Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Gorby fa centro!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1992774,00.html
History is not preordained: a new cold war can be averted
US military arrogance has led to a global crisis. But there is still
time to change course and build a democratic world order
Mikhail Gorbachev
Thursday January 18, 2007
The Guardian
A watershed in international relations has occurred in recent months.
Indeed, the past year may well have seen the end of an entire era in
world affairs - the post-cold war period of unilateralism and missed
opportunities.
When the cold war ended, avenues opened up for progress toward a better
world. Major powers, particularly the United States, the Soviet Union
and China, were working constructively together in the United Nations
security council. International conflicts, including those in Angola,
El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cambodia, were brought to an end. Nuclear
and conventional arms control agreements were concluded, and democratic
changes were under way in dozens of countries in Asia, Latin America
and central and eastern Europe.
Article continues
The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed in 1990, marked the
beginning of a process that was expected to lead to a new, peaceful and
democratic world order. But the movement in that direction soon
stalled. The break-up of the Soviet Union was followed by changes in
the political elites of the United States and other countries. The
Charter of Paris was forgotten. Instead of moving towards a new
security architecture, it was decided to rely on the tools inherited
from the cold war. The United States - and the west as a whole -
succumbed to the "winner's complex".
Europe was shaken by the tragedies in the Balkans. Waves of instability
swept through the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Africa as the
struggles for spheres of influence, resources and markets gathered
momentum.
Nato's promise to evolve into a primarily political organisation was
not kept. Instead, it moved to increase its membership and expand its
zone of operations. A new arms race is now under way. The problems of
nuclear weapons and non-proliferation have taken on a new urgency, with
the original members of the nuclear club bearing much of the blame for
it.
There is a real danger of a new division of the world; the possibility
of a new cold war is being widely discussed. Without regard for the
security council or for the opinion of other countries, including its
partners and allies, the United States invaded Iraq with disastrous
consequences. The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis
- and to a decline of the United States' role and influence.
Another consequence of unilateralist policies and attempts to claim
exclusive leadership is that most international institutions have not
been able to address effectively the new century's global challenges -
the environmental crisis and the problem of poverty. The unprecedented
scale of international terrorism and the proliferation of ethnic and
religious conflicts are disturbing signs of troubles to come.
Americans have also felt the effects of the administration's flawed
foreign policies. In November the voters made their verdict known,
delivering a defeat for the Republicans in the midterm elections. Yet
that is a challenge to the entire US political establishment, for
Democrats as well as Republicans. There is a need for a correction in
the superpower's policies. Is the administration of George Bush capable
of such a correction?
Both in the United States and elsewhere, the prevailing view is often
negative. The administration gives ample reason for this view, because
it seems to prefer the inertia of the old course. It would appear that
all the Bush administration wants is to persuade the world that it is
still firmly in the saddle. The president's recent statements and the
plans being discussed in his administration are cut from the old cloth.
The Republican leadership clearly wants to leave to the next president
a legacy that would tie him to its policies and make a change of course
impossible. If so it is not just a tactical blunder but a recipe for an
even greater disaster.
And yet I think the possibility of change is still there. The
administration and Congress still have the time to forge it. They
should begin with the Middle East. Not only should America start
pulling itself out of the Iraqi quagmire, but it also needs to return
to a constructive policy in the region. It is essential that the Middle
East peace process be resumed, along with a serious dialogue with
Iraq's neighbours.
If America's leaders have the foresight and the courage to look at the
world as it really is, they would choose dialogue and cooperation
rather than force. What is needed is not a worldwide web of military
presence and intervention, but a restraint and a willingness to solve
problems by political means.
After all, the world has changed dramatically even when compared to the
early 1990s. It has become even more interconnected and interdependent.
New giants - China, India and Brazil - have entered the world arena,
and their views can no longer be ignored. Europe is uniting, and its
economic and political influence is bound to grow.
Although the Islamic world is finding it difficult to adapt to new
realities, its adjustment will continue and this great civilisation
will insist on being treated with respect. Finally, the democratic
transition of Russia (as well as the other former Soviet republics),
for all its considerable problems, is bringing a new, strong player to
the international scene.
During the 1990s, which were a difficult time for my country, I said
that Russia's troubles would pass, that it would rise to its feet and
forge ahead. This is what is happening now.
Russia's resurgence, its insistence on protecting its interests, and
its ability to play a proper role in the world, are not to everyone's
liking. Strangely enough, when Russia was mired in crisis, the west
applauded it; today Russia is accused of rejecting democracy and of
having imperial ambitions.
Still, there are no real reasons to fear Russia. My country is facing
many problems. Learning new ways and building democratic institutions
is indeed hard work. But Russia will never go back. The most difficult
part of the road is already behind us.
I have always said that in this day and age we cannot afford to be
pessimists. There are many reasons to be concerned and even alarmed.
But history is not preordained. A new division of the world, a new
confrontation, is not inevitable. A democratic world order is not mere
rhetoric. It can be built.
· Mikhail Gorbachev is former president of the Soviet Union

 · Mikhail Gorbachev 
Era un agente della CIA.
Palmiro Pangloss

 Era un agente della CIA.
zitto coglione di arezzo. Vai a dimostrare su ICSM che l'oscuro storico
canadese ha mentito.

 zitto 
PRRRRRR!
Palmiro Pangloss


Cut
Gorby anche lui nel mondo dei sogni.
Vi ricordate la fine della storia?
Invece e' stato dimostrato che il capitale persegue il guadagno ad ogni
costo fino a un nuovo conflitto, una delle poche cose azzeccate da Marx.
Dimostrato anche che gli anglosassoni devono sempre e in ogni caso aggredire
per il loro tornacconto.
Ora resta da dimostrare Vico ovvero la boria di qualche popolo scatena il
conflitto.
Saluti
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/