GT wrote:
>2. I disagree with those who claim that NATO's actions are
>imperialistic. ...
> This is a war about:
>(i) the future of NATO as THE organization of security in Europe
>(ii) the future of American leadership in Europe
>(iii) Clinton and redeeming his legacy ("this is the presidency" he
>reportedly declared at the outset of bombing; the derided president
>becomes Mr Resolute International StatesMAN).
>(iv) the ability of the EU and NATO to set the terms for the future
>development of the continent of Europe.
What is this if it is not imperialism? I find it particularly strange that
you can go on to say that this is about 'geoplitics' rather than
imperialism - the history of geopolitics is inextricable bound up with
ideas of world orders, and, yes, imperialism.
Also, I am getting increasingly annoyed with people who criticise those
opposing the bombing on the grounds that they do not understand the history
of the region. This assumes that there is a sure and certain view of the
history of the region that cannot be challenged, when in fact the history
of this region is incredibly contested.
I am afraid I am happier taking a stance against the bombing than sitting
in a comfortable university room tut-tutting about some perceived lack of
political or historical insight of the protestors.
David.
David Wood
PhD Student ('The Rural Peace Dividend')
Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
0191 222 5305
[log in to unmask]
David Wood
PhD Student ('The Rural Peace Dividend')
Department of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing
University of Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
0191 222 5305
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|