World Orders, Old and New
The catch phrase "new world order" has shaped the view of the future differently for various groups and people. It has been associated mostly with former American president George Bush, who witnessed the end of the old system with the collapse of the Soviet Union and, with others, realize...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
International Institute of Islamic Thought
1996
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/c0366bbbe89340ddbc153e6e1c37fdc6 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The catch phrase "new world order" has shaped the view of the future
differently for various groups and people. It has been associated mostly
with former American president George Bush, who witnessed the end of
the old system with the collapse of the Soviet Union and, with others, realized
the beginning of a new order. Prior to the end of the cold war, Third
World countries were calling for "new economic and political orders."
Speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations, Fidel Castro
called for the establishment of a "new world order based on justice, on
equity, on peace." And an altogether different new world order has been
anticipated in the near future by such evangelists as Pat Robertson in his
book The New World Order. Robertson believes the new order will commence
with the rerurn of the Messiah, who will erect a new and just world.
However, for prominent scholar Noam Chomsky, the new world order
is merely a continuation of the old one. From the basis of three lectures
delivered at the American University in Cairo in May 1993, Chomsky
wrote World Orders, Old and New. The book is divided into three parts.
The first part discusses the cold war and how it was used by the superpowers
to justify all foreign and domestic political, economic, and military
actions. “The Cold War provided easy formdas to justify criminal actions
abroad and entrenchment of privileges at home.” Both sides were able to
claim that such atrocities were committed to promote the “national security
which was threatened by the other side.” ...
|
|---|