Mandela neither demanded nor received an entirely unconditional devotion; in power he expected his compatriots to behave as assertive citizens not genuflecting disciples
Quote of the day
 Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
 NavigationOur writersPopular ArticlesRecent: |
 |
bush doctrine: right or wrong?When America’s hyperpower status was challenged by 9/11, the response was the Bush Doctrine. Will it now make the world safe for America? Charles Pena says ‘no’ and makes a clarion call for the US to return to its tradition of putting the homeland first. Philip Bobbitt responds with a passionate justification of America’s need for legitimate pre-emption that can ensure global safety from weapons of mass destruction that can escape into terrorist hands. Their clash brings to the fore Washington’s military, legal, moral and international strategy. What should it now be?
The Bad Democracy award for October – the last before openDemocracy's grand poll for the year's worst democrat – became the object of Hungarian passion and the target of the country's hackers, reports Tom Burgis. Read the rest of this post...
The United States's linkage of pre-emption and failed states reflects a shift of rhetoric that leaves untouched the freedom to wage endless war, says Mariano Aguirre. Read the rest of this post...
Donald Rumsfeld is the neo-conservative architect of war, Colin Powell the cuddly multilateralist. Right? Wrong. Behind the caricature is a titanic Washington struggle far more complicated and interesting. Read the rest of this post...
Part 5 of The new information ecosystem: networks of power and freedom Read the rest of this post...
Charles Peña, Philip Bobbitt, and John Hulsman and Eric Hamilton alike view America’s good as the world’s gold standard. The age of cosmic debt, climate change, and terror demands a larger vision. The United States needs clarity of mind, public diplomacy, humility – and friends. Read the rest of this post...
What should a National Security Strategy for the United States in the 21st century look like? Two Heritage Foundation analysts see twin dangers in Charles Pena’s focus on homeland security and Philip Bobbitt’s emphasis on alliance-building: isolationism and internationalism. The challenge for the US is to avoid both neglect and overstretch, and to pursue a realist foreign policy that can ensure its global hegemony for centuries to come. Read the rest of this post...
A year after 9/11, the Bush administration articulated a new security doctrine that committed the country to worldwide military intervention in pursuit of democracy. This strange fruit of Wilsonian idealism and neo-conservative ambition is triply misconceived: it will guarantee damaging over-extension of resources, fuel bitter resentment of the United States, and abandon homeland security to the chimera of global control. It is not empire that the US needs, but modesty. Read the rest of this post...
The US’s national security document of 2002 is a partial answer to the global challenges of terrorism and weapons proliferation. Charles Pena’s critique, by contrast, recommends a disengagement from the world that would entail even greater danger for the homeland. The real US need is to articulate a strategic doctrine that puts military pre-emption in the service of wise politics, alliance-building, and – eventually – a new understanding of international law. Read the rest of this post...
|
|
Elections Most discussed articles...
16 days blogJust published:
Podcast - Afaf Jabiri takes on the Jordanian government Articles - Jameen Kaur, India's silent tragedy Rebecca Barlow, women and conflict Blog:
|
