Spero che il File :" International Jealousies" vi possa interessare. E' in risposta alla E mail che vi invio come II File.

Vi ringrazio per il grande lavoro che svolgeteper noi tutti e vi incoraggio a percorrere la via critica che da tanti anni avete imboccato. Mi sembra però che a volte i vostri messagi non giungano in tutta la loro forma. Sto cominciando a comprenderlo da un ascolto più attento della vostra Radio.

Molti saluti

Annamaria Gorgo

Dear Joseph,

Thanks for the mailing. Generally I don't find mutual jealousies and

turf-fighting between international institutions a very useful thing. The

League of Nations was jealous of any regional institutions, and this played a

major role in preventing Briand's United States of Europe negotiations from

getting anywhere; then the League itself collapsed out of the burgeoning new

conflicts that arose out of the failure to integrate the states of Europe.

The UN Charter deliberately corrected that and made more space for regional

organizations (altho not quite as much as it ought to; it's still unrealistic

in some of its restrictions on them), and this time the EU has emerged and

there has been no new world war, despite a long Cold War.

Without its new-found wisdom in mostly sponsoring regional institutions and

other inter-regional sub-global institutions instead of resisting them, I

doubt that the UN would have survived all these decades. This doesn't stop

some people from imagining that they are being good UN supporters by bashing

the other institutions. The psychology of it is obvious; it's only the logic

of it that is poor. Just as poor as the logic of partisans of other

institutions when they sometimes bash the UN.

International institutions play 90% complementary roles. Attacking one set of

them in the name of another serves mainly to weaken them all. It's sort of

like faction-fighting between federalists: an easy way to pick a fight

against someone you might actually be able defeat, without having to go out

into the real world and fight against the real enemy, which is the

overwhelming supremacy of the national state in international affairs. In the

middle of a ruthless factional fight among the Trotskyists, in which they

started calling each other "class" enemies and tore their organization in

half, James Burnham remarked that it was a kind of compensation for their

inability to make much headway in the class struggle they were supposed to be

fighting in the real world.

Protesters against "globalization" and "corporations" do all their screaming

against the imaginary omnipotence of the Bretton Woods institutions, not

against the real near-omnipotence of the national state. Who knows, they

might have a chance of destroying these institutions. And meanwhile they

really do weaken the international institutions. The benefit goes to the

power of the national state. The losses go first of all to the world's poor,

who are the ones most in need of further trade expansion, and then to just

about everyone else as well. Globalization of course proceeds apace, as do

corporations, which are untouched by all this international

institution-bashing.

A Seattle protester was probably right, when he wrote in to the wfm-list a

few months ago saying that the protest played a part in "sharpening the

contradictions" between the countries and preventing the meeting from

reaching agreement on a new round of trade negotiations. Negotiations between

countries are always fragile things. It's easy to attack them. The arrogance

of the national state is the winner from the attack.

One might ask what are people doing, anyway, when they celebrate their

success in "sharpening the contradictions" between countries. This is

latter-day Leninism, the stuff of which the brutal wars are made. It has

nothing in common with our purposes. The maliciousness could not be more

obvious; it is certainly not "well-intentioned idealism", as it tends to get

called a bit too patronizingly by people who don't have the guts to speak out

against it.

The hate speech used in by these people is indicative. Hate speech leads to

hate crimes, even when it is directed against corporations and the

bourgeoisie. As a good tabulator of political numbers, I'm sure you know how

many millions of hate killings have been committed in this century by

governments that indulged in that same kind of hate speech.

The Bretton Woods institutions, anyway, are part of the UN system. They're

one of its most effective parts. They're one of the main reasons why the

world economy since 1945 has held to a reasonable steady course unlike the

chaotic world economy of 1919-1939. Alongside the EU and NATO, they are what

has enabled the world of the UN to avoid the kind of economic and

geopolitical turbulence which rocked the League of Nations to its foundation.

They're not even 1/10th of the invisible world government or new world order

that they're opponents imagine them to be, but they're probably the strongest

single thing pulling us along gradually toward world government.

Best,

Ira

Dear Friends,

Here are some things to think about, whether or not you fully agree.

Joe Schwartzberg

====================================

From: EKalamboki@aol.com

Subject: Letter to the editor - UN

WHY ALL PROGRESSIVES SHOULD SUPPORT A STRONGER UNITED NATIONS

What is remarkable during the present presidential campaign is the

complete absence of any debate on foreign policy and defense spending.

These two interrelated major issues have been quarantined by republicans

and democrats and the mainstream media. Bush, Gore and the great majority

of congressional members of both parties avoid the subject. They do not

want the public to be concerned about such matters, because, if the public

does, they will have to answer very tough questions.

The U.S. assumed the role of the ultimate authority and enforcer of the

terms of social, economic, cultural, and political existence of the world,

widely known as the strategy of NEW WORLD ORDER.

The expansion of the mission and geographic scope of operations of the

U.S.-led NATO is the strong arm machine supporting the "New World Order"

strategy.

Institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the International

Monetary Fund and the World Bank are the economic instruments for the

exploitation of natural and human resources of the world. They are the

economic arm of the "New World Order".

On behalf of the corporate-military/intelligence interests both political

parties in the U.S. Congress voted, almost unanimously, to increase

military spending by approx. $110 billion dollars over the next six years.

When it comes to bankrolling the military needs of the "New World Order"

of the corporations, both political parties abandon their pretension of

"wise" use of taxpayers' money.

Since the end of the cold war the the U.S. governments - of both political

parties - have embarked on a wrecking operation against the United

Nations, by trying to minimize its importance and its effectiveness and by

weakening it financially, refusing to pay approx. $1.7 billion in back

dues that the U.S. owes to that organization? Why? It is because the

beautiful principles and goals of the U.N. about human rights, peace and

disarmament, upholding international laws and conventions, social justice,

education, family planning, environmental protection, protection of

childrens' rights, etc. are standing in the way of the military industrial

bulldozer of the "New World Order".

The only use of the UN by the U.S. is to use its veto power and arm

twisting to make the UN take action, or abstain from action, as long as

action, or inaction, serves the strategic goals of the "New World Order".

And in case neither veto nor arm twisting work, then the U.S. breaks

international law and does it alone. Such a treatment of the UN is an

insidious method for humiliating that Institution.

The "New World Order" of the international corporate interests with its

NATO, WTO and IMF stand diametrically opposite to the principles and goals

of the United Nations. It is up to us, the people of the world to make a

choice. And the choice is either to witness silently the destruction of

the UN and succumb to the neo-barbarism of the "New World Order", or unite

our forces, on an international scale, and rally around a federated,

cooperative and peaceful world of nations based on a strong United Nations

system.

I have to admit that I feel deep disappointment when I see progressive

peace and justice organizations and progressive presidential candidates

ignoring completely the central issue of the future of the UN. On the one

hand, all of them, conscious of our shrinking global village and of the

need for cooperative solution of common problems, consider themselves

world citizens, and on the other hand, through silence they allow the

forces of the "New World Order" run over the UN, the only international

institutional framework we have, within which we can meaningfully and

effectively pursue our concerns as world citizens. The present world

conditions and the aspirations of humanity would call for the creation of

a United Nations, if we did not have one. LET US BUILD ON WHAT WE HAVE! A

STRONG, MODERNIZED, DEMOCRATIZED UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM DEDICATED TO PEACE,

DISARMAMENT, HUMAN RIGHTS, ECONOMIC JUSTICE, AND ALLEVIATION OF HUMAN

SUFFERING! THIS SHOULD BE THE PEOPLES' ALTERNATIVE TO THAT OF THE "NEW

WORLD ORDER"!

In these presidential campaign "debates" the candidates do not want to

talk about these issues. The dedication to the "New World Order" is the

carefully kept secret of the candidates of both major parties. They are

afraid of the reaction of the majority of the people if they tell the

truth about the masters they serve. As a result they are doomed to say

lies. It is up to us therefore to be on their tails - and the tails of the

mainstream media - with our alternative vision of the future of mankind

and with our relentless questioning.

Ev Kalambokidis A world citizen, Fridley, Minnesota ekalamboki@aol.com

===================================

From: S. P. Udayakumar

Subject: Demonstrate v Friedman 5.16

Thomas Friedman, NYT columnist, is giving a talk at St. Thomas on

globalism on May 16th 7:00 to 9:30 PM. As you know, he is an unapologetic

poptheorist for the corporate masters. It is important to let him know at

the talk in a nonviolent and undisruptive manner that we are not idiots

and he is a misleading coolie of the corporate masters.

S. P. Udayakumar Research Associate and Co-Director of Programs Institute

on Race and Poverty, Univ. of Minnesota 415 Law School, 229-19th Avenue

South Minneapolis, MN 55455 Ph: 612-626-7831 Fx: 612-624-8890

http://www.umn.edu/irp http://www.saccer.org