Who Rules the World?

Product Information

The fundamental question of international relations, then, is whether the US should “accept that other major powers should have some kind of zone of influence in their neighborhoods”. Rachman thinks it should, for reasons of “diffusion of economic power around the world – combined with simple common sense”. it is more gratifying to bask in praise for courageously protesting the abuses of official enemies: a fine activity, but not the priority of a value-oriented intellectual who takes the responsibilities of that stance seriously.”

Dogged original research and superb narrative skills come together in this gripping account of pitiless evil.Si bien Estados Unidos puede tolerar la desobediencia de Turquía —aunque con disgusto—, China es más difícil de pasar por alto. La prensa advierte que «los inversores y comerciantes de China están ahora llenando un vacío en Irán en un momento en el que empresas de otras muchas naciones, sobre todo de Europa, se retiran» y, en particular, que China está expandiendo su papel dominante en las industrias de energía de Irán.19 Washington está reaccionando con un punto de desesperación. El Departamento de Estado advirtió a China que si quiere ser aceptada en la «comunidad internacional» —un término técnico para referirse a Estados Unidos y quien esté de acuerdo con él— no debe «esquivar y evadir las responsabilidades internacionales, [que] son claras», a saber: seguir las órdenes de Estados Unidos.20 Es poco probable que eso impresione mucho a China. También” The west sees Nato enlargement as benign. Not surprisingly, Russia, along with much of the Global South, has a different opinion, as do some prominent western voices. George Kennan warned early on that Nato enlargement is a “tragic mistake”, and he was joined by senior American statesmen in an open letter to the White House describing it as a “policy error of historic proportions”. US invaded Iraq resulting in hundreds of thousands killed and millions of refugees along with barbarous torture and destructions. Meanwhile igniting sectarian conflict that is tearing the region to shreds and laying the basis for ISIS monstrosity along with their ally Saudi Arabia is categorised as 'stabilization'. On the other hand, Iran poses no military threat, its strategic doctrines are defensive and its nuclear program (have no effect to produce bombs as far as intelligence can determine) are a central part of US's deterrent strategy. Of particular concern to Russia are plans to expand Nato to Ukraine. These plans were articulated explicitly at the Bucharest Nato summit of April 2008, when Georgia and Ukraine were promised eventual membership in Nato. The wording was unambiguous: “Nato welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in Nato. We agreed today that these countries will become members of Nato.” However, Chomsky closes his deliberations with the powerful alternative question to the opening one - i.e. "What principles and values rule the world?'

Book Review: American Energy Cinema, ed. by Robert Lifset, Raechel Lutz, and Sarah Stanford-McIntyre The notion of 'the World' defined by Israel and US is far different from the actual world in terms of the atrocities and crimes conducted on the Muslim World versus death of a few American or Israelis in retaliation of years of suppression, murder, brutality and torture but still the Muslim World is labelled as terrorists and looked down upon by the majority. The bombings conducted by CIA and other organizations have been kept top secret hence very few secrets or facts actually come out unless they become too prominent to suppress. Noam Chomsky takes issue with my criticism of his one-dimensional focus on what he sees as America’s nefarious role in the world. If Chomsky had entitled his book “America’s Evil History,” I would have accepted his exclusive focus. However, he entitled it “Who Rules the World?” yet goes on to write as if the United States is virtually alone as the cause of all the world’s problems. This is a very good/gentle introduction for people who have not read Chomsky's more technical political philosophy and may find themselves overwhelmed plodding through 10 different analyses of the same argument.

The readers new to Chomsky have a comprehensive source list that they can use if they want to delve into the topics under discussion further.