number of poor even after the most optimistic forecasts by the World Bank of 298 million (2004) to 326 million by 2015 will increase. Overall, almost half the world population of less than two dollars per day and live. "(Terre des hommes / Welthungerhilfe 2007.)
2. Ziegler also spoke of the "positive economic development in China." That was two years ago. The current crisis is also the most populous and dynamic country in the world do not bow because its economy in many ways integrated into the global economy, particularly its strong dependence on the markets of the leading industrial regions such as North America and Western Europe. In even more dramatic impact of global recession on the less developed countries and their populations in the Third World, a process that develops in the coming months will accelerate. Already suffering from over a billion people are chronically hungry, and the number of hungry continues to grow incessantly. It said the Special Representative of the United Nations for the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, ie the successor of Jean Ziegler, on 6 April on the occasion of the presentation of a study by the UN Development Program (UNDP) in the UN General Assembly (Olivier de Schutter, 2009). Every six seconds a child dying of malnutrition, said De Schutter. Blame for the disaster was, inter alia, the unfair international trade ", the necessary investment in agriculture for three decades have prevented many. The President of the General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann (2009), warned earlier in the same session that the army of hungry people in the global economic and financial crisis and the impacts of climate change still had to suffer more than any other. Ad Melkert UN Development Program (UNDP) said in the wake of the G-20 summit in London like this, "that the financial and economic crisis, especially in a humanitarian crisis turns, especially in the poorest countries". (Quoted from n. Beutler 2009th) Admittedly, the G20 developing countries and emerging countries to help alleviate the crisis promised. About the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and development banks wanted countries to help an economy does not collapse under its own power to prevent it. 1.1 trillion U.S. dollars will be used to provide the world with financial support should be in the amount of 250 billion U.S. dollars will be stimulated. Remains completely open, however, how much money actually in hand will be taken where this money hinfließt and how much of it disappeared en route.
3.Analysis on the impact of past economic crises demonstrate the effects of declining economic performance: A decline in the gross domestic product by three per cent is the poverty of families explode. The infant mortality rate is growing "almost mechanically" around 47 to 120 per 1000 live births to. Recent economic data confirm those concerns. One could assume that the growth rates of developing countries in 2009 will be halved, says Peter Wolff of the German Institute for Development Policy (Beutler 2009). This was also confirmed by a World Bank study (World Bank 2009): in 94 of 116 countries studied had an acute downturn observed. The first result is mass unemployment. So Cambodia 2008 already lost 30,000 jobs in the textile industry. In the fields of jewelry, cars and clothing fell in India in the last quarter of 2008 half a million jobs gone. According to the World Bank are in Asia, 140 million people from extreme poverty. From Africa - although only relatively weakly integrated into the world - not to mention! The black continent suffers from downturns in oil exports, coffee, diamonds and commodities. The speculation of the rich North with food led to a massive rise led - in Rwanda had the prices of food and energy increased fourfold. Benin, Burundi, Liberia, Mozambique and Niger are children, according to the emergency before the state bankrupt.
The "war on terror" than the destruction of the "Terorismus"
Without the magnitude and consequences of terrorist attacks to try to trivialize - the blood trail from New York via London and Madrid to Mumbai is bad enough - it must be noted that the "normal" crime world much more human lives and health costs than the international terrorism. But with the normal crime, with murder and manslaughter, then, human trafficking, rape and pedophilia are not horror scenarios and policies to guide. On the contrary, U.S. political consultant evaluate a high crime rate even as an indicator of a particularly high degree of development, as the organic component of wealth or consumer societies, so to speak. Another comparison would be to be: How big are the destructive effects of terrorist acts, compared with those perpetrated planned military actions in the framework of the so-called "war on terror"? How many civilians were e.g. in Afghanistan since October 2001 or in Iraq since March 2003 killed? Since these are official figures do not exist, we rely on estimates by independent sources. And the talk of up to one million people in both countries. (See, for example for Iraq: Gilbert Burnham, inter alia, the 2009th)
"The interdependence of deep recession, financial meltdown, ongoing environmental degradation and social polarization signals a crisis in the entire neoliberal development type, in the last 30 years has evolved and now come to dominate." As it says in the new memorandum of the Working Group Alternative Economic (2009). My economically trained intellect tells me that the super-meltdown of financial markets in the long term, still less the problem will be. The German bank, for example, last year a billion profit retracted Bank Chief Ackermann and screwed the desired profit margin for the next fiscal period is much higher. At the Annual General Meeting of the Deutsche Bank defended his previously announced and the public criticism of return target of 25 per cent (star-online, 26.05.2009).
The real problem is that the real economy in the wake of the biggest financial crisis since 80 years is advised. The hectic Konjunkturstimulanzien made for each ecological thought missing, and the temporary relief of social mitigating mass unemployment will not be able to prevent that the economies of many EU countries in the coming months in a deep depression will be forfeited. And the states, to combat the financial crisis very deep into foreign pockets plucked, will even the smallest economic recovery with an iron austerity stifle. Thus, the depression last longer than in previous cycles. In addition, the global nature of the crisis, the little niches, detours or abbreviation strategies permits. Export champion Germany will suffer particularly badly, as the traditionally neglected the internal market dips on export markets is also not nearly offset. Michael Krätke (2009) has recently in a lecture at the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, the peculiarity of the current global economic crisis, explained that it omits no area. It is a six-crisis, its individual components on feedback effects of a dramatic downward spiral in motion:
a crisis of world trade,
a crisis in the international banking and credit system,
a crisis in the export industries (there would be only the German arms industry excluded),
a crisis of transport and communication industries,
a crisis of the new export-oriented industries and services
a crisis in the international division of labor.
These crises are also associated with a worsening world hunger crisis - and I have already pointed out - a global ecological crisis, a crisis of policy (in ongoing policy of abstinence and politicians expressed apathy), as well as in a "faith crisis" of capitalism.
Now everywhere makes the vocabulary of "Postneoliberalismus" the round. Above all, social scientists, who have not learned, over longer historical periods, to think, but in every fashion trend like an epochal change, but no less than a paradigm shift to recognize feel confused the meaning and legitimacy crisis in which neo-liberalism seems to be there, with his real crisis. Here are the many screens, the state - where he is now the market hardened radicals was called - has aufgespannt, mostly there to the status quo ante restored - perhaps with a few cosmetic concessions to social democratic and workers Seelchen wing of the CDU / CSU .
The nature of global capitalism, remains unchanged
Fasting is considered the nature of global capitalism, beyond all euphemistically reproachful or attributes, in his care for the foreseeable future, do not change - at least if you have a social and political revolution exclude. The main indicator of current economic, political, social and regional development of world capitalism and its regulations, I see in the following (see below for Strutynski 2003a):
1: The World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund-supported implementation of neoliberal policies in the economic and financial policies of almost all countries in the world has temporarily some emerging countries, but at the expense of increased social polarization, and the rest of the Third World, however, mostly negatively affected. The extent of the IMF, which in recent years had harsh criticism for its lending policy will fundamentally change remains to be seen.
2: Many states and societies, the "globalization" only negatively affected or from ressourcialen and geostrategic reasons, the object of desire of the United States and other leading capitalist states are threatened by state collapse and be completely marginalized. This results in their Entsouveränisierung in the international concert and its radicalization in the interior.
3: This is related a relatively unchecked spread and regional Barbarisierung, mostly domestic wars and armed conflicts, especially in the Third World and former Second World. " (See Strutynski 2001.) Because they are the General suspected of terrorist cells of Al Qaeda to house, advised them to target the United States, the European Union, NATO, Russia and other countries.
4: In recent years we have a progressive transformation of the United Nations in an auxiliary organ of the leading powers, especially the United States, finds. The UN is basically only two functions to be reduced: the legitimacy of military interventions and humanitarian military post in "pacified" and in the states of each decoupled development and disaster-hungry areas of the earth. In this context, is a joint statement by the Secretaries-General of UN and NATO is important. In the rather general statement of 23 September 2008 is "extended consultation" and "operational cooperation", such as the "peacekeeping" in the Balkans or in Afghanistan. Both secretaries-general, Ban Ki-moon and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, commit themselves to threats and challenges together approach. (See Sponeck the 2009th) Such a statement is unusual for several reasons and with the central principles of the UN hardly compatible. So the main difference between the two organizations: a world organization of mutual collective security, there is a military alliance only safe, or simply ignored. NATO and the UN not only meet on an equal footing, but as a brother organizations which pursue the same policy objectives and also to "operational level" want to enforce. The monopoly of the United Nations is implicitly abandoned by recognizing the potential violence of NATO. It also seems to accept that NATO is - contrary to its own behalf and under the UN Charter only legal task, namely a defense alliance in the context of Article 51 of the UN Charter to be - the world of "peacekeeping" operations a role similar the UN should play. Finally, does the UN-NATO declaration incompatible with the integrity of the UN Secretary-General, which all 192 UN Member States, ie also the possible opponents of NATO. Regardless of the speculative question of who is here instrumentalised by whom: the NATO by the UN or the UN, through NATO, is expressed in the agreement a significant profit of NATO and a corresponding loss of importance of the United Nations. The Summit Declaration of Strasbourg recorded the NATO-UN deal as a great success. In Paragraph 19 states: "The joint UN-NATO declaration of last year, represents an important step in the evolution of cooperation and will make a significant contribution to addressing the threats and challenges with which the international community is facing." (NATO 2009th)
5: Another feature of the current era is the postbipolaren in recent years more and more clearly reflected the desire of the U.S. "unilateralism" of the situation of a comfortable uneinholbaren military strength is accompanied. This unilateralism is closely linked to the eight-year term of George W. Bush. The new president maintains a different style. In all his visits abroad, which he in the first 100 days passed, it was usually one word from him that he wanted to "hear" what his partner would have to say before he even makes suggestions. In the case of course is also Obama's foreign policy guideline of his predecessor and all its pre-predecessor true: The United States understand their role in the world as "leadership". Former Presidential Advisor Zbigniew K. Brzezinski has 2007 a book of his successor known work "The only world power" (1997) written. His new Bestsellers called "Second Chance" (Brzezinski 2007). It Brzezinski draws a balance sheet of U.S. foreign policy in the last three presidents, especially the Bush era. The result of his analysis: the strong unilateralism and the brute-war policy of the U.S. administration the past eight years, the United States from achieving its geopolitical goals - which, obviously Brzezinski states - far away. The rationality of the hegemonic United States, Bush and cohorts anything wrong, what was the wrong thing. You have a wedge driven through Europe and are (almost) the whole Arab or Muslim world for the opponent made. "15 years after its coronation as global leader America has been a fearful and lonely democracy in a politically antagonistic world." Only in the military sector, the U.S. today more than at the end of the Soviet Union. But the country's capacity to mobilize, inspire a certain direction to be taken and thus to shape global realities, "this ability is" significantly decreased ". America needs to return to positions of real size, credibility and legitimacy to win back. And the next President must all its political and diplomatic skills to restore a truly postbipolare "globalist" foreign policy to shape.
6: In addition, we are witnessing today a growing differentiation of economic and geostrategic interests among the leading states of the "triad" US-Europe-East Asia, including the increasing competition between global transnational corporations (see Altvater / Mahnkopf 2007). It seems that currently plays in the world automotive industry is, what various forecasting institutions and experts have long predicted: the global structure of overcapacity of around 20 major automobile manufacturers through bankruptcies, mergers and subsequent closure of redundant works trademarks or dismantled.
On the threshold of a new Cold War
Where does the world today and what controls them? What strategic military options and now play in world politics play a role?
With the end of the "classic" East-West conflict in Europe almost 20 years, the coordinates of the world undoubtedly changed policy. We are now in a transition period in which three different constellations of co-exist. I would like a three theses worse (see below for Strutynski 2003b): First, the Cold War has not really stopped (1), secondly, we stand at the threshold of a new Cold War (2) and, thirdly, we are on the return the time before the Cold War (3).
(1) The first thesis: The Cold War, in the 40 years after the Second World War the world had its imprint on, only from a Eurocentric perspective has been terminated. In East Asia and the Pacific, the Cold War in fact never ceased to exist. This has to do with the fact that in Asia the great antipodes of the United States, the People's Republic of China, from the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not affected and not in the maelstrom of the disintegration of the Real Socialism fell. Regardless of how the economic and social conditions in China will develop, the land for the superpower United States a major challenge - even if Beijing tries, not as a superpower to appear. China is divided into a number of conflicts involved, which beyond the region and to the Pacific to the U.S. hegemonic plan call: the dispute over islands in the China Sea, for instance, or - especially - Beijing's claim to Taiwan include them just as the clash between the two powers in Africa. This is the USA like the hare in the story of the hare and the hedgehog: Wherever the U.S. foothold try, it turns out that China is already here. Even the Korean peninsula plays a prominent role in the continuity of the "Cold War". In the years of poker to the civilian and military nuclear programs of North Korea have all the adversaries of the current tab mutual threat ritual withdrawn. Cold War so as usual!
And even if we look to Europe who seem to be the old model of the Cold War, especially in the relationship between NATO and Russia, aufzuleben again. The short Georgian-Russian war in South Ossetia last August was almost like a "proxy war": NATO knows now, when Russia for the reasonable limit is reached. And Russia should know what the intentions of NATO and its U.S. leadership in the Caucasian region in the lead shields.
(2) My second thesis is: Are there one or outmoded structures of the Cold War continued with the tendency to solidify again, so take while developing new structures of a "Cold War" on the horizon. These are dual in nature. One is the highly against certain ideological confrontation between the "civilized" and "non-civilized," Christian-occidental modern world and the medieval Islamic world. The inevitable clash of cultures, Samuel Huntington (1996) at the beginning of the 90s of last century saw coming, it seems the attacks on the Twin Towers to have been begun. As for the situation today from the old Cold War is different and so dangerous is the fact that the United States because of their military strength after the Cold War and hot taste, and may result in Iraq and Afghanistan and now in Pakistan too.
(3) My third thesis is: The Western industrialized countries (including Japan), the Cold War in relative transatlantic unity, who has spent gaining foreign policy move to enforce what they themselves define as their national interests. The cracks, the scheduled time and again between the U.S. and the EU states, but also within the EU are visible, indicate long-term strategic contradictions out through the process of political compromise, not endless kitten will be.
Main adversaries: the U.S. and Germany
The interesting thing is that the main actors are the same again, already a hundred years ago, the struggle for supremacy in the world are out. After the well-known social scientist and philosopher Immanuel Wallerstein (2002) had this since 1873, Germany and the United States. They represented to 1913 the most successful economies and are delivered from 1914 to 1945 a thirty-year war ", which - in the inter-war period - only a cease-fire was broken. Germany now has the framework of the EU to join us - the U.S. is still on its own and in this moment, despite global political commitment in the isolation around him. The British poodle Blair has abdicated, and the French poodle Sarkozy replacement will probably be home all hands full to do. Wallerstein gives the U.S. a few years for the inevitable decline as a decisive force in world politics. Even today it is so that the U.S. military only to represent a world power, economically, they are no longer. For Wallerstein is therefore no longer the question "whether the U.S. hegemony fades, but whether the United States to find a way abzudanken in dignity, with a minimum of damage to the world and to themselves" (Wallerstein 2002.)
The relatively simple and well-transparent world of bipolarity and the rivalry between a system and attractive appearing tamed capitalism on the one hand and an economically inefficient and democratically deficient appearing socialism on the other hand, is today a highly explosive mixture of three overlapping conflict constellations since been replaced.
You can find a single war in its concentrated expression, namely in Afghanistan. (See below for Strutynski 2008.) The country in the Hindu Kush is not much more to offer than one for the west of interesting geo-strategic location. This is not just about the control of a territory in which or by through a major oil pipeline project to be realized: the link between the oil-and gas-rich Caspian region and the Indian Ocean - so a bypass to Russian territory to circumvent. It is also about the strategic position of Afghanistan: The Land of the Hindu Kush to the south bordering Pakistan (it follows in the southeast India) and in the west of Iran. Russia in the north is only through the Central Asian former Soviet republics of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan separately. And in the eastern reaches a narrow land corridor to the border of China, the great antipodes of the U.S. and the European Union in the struggle for scarce energy resources of the earth. Afghanistan lies in the middle of a region where nearly half of humanity lives and over two thirds of global oil and gas. Afghanistan is one of the most strategic regions of the earth, ideal as a kind of terrestrial aircraft carrier state and for radar systems and missile launch ramps. Who would not have the shots?
The battle for the "Eurasian chessboard"
The consistency with which the United States in the period of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan all the insurgents with weapons and logistical support and the inexorability with which the current occupiers to take control of the country are fighting, point out that the West is the recommendation of the great strategists Zbigniew K. Brzezinski from the 90s to heart: For the "global supremacy, and the historical legacy in America" will be "crucial", we may, in his book "The only world power" (1997) read, "how the power on the Eurasian continent will be distributed. " The "Eurasian continent - including Brzezinski understood especially the region from the Black Sea, the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea to Central Asia - is the" checkerboard, which is also in the future, the battle for global domination will play. " Hence the interest of Russia, Afghanistan, at least indirectly, one foot in the door to keep. Even after the Zerwürfnis with NATO because of the Georgia crisis, the General Staff in Moscow with the Afghanistan-cooperation with Brussels "is not up for discussion." And the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, the "Izvestia" quoted as saying: "We would be a defeat for NATO in Afghanistan is not located." (Quoted from n. Strutynski 2009a.)
Not just a foot in the door, but wants free access to the West (USA, NATO, EU) itself in the Caucasus and the Black Sea region. The inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO were on the Bucharest summit identified case and are in the Summit Declaration of Strasbourg has been renovated (NATO 2009). The failed attempt by the West undertook the Georgian leadership, the entire country, including Abkhazia and South Ossetia through a war of aggression under control and reduce annoying to push Russians out, is grandiose failure. The more U.S. and NATO are trying to host Georgia and Ukraine into NATO and to enable the ring to Russia from the south to draw even closer. It started in May 2009 NATO maneuvers in Georgia provocatively stresses in this strategy.
It is since the August war in the press on various opinion editorials in fashion again come from a new "Cold War" to speak. The recent events on the Eurasian "checkerboard" call, in fact, memories of the care for old Cold War kept awake. The time of his George F. Kennan invented containment policy (containment) against the Soviet Union is only a potentially harsher variant which, for the names like Constriction (necking) or even strangulations likely to be accurate. Should this succeed, the West could be on the full concentrate counterparty China.
The claim of the United States and NATO, together with the EU for world peace and security it would inevitably calls opposing forces on the plan who are not members of NATO and also by the UN not feel sufficiently represented.
At the moment there are two major organizations that are challenged by the NATO feel the OVKS and the SOZ (see below and Strutynski 2009b). The OVKS (Organization of the Collective Security Treaty) is in 1992 by a number of states, which formerly belonged to the Soviet Union, was founded. Your include Russia and Belarus, the Caucasus Republic of Armenia and the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (since 2006). It is a purely defensive alliance, which after the dissolution of the Soviet Union resulting security gap wanted. It was during this entire period, no security role. In October 2008 the Alliance made himself, when it decided that a common reaction to launch. The aim of the force it was, in the case of a military conflict "any aggression against the Alliance off. The remaining tasks are to against international terrorism, drug trafficking and transnational crime, and (natural) disasters to combat.
The SOZ (Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO) was founded in 2001, but enjoys much greater attention than the nearly ten years older OVKS. This contributes to the fact that China is the most important emerging global player, a member of the organization. Otherwise you belong - with the exception of Armenia and Belarus - all OVKS States. India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan have observer status. Although the Shanghai organization repeatedly emphasized, not as a counterweight to NATO and to understand their main tasks in the economic cooperation presently, its only really visible "successes" military nature, such as a large-scale joint maneuvers in August 2007, the " anti-terrorist struggle "practiced. The other objectives resemble very much those of OVKS: You have committed in the region together drug and arms trafficking and political extremism and to fight separatism. Unresolved conflicts among themselves (such as disputes in cross-border water resources and reserves) should be settled peacefully.
Obama-Government: Continuity in foreign and security policy
Finally, I would point to an issue that is now another, is: What has the world by the new U.S. president Obama to be expected. What signs of change in relation to NATO and the general foreign policy orientation of the United States?
In general, it can be said that all policies of the United States foreign and security policy, the greatest continuity. This was already visible in the nomination of Hillary Clinton for Secretary Robert Gates and the Defense Department, which he has under George W. Bush headed. In addition, substantive continuity lines. In particular, the energy issue has become hot topic in the U.S. and NATO in recent years has become. The National Security Strategy of the United States in September 2002 was the direction indicated: it is about "developing new sources and types of global energy, particularly in the Western world, Africa, Central Asia and the Caspian region, it says. And the Munich Security Conference in 2006 dealt primarily with this issue.
This new orientation embodies like no other, the new National Security Advisor to the Obama Administration, James Jones (see Rozoff 2009). U.S. General Jones was from 2003 to 2006 Chief of NATO in Europe (SACEUR) and was at this time especially effective on two levels: firstly, he was the "transformation" of NATO from a defensive alliance (Article 5 of the Washington Treaty) in an intervention Alliance. Under his aegis, in particular the NATO-intervention approach. On the other hand, he carried the realignment of NATO to the (global) security of energy resources. So he saw it as his duty to the findings of the so-called Cheney Report, May 2001 ( "Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound. Energy for America's Future") in military planning to implement. That meant in particular the U.S. and NATO in a position to make political control over the view from its three main regions of energy to win: the Persian Gulf, the area between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea and the West African Gulf of Guinea. Jones is also because as an architect of AFRICOM, the new U.S. command for Africa, which was decided in 2007 and in October 2008 in Stuttgart officially started its operational work (see eg reputation 2008).
American commentators and editorialists, the new security adviser Obama today in one breath with such greats like Henry Kissinger (of this post under President Richard Nixon began) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (security adviser under Jimmy Carter). This will also be expressed that Jones believed, for the most powerful and influential man in the Obama administration positions - with an agenda, which he already as a NATO commander successfully through declined. So had some of the NATO Summit in Riga in November 2006 in relation to "energy security" means a work order issued, "to define the areas in which NATO is to safeguard the security interests of its members added value and at their request, national and international efforts can support. "Furthermore, almost all current NATO missions, a more or less directly related to energy security: the two NATO assistance missions in Sudan and in Iraq, ISAF, in Afghanistan, Operation Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean Sea, the Operation Enduring Freedom in the Horn of Africa and the Kosovo Force (KFOR) in Kosovo. (See Roithner the 2009th)
Shortly before U.S. Secretary of Hillary Clinton on her Europatrip aufbrach to NATO in Brussels to visit, she announced in a press conference that the new administration the term "War on Terror" from their vocabulary had deleted (Wall Street Journal, 31.03. 2009). Basically, they follow a recommendation from the RAND Corporation, in a study from July last year had demonstrated that the "war on terror" as a counter-productive've highlighted (Jones / Libicki 2008). The main result of the study, the 268 terrorist groups in the period 1968 to 2006 under the microscope had: In most cases, the terrorist groups to stop by police and intelligence activities or the fact that the groups with the respective governments have made arrangements regarding the enforcement of their political goals. The U.S. Foreign Minister and the President have nothing to comply with under Bush launched the war against terror in real terms to an end. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, the war even expanded. This is no longer a war against terrorism, but - as in Afghanistan, the specific statement of the Strasbourg NATO summit is to say - about "security for the Afghan people create to protect our citizens and the values, namely freedom, democracy and human rights, to defend. "
The coming war for energy, raw materials and spheres of influence will be so in the name of freedom and democracy are. So again: Not much new under the sun. But this is certainly no consolation.
AG alternative economic policy (200): Memorandum of the 2009th From the crisis in the crash, Cologne
Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf (2007): competition for the Empire - The Future of the European Union in the globalized world, Munster
Benjamin Beutler (2009): The poor suffer most. In: Neues Deutschland, 8 April
Zbigniew K. Brzezinski (1997): The only world power. America's strategy of domination, Frankfurt / M.
Zbigniew K. Brzezinski (2007): Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower, Basic Books 2007
Gilbert Burnham, Riyadh Lafta, Shannon Doocy, Les Roberts (2006): Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey. In: http://www.thelancet.com/; 11 October
Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann (2009): Statement. To the General Assembly Informal Interactive Thematic Dialogue on the Global Food Crisis and the Right to Food, New York, 6 April,
Samuel Huntington (1996): The clash of cultures. The Clas hof Civilizations. The reshaping of world politics in the 21st Century, Munich-Vienna
Seth G. Jones, Margtin C. Libicki (2008): How Terrorist Groups End. Lessons for Countering Al Qa'ida. Ed. By the RAND Corporation;
Michael Krätke (2009): Not only a financial crisis ...;
NATO (2009): Summit Declaration Strasbourg / Kehl; http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb5/frieden/themen/NATO/2009-gipfelerklaerung.html
Rick Rozoff: Global Energy War: Washington's New African Kissinger's plan, Chicago, Illinois (unveröff. manuscript, January 2009)
Thomas Roithner (2009): From Poker to the energy resources of war? The end of NATO at the end of the fossil fuel era? Into. Science & Peace, Issue 1
Werner Ruf (2008): AFRICOM - The handle of the United States to Africa. In: creative utopie No. 216, October, pp 883-892
Olivier de Schutter (2009): Statement. Interactive Thematic Dialogue of the U.N. General Assembly on The Global Food Crisis and the Right to Food, Trusteeship Council Chamber, New York, 6 April;
Hans von Sponeck (2009): UN and NATO: What security and for whom? In: Ralph-M. Lüdtke,
Strutynski Peter (ed.): The world according to Bush, Kassel (forthcoming)
Peter Strutynski (2001): Nothing new under the sun? The wars of the 21st Century. In: Forum on Science, No. 4, October, p. 59-63 Peter Strutynski (2003a): The United States is not omnipotent. In: Violence peace according to the will of the only world power? Ways out of danger. Contributions to the 11th Dresdner Peace Symposium, DSS-Arbeitspapiere, No. 65, p. 6-18
Peter Strutynski (2003b): The old and new wars: continuity and discontinuity in the global political conflict constellations. In: ÖSFK (Ed.), Peace Power Europe, Münster, p. 85-99
Peter Strutynski (2008): The only alternative to the Afghanistan war is no war. In: Erhard Crome (ed.), International Politics in the 21st Century. Lines of conflict and geostrategic changes, Berlin, pp 140-150 Peter Strutynski (2009a): From Afghanistan to Georgia: Position battles for the new world order. In Our Time, 29 August
Peter Strutynski (2009b): The globalization of NATO - or the militarization of the globe. In: Federal Committee Peace counsel and AG Peace Research (Ed.), NATO's 60 years: Enough! Peace EXTRA Memorandum 2009, Kassel, p. 7-24
Terre des hommes / Welthungerhilfe (2007): The reality of development. A critical inventory of German development policy, Fifteenth Report 2006/2007, oO, November
Immanuel Wallerstein (2002): The Eagle Has Crash Landed. In: Foreign Policy, July / August; http://www.foreignpolicy.com/
The World Bank 2009: World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic Geography, Washington
Jean Ziegler (2005): The Empire of Shame. The fight against poverty and oppression, Bertelsmann: Munich
* Unit on the 17th isw-forum, "The capitalist crisis and the new global distribution of power, 9 May 2009 in Munich
This article appeared in: The capitalist crisis and the new global power distribution 17. isw-
forum; isw REPORT NO. 77, Munich 2009, p. 20-26.
Further contributions to the book: Conrad Schuhl: The West is losing its dominance - Cooperation and Conflict in the new world Richard D. Wolff: The Obama Strategy: America's
new role in the global economy Walter Baier: The European Left and the crisis