Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I don't really agree about the "Pax Americana" stuff at this moment. I don't think you can say the Georgia situation is really more destabilising (yet) than various other Cold War conflicts.

I do think Globalisation is under a lot of pressure, but mostly because it's been a vehicle of making the rich richer and the rest of us poorer.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 08:17:20 AM EST
I took the Pax Americana to refer to the post-fall of the Soviet Union situation. Pappy Bush's New World Order, pretty much (that in fact meant a one-hyperpower world.)

Whether Georgia is the end of that is questionable, though it may stand out as a symbolic turning-point.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 09:04:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I kinda think the Cold War talk (and the wannabee Cold Warriors) are all missing the point. The Cold War was a bipolar era (to which the snarkista within begs leave to add, "...and politically as well") and we can never go back there: China and India have emerged as powers that lay claim to their own spheres of influence, and other possible contenders (Iran, Brazil,...) look like they want to climb into the ring as well. In that context the Georgia conflict seems more a canine leg-lifting exercise than anything else.

I'm also not sure the rich/poor antagonism can really endanger globalization - after all, the model was constructed specifically to bear that kind of stress. The greater weakness of globalization (which Georgia also illustrates) is that the basic assumption - that material gain is the root motivation of all human activity - is patently untrue.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

by dvx (dvx.clt št gmail dotcom) on Fri Aug 15th, 2008 at 09:27:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series