It will be interesting to see exactly which customs the Vatican is going to allow from the past rich five centuries of Anglican worship, life and thought.
Quote of the day
 ColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi The World
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
Who's linking?NavigationOur Authors around the Web
|
 |
9/11 : the 'war on terror'The faultlines exposed by 9/11 run within as well as between us, says Paul Gilroy. The network society has produced its ‘other’, warns Francesco Grillo. Allenna Leonard uses systems analysis to advocate a creative response, while Ann Pettitt recommends ‘militant moderation’. For Mary Midgley, Jeffrey Isaac, Steven Lukes and Nadia Urbinati, the way language is used is a crucial index of political maturity in time of crisis. Paul Frosh, Nissim Calderon and Shaun Gregory bring insights from Israel and Pakistan.
A visit to Iraq's second city reveals fraught divisions of both wealth and ideology
US military strategists are debating a new security paradigm. But only politics can make it happen
A
Taliban-al-Qaida regroupment in the Pakistani borderlands is
bringing the war closer to Kabul
The
United States's global detention policy is incubating the
insurgents of the future
The lengthy negotiations leading to Security Council Resolution 1441 were a success for French diplomacy. France’s ‘two-step’ approach may not avert war on Iraq; but in deflecting the United States’ unilateral drive to war she has served the world’s interest.
There is progress, but is it too little, too late? Civil servants in Afghanistan are unpaid, roads impassable, and justice undone. Where there is no effective governance, and more money being spent on warfare than development aid, is it surprising that the Taliban still has support? A year after Kabul changed hands, a bleakly realistic assessment from the BBC’s Developing World Correspondent.
If the war on terrorism is literal, it cannot be won. If it is metaphorical, it offers only a continuation of the frozen, abstract hatreds made possible by the cold war. And how do you defeat a metaphor?
Can the creative insights of systems analysis illuminate the motives of the attackers and suggest a western response that is likely to be truly effective?
The imbalance between political and military science has brought us to a major turning point in world history. Do we have time to correct it?
Marc Herold’s report on the civilian victims of US bombing in Afghanistan has gained wide circulation. But are his own methods and conclusions reliable?
Bush the father in 1990 announced : “What we say, goes”. Twelve years on, Bush the son captures the US’s enemies in words equally vulgar and inaccurate. Behind the latter’s phraseology, however, is the impending tragedy of a decent patriotism hijacked by geopolitics.
The Bush doctrine for conducting the war against terrorism was greeted with shock and dismay by many in Europe. It should not have been. The six principles set out in Bush’s “axis of evil” speech are ones that European countries should support.
The military might of western power is matched by its ideology’s closed assurance in the face of challenges to and victims of its ‘war on terrorism’. Defusing such opposition is the work of a ‘cynical reason’ that threatens to silence dissidence, cancel historical awareness, and collapse the process of politics itself.
US military personnel were deeply involved in the Afghan struggle against Soviet occupation in the 1980’s. What lessons do they draw for today’s war on the Taliban? Here, a graduate of an elite US military academy – and of aid campaigns in the region – distils his experience into frank advice.
The Russian military analyst, Vladimir Slipchenko, argues that a new era of asymmetric warfare has begun. Against international terrorism, conventional or guided missiles are futile. An effective response requires a new civil-military force, and a post-Nato counter-terrorism alliance – one that includes Russia.
The war is being argued over within families as well as between nations. Here, a green activist explains to her children why legality, justice, and aid should guide our actions towards Afghanistan – and that the answers to ‘terrorism’ can only be long-term.
The meaning of the war is often presented in terms of a “clash of civilisations”. But this radical polarisation of the world is an example of the “binary” view that only increases conflict. Even the alternative UN formulation of a “dialogue among civilisations” reinforces the view that civilisations are separate and internally homogenous. What we need is a “dialogical civilisation” which seeks also the shared elements in our value systems.
With growing global inequality, competition over resources, and deepening militarisation, the world will face intensified crisis later this century. (Warning: parental guidance recommended in reading this article).
A group of key thinkers on matters of war, fear, human and international relations discuss the possible outcome of post-9/11 policies at an event held by openDemocracy and the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London in October, 2001. Here are some excerpts…
The "forgotten war" in Chechnya bleeds on. Three respected Russian journalists - democrat, centrist and hawk - predict that it will be nightmare without end.
Is military action in Afghanistan justified? The dilemma is ethical as well as strategic, especially for a veteran of the Greenham Common campaign with family memories of the struggle against Nazism. But history is not enough: as the contours of ‘peace’ and ‘war’ change, so must our thinking.
openDemocracy readers discussed the possible effects of a probable war on Afghanistan.
On the eve of 9/11 openDemocracy readers discuss the legality and usefulness of conducting a ‘war on terrorism’.
|
|
|
Recent comments
12 hours 53 min ago
15 hours 19 min ago
18 hours 58 min ago
22 hours 20 min ago
22 hours 53 min ago
1 day 22 min ago
1 day 31 min ago
1 day 2 hours ago
1 day 3 hours ago
1 day 7 hours ago