INTRODUCTION
BIGGER, BETTER
WARS
"… the question is whether history will repeat itself? Are we nearing another war to precipitate closure of the global economy?"
James Davidson and Lord Rees-Mogg jointly publish Strategic Investment (1217 St Paul St., Baltimore, MD 21202, USA) one of the world's very best financial journals. Davidson posed the above question in their January issue. And mighty pertinent it is. Today, despite some setbacks, we still hear hubristic US political chatter of a US-dominated New World Order and a de facto US-dominated global economy.
The ongoing, US-contrived global financial meltdown is presumably seen as a giant step towards fulfilling that dream - or nightmare, depending how you look at it. Davidson hits the nail on the head when he queries whether war will be used to consolidate things. Certainly, riding exactly parallel with the economic smash-up, we are seeing a huge proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, moving country after country inexorably up the conflict agenda.
Throughout the world, from Russia to the Balkans, the Middle East to North Korea, Africa to Latin America, from China to smouldering disputes between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, the crises are mounting. Even the Ulster peace is not assured. Two years ago, there were 25 conflicts and minor wars in process around the globe. Today there are 50: and spreading. On all sides the prognosis looks bleak.
The respected British Intelligence Digest, 29.1.99, commented: "It has been a bad start for the year for anyone with an interest in global stability and
prosperity … with some of the most important happenings going virtually unnoticed by the general media." Elsewhere ID has warned that "sometime soon we must expect the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945, most likely in mid-1999."
Speaking in New York in December, UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan, drenched in pessimism, warned of all-out wars in Iraq and Kosovo, mentioned the inability of the UN to do anything much in Africa. All of which came poorly from a man paid a salary larger than that of the US President and is supposedly the world's key peacekeeper. When the UN was first founded its true architects, Socialist International, claimed the world body represented "man's last, best hope for peace," a forum for human rights, a noble mechanism to show us a new, more equitable and just world order. The last two words give the game away. How has it worked out? Just look back. Fifty years after the UN's inception the world is less safe, less rich and infinitely more dangerous, while the cost of UN "peacekeeping" has risen from US$300 million to US$88 billion. Presently the UN funds at least 18 interventions. All have been, and are, exercises in total futility. So much for UN mythology. The assertion that the UN has somehow staved off WWIII is totally baseless, utter garbage.
Undoubtedly, the shape of the new millennium is beginning to assert itself: and a dreadfully uncomfortable time it promises to be. All of it once more demonstrating the truth of Hegel's observation: that the only thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. Please read on.
Internet Pages by Hexadyne Web Designs