ࡱ> oqn5@ rbjbj22 -XXi$TTT84S.,0"RVVVVV-------$0Ra2X-T(VV((-TTVV .r*r*r*(TVTV-r*(-r*r**+R-TTz-V  HW)j--<#.0S.r-3)v3z-hLTT3Tz-VLr*@!#2VVV--P*"Globalisation & the New World Order: A Review Jolaina Nasseri The Paradox of American Power Source: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117 Issue 4, winter 2002/2003.By Joseph S. Nye, Jr. His article discusses the ideas of how viable a long and lasting US empire is and the sources of their power. It also talks about how globalization is the new tool for American hegemony. Review of Article: The US is a superpower. The author states that, Not since Rome has one nation loomed so large above the others. Nye says that the American economy has become so strong and powerful that other world economies revolve around their hegemony, not a balance of power. The reason he gives is for this is that the US is well equipped to lead the world. According to him, the US is well endowed with all three major dimensions that are required to be a superpower-military (hard power), economic and soft power. So, what exactly is hard and soft power? Hard power suggests those things that are related to military and economic power while soft power refers to the ability to set political plans in a way that shapes the inclination of others. It is also the ability to charm and draw. However, soft power is useless unless properly harnessed. Good soft power lies in the intangible resources of an attractive culture, of which the US has. American power lies in the values of democracy, personal freedom, upward mobility and openness that are expressed in popular culture, higher education and foreign policy. Logically, he says that if the US is able to show the world that they are concerned with the well-being of the world, this will lead to acquiescence and sometimes, even imitation. Hard power still plays a role in international politics. He suggests that many states are unconstrained by democratic societal forces and he gives the example of Iraq and Iran. However, to be fair, I must state that some of the problems in these countries have their roots in Western power. Nowadays, soft power is favoured over hard power for the simple fact that wars and arms cost too much money (however, they are still used). Besides, the use of force threatens economic objectives. Nye states that the rise of nationalism has made it harder for conquering nations to rule over awakened populations. He says that today, colonial rule is generally condemned. In my mind, colonial rule now would last for a relatively short time, as the spread of information via the internet and papers will educate the colonized population quickly into revolting. Hard and soft power has to be employed in moderation. The use of too much hard power often results in the loss of soft power. Nye gives the example of the Soviet Union. They lost a lot of their soft power when they invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia even though their economic and military assets continued to develop. Nye also questions how long the empire will survive. He states that trying to predict the future is a futile activity, however suggesting possible conclusions about what the future may hold for the US based on looking at available information is perfectly practical. Having said that, even the most carefully drawn calculations sometimes fail to avert catastrophic events from happening. The more important thing here is to prevent people from becoming too cynical (declinism) or too optimistic (triumphalism). If people become too cynical, their cautious behaviour may undercut influence, whereas being too optimistic could become dangerous as there is a lack of restraint. He states that many have challenged the idea that the US will last as a superpower for much longer. The law of international politics states that other countries will team up to balance the power monopoly if one nation becomes too strong. Nye cites an Indian journalist who suggests what might happen, (Russia, India and China)provide a counterweight in what now looks like a dangerously unipolar world. The scientist Kenneth Waltz who says that also shares this view, both friends and foes will reactthey will work to right the balance. However, Nye disagrees. Instead, he thinks that countries will bandwagon-where countries join the seemingly stronger side (example from history when Mussolini allied with Hitler). I tend to agree with Nyes point of view. To me, it is human nature to join with the winning team; no one wants to be the underdog. However, he is sceptical of whether a shared balance of power between nations will do any good for the US. History has shown that rarely has there been a balance of power among major states. In fact, inequality of power can become a source of peace and stability as it is usually not feasible to declare war on the dominant state. Whether other states come together to balance American power remains to be seen and it all depends on how the US behaves. However, the author is more optimistic of their longevity only if they learn to use their power more wisely. Having said that, the author is well aware of the fact that nothing lasts forever, especially in politics. Nye advices that if the US to engage the world, they should only do it with much deliberation. I tend to agree as people may start (and some of them have already) accusing the US of being a busybody. My Thoughts: This is one of the articles I enjoyed reading. The author appears unbiased as he backs his opinions with facts and gives citations. The things that he said regarding how to sustain the American empire seem to be based on common sense. However, it is usually hard to see the logic behind his words if we are too arrogant to listen. America has to understand that their superpower status comes hand in hand with certain responsibilities. These responsibilities can be both their saviour and their death. If the American administration is able to embrace and nurture it, they will be able to win over their adversaries. However, if they continue to abuse their power, it will certainly be their downfall. The Nation Magazine Source: Nation Magazine, Vol.276 Issue 12, March 2003.William Greider. This article asks the questions about whether a free market globalization can endure in a world run by one nations overwhelming military power and who should rule the worlds future-global markets or national governments? Review of Article: According to him, there are two possibilities as to who will rule the world: either globalization, which promotes the creative marketplace organizing the worlds international relations or the old-fashioned military power of the nation state, currently the US, imposing its will on others in the name of globalization. If globalization wins, then the flow of capital will be freed. If it loses, the other will in short, interfere in the private marketplace, using any means possible. Now, let I will try to imagine what might happen if globalization takes over. Who is to say that the superpowers will not just repeat what they have been doing so far (i.e. monopolize the world and bully the poor)? Moreover, if the old-fashioned military powers win, who is to say that they will not just bomb out their adversaries? capitalism has often advanced arm-in-arm with military interventions. If the superpowers chose to quell their adversaries, they will be guilty of conducting colonialism, but who will be brave (or stupid) enough to stop them? Of course, I know that the author is putting up an unrealistic image of the world but To the author, supporters of (corporate-led) globalization will never succeed in realising their vision of a New World order as long as Bush is in power. To him, globalization is threatened by Americas mixing of their mercantile interests with their self-appointed role as global protector. By doing this, they make their trading partners more suspicious. In the end, this will only hurt the American people. To Greider, the central quality of a globalizing economy is how fluidly it disperses advanced technologies from rich countries to poor countries Although this is good, he argues that it does not help technology transfer if there are strict dictatorial controls. The US charged bomb making motives; the UN inspectors endorsed Saddams claim innocence. Who is right? By going into Iraq, America is displaying to the world its immense hypocrisy by saying that only good countries can have weapons of mass destruction (e.g. leaving Israel safe and well financed). In my opinion, America should decide who their real friends are. Of course, it all gets very complicated when politicians are involved! Washington is merely using the war in Iraq as a veil to cover some hidden agenda, perhaps the fact that they have had to borrow from abroad to sustain their own domestic consumption. They seem to have forgotten that the world economy is still recovering from its wounds. Greider argues that if the Americans think that the US wants to control Iraq in order to ensure cheap oil, who is to say that the US will not start managing production to insure stable oil prices (at some ridiculously high price)? The best thing for Bush to do, according to Greider is to give this role to an international agency immediately. Otherwise, they risk having to choose between US consumer interests or their friends in the oil industry. In my minds eye, it is better to deal with the unresolved issues at home first before bothering with other people. My Thoughts: In my country, there is a saying that goes take care of your side of your cloth before looking at other peoples clothing. If not, we risk becoming like the emperor with new clothes! I agree with everything the author has said in this article. The US should not continue pretending to work for the betterment of humankind if their intentions are not the same. They must not think that other countries are not conscious this. If they do not act like they know, it is only because they are afraid of what might happen if they object. However, sooner or later, someone will gather enough courage to say (or do) something. The consequences of what the US is doing will most likely not be pretty. Anti-Americanism Is On the Rise-With the Help of the French Press Source: Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 41 Issue 5, January/February 2003. Mark Hunter. He is saying that the French are terrified about being infected with the American bug. However, they are not anti-American, merely anti what America holds. What happens in the US had better not happen to France. The Review: Things are not looking up for the Americans and the US in France. The French are launching their own crusade against cultural imperialism or cathode-tube immigration as the leader of the extreme right National Front so fondly called it. They have even gone to the extent of accusing Hollywood filmmakers quest for market control equal to the Nazis dream of domination. However, this is not the first time the US has been compared to the Nazis by the French. During the Kosovo war, Le Monde featured a front-page article identifying Pentagons policy with the Nazi annihilation of Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. However, the French do have a point to be scared. The US has become extremely adept at spreading their dogma and beliefs through invasive mediums like the mass media. Even the prime minister of my country is wary of information originating from the US. He quotes a political analyst who says that in France, the US has definitely lost the battle of public opinion. So much so, most people and companies in France are very anti-US products. Although America-bashing is not new in France, the author states that it has become omnipresent now. He says that saying a kind word for the US is incredibly risky. However, having said all this, not all French are anti-American. Most of them are against the world the US is shaping. They argue that globalization is creating the new dictatorship with the US at its helm. Others in France do not fear this American imperialism quite as much. To them, the challenges that are now facing the French are no longer military but more social. I must say that it is harder to stop something social from contaminating your people, compared to something, say, military. However, the French believe that they are much better equipped than the Americans are. The French used to consider it something shameful to be European, but nowadays, to be European means to be ahead of the Americans. The author agrees that the Bush administration has succeeded in a relatively short amount of time to frighten away one of its true friend. An outspoken ally is quoted as saying, necessity to contain the real or eventual excesses of the American superpower call for a critical vigilance on the part of the rest of the world, and the demand of participating in decisions that concern all countries. Overall, American use of power is being considered as excessive and exclusive lately. My Thoughts: To me, any culture (American or not) has the potential of becoming dangerous if it becomes too strong. However, a strong and pervasive culture does not mean that it is a bad influence. In my mind, the American culture has its ups and downs (more downs than ups if you ask me). To me, the reason why a lot of countries are angry at US is not because of jealousy but because of the hypocrisy practised by them. The French have always been proud of their culture and their country. Hence, to have a nation this proud being petrified of American culture invading their country is truly frightening. It makes you wonder what exactly the French are afraid of. However, I can sympathize with the French as even my prime minister is weary of the American culture. As the US is a strong nation, I suppose all we can do is take the good and be weary of the bad. Canadian Dimension Source: Canadian Dimension, Vol. 36 Issue 6, November/December 2002. James Petras. The main idea of this article is to show how the New World order (NWO) and the Bush doctrine (BD) work. It also tries to explain how one a change to one affects the other. Review of Article: The unilateral politics that are being employed by the White House since 9/11 have caused greater diplomatic seclusion and undermined their capacity at coalition building. More importantly, it has brought together millions of people who are against globalization, war and human rights violations. In my opinion, the US has been employing unilateral politics for a long time. The only thing that is different is nowadays, they are less discreet about implementing them. Examining the turn of events since 9/11, we could be forgiven for mistaking Bush Jr. to Bush Sr. I agree with the author when he remarks that Bush Jr. may be trying to re-launch the second version of his fathers NWO. Three things were learned from the failures of Bush Sr.s empire building: First, there is no such thing as shared power. Second, a world empire requires constant wars of conquest and occupation. Third, there has to be no ebb in the continuous public support. The re-launching of the new NWO (which I will call NWO 2) requires time and planning. The Bush Jr. administration, for some reason or other did not, have this luxury of time. Therefore, to kick-start the empire building, they had to take steps to destroy all restraints and obstacles on the use of power. In other words, they had to get rid of anybody who disagreed with them. The author gives examples of the US nullifying the Kyoto Agreement, the International Criminal Court and numerous other accords. These moves make perfect sense, as you cannot have a war without weapons. Another reason these unilateral actions took place was in order to create the most advantageous conditions to favour US multinational corporations, to engage in wars of conquest and to expand military operations. Another beginning was kick-started by Clinton and his humanitarian interventions that were started during the Balkan war. Not surprisingly, many wars take place in the name of liberation. The author argues that 9/11 was the perfect fit to distract the public from a questionable voter count, an already slumped domestic economy and an increasing trade deficit. The US through mass media imagery transformed a contained terrorist incident into a world significant event, which in turn was used as a launching pad for a global military campaign, whose ultimate objective was the NWO 2. As a result, the US became a paranoid, capricious police state similar to the era of J. Edgar Hoover. Petras argues that empire building begins with military and/or political conquests. However, the American drive for world domination has affected the way investors look at the US. As a result, they have severely deformed their domestic and overseas economy and weakened the dollar. For a short while, Bush seemed to have succeeded as his popularity increased. However, people started seeing and feeling the negative effects of Bushs regime. For one, the American budget has gone into the red. In my opinion, none of this can be very helpful for the US. If empire building requires a strong and healthy economy, and if the US intends to rule over the world, they need to do something quickly. The author seems to suggest that the Bush administration has reverted to scare tactics in order to make their adversaries submit. However, the only effects these tactics are having are in making people embrace the global definitions of terror. In other words, the US is digging its own grave. So what will be the last straw? Petras introduces the term The Bush Doctrine (BD). It is a highly voluntarist will to power project and it holds four key concepts: permanent war, unilateral action, international impunity and multiple war theatres. The first concept means that this empire building is mainly a military project. The second means that there will be no share of power or gains. The third concept means using any means possible. These could include the bombing of hospitals, neighbourhoods and weddings, the torture and interrogation of captured soldiers, the denial of any responsibility for documented violations etc. The fourth component is the idea that many wars can be launched at the same time. For this to be possible, the US has to have military bases spread out all over the world. Already, the US has military bases in Manta, Ecuador, Kosovo, Bolivia and the Kazakhstan. More bases are continually being added to this list. All aside, Petras argues that the rift between the US and Europe is steadily increasing. One major thorn in the US-Europe relationship is the continual support of the US for Israel, which undercuts European efforts to stabilize the region for investment and trade. This rift will lead to serious consequences, most likely a collapse of the US economy because of the drying up of external capital flows. Petras also points out that the Left, mainly Latin American states and the Middle East are starting to revolt against US actions. In the Arab world, Washingtons continual and absolute support for Israel has resulted in an awakening of anti-imperialist consciousness. In Latin America, the people are angered by Americas complete focus on anti-terrorism that has resulted in the sidelining of any plans for economic rescue for that region. My Thoughts: In my mind, I think that if the US does not take stock of their position, they will be facing a bleak future. Right now, mostly everyone is weary of the US and their actions, even their seemingly good intentioned actions are questioned. If the US wants more supporters, they must honestly take a look at themselves and their actions. Instead of getting upset with other countries who hate them, the US should ask themselves what they have done to deserve this hate. I also think that the whole of the current US administration has to be changed for a new start to happen. With the current administration, there is too much bad blood to going around for countries to start trusting the US again. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/imperialism58.html Source: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/imperialism58.html This article discusses whether globalization will mean the end of nation states, the issue of whether the UN is really a cover for powerful countries to do what they want and what economic control has cost poorer countries. Review of Article: What is globalization? According to the author, it is when a handful of large states openly and directly ran most or the world. He believes that it is the successor to imperialism. Some have taken this to mean the New World order. They believe that the fast movement of capital made possible by the growth in information technology coupled with the growth of international businesses means that imperialism has been replaced by a more intangible but equally dominant rule by capital which is not tied down to any state. So does this mean the death the nation state? Facts show that on the contrary, the number of states has increased since 1914. Also, wealthy nations spending as a percentage of GDP has increased since 1980. As a result, the author questions whether globalization really frees capital from nation states. The only possible answer is that the nation state is still the principal user of organised military force. The proofs that the US may be an imperialist nation are that they do not have any rivals. With NATO in its pocket, it is able to dictate anyone it wishes to. However, the author reckons that old school imperialism is now out of fashion. Nowadays, imperialism is more likely to be veiled behind humanitarianism and a whole range of international bodies. The UN was considered by many to be the alternative to a US or NATO dominated world. However, the UN only acts according to the say of a few numbers of dominant military powers (the five permanent members of the Security Council each with veto power). In reality, the UN is a cover behind which these countries can wage war and protect their interests (he gives the example of when the UN when into Iraq to supposedly protect Kuwaiti independence, and when no UN body invaded the US to protect Nicaraguan sovereignty in the 1980s when the Reagan administration was mining its harbours). The author thinks that without even resorting to arms, powerful imperialist powers can control the worlds economy. To him, globalization is just a cheap card trick designed to disguise and take attention away from the imperialist domination of the world. Through the IMF and the World Bank, he argues that the imperialist powers have succeeded in making third world countries provide cheap raw materials and labour. He argues that debt has resulted in Western powers dictating how third world economies are run. Before this, many of these countries employed a policy of import substitution where they now produced products that they previously imported (for instance, cars). This had a major disadvantage for imperialist powers as it denied them both markets and cheap raw materials. These bodies would remove barriers to import and take away any workers rights. All this is achieved through high inflation, privatisation, anti-union laws, slashed spending on education and health, etc. Through bodies like the IMF and the World Bank, the US is able to set the rules of trade; hence there is no need for them to rely on old fashioned direct imperialist control. In conclusion, he says that before we fight imperialism, we need to identify its true nature. My Thoughts: I totally agree with what this author has said. Coming from Asia, I was behind my prime minister a hundred percent of the way when he snubbed the IMF. At the time, the neighbouring countries thought we were mad but now they look to us for advice. The IMF and the World Bank are oppressive machines that bully other countries. For example, what is a really poor country with starving people supposed to do when a body like the IMF comes to them waving money in front of their faces? They have to make the decision of either starving their people to death or basically surrendering their sovereignty to the IMF. To me, all these bodies are a gimmick for stronger nations (currently the US) to control weaker countries. And if these weaker countries try and stand up to these superpowers, they will be threatened with sanctions and maybe even ostracized. Stanford University Office of Public Affairs Source: http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/imperialism58.html Tibor R. Machan. Machan basically states how globalization has been given a bad name. He also states what the globalization should be and what it has become. Review of Article According to the author, some people feel that as a result of the invasive nature of the American culture, their form of globalization is equal to international aggression. Even representatives of some non-democratic countries have complained that the idea of human rights was imperialistic and imperialistic. The author argues that claiming that globalization is imperialistic is absurd. In its real form, globalization frees trade, barriers are removed and the chains on trade are abolished. Political jargon is the thing that confuses the matter. The author is of the opinion that globalization has not yet been linked with what it is truly about, human liberation. Globalization spreads life, freedom and commerce and as such, it should be supported as it is in line with the basic human want to be free. To him, it poses no threat to cultural variety, religious pluralism or the great diversity of humankind. He argues that only those who are dogmatic with their lifestyles would fear globalization and the spread of human freedom. My Thoughts: I tend to disagree with this author. We must take into account what globalization does to the poor. The ends may not justify the means when talking about globalization. Besides, who will decide what globalization really is? History has proven that whenever there is a decision to be made; usually the powerful succeed in making them. Globalization may be moral in its intentions but in my mind, it is very easily manipulated to fit the needs of powerful nations. I disagree with this author also because of where he is coming from. He works in the Office of Public Affairs in Stanford University. And in my mind, he would have to adhere to office politics to keep his job. It is hard to say whether he really believes in what he is writing or whether he is just conforming to what his colleagues expect from him. Bibliography: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117 Issue 4, winter 2002/2003.By Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Nation Magazine, Vol.276 Issue 12, March 2003.William Greider. Columbia Journalism Review, Vol. 41 Issue 5, January/February 2003. Mark Hunter. Canadian Dimension, Vol. 36 Issue 6, November/December 2002. James Petras. http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/imperialism58.html http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws99/imperialism58.html Tibor R. Machan.  Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117 Issue 4, Winter 2002/2003. Joseph S. Nye, Jr.  Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 117 Issue 4, Winter 2002/2003. Joseph S. Nye, Jr.  Peering Into the Future, Foreign Affairs, July/August 1994. PAGE  PAGE 13 J. Nasseri ]|   @A ,,//C01'1:: >!>t>!?4?SSmVVVWWd*dff~ggghhlloooppcqdqh[h[CJOJQJh[h[CJOJQJh[h[CJOJQJh[h[>*OJQJ!jh[h[0JOJQJUh[h[CJOJQJh[h[>*CJOJQJh[h[OJQJ;./0123CDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x dh$dha$qrrXYZ[\]^| VSx x x x x x Rx Rx Yx x Rx ox ox ox Cqx ox \x x 4'x N /x {H#x x Rx x  $dha$gd[$dha$$dha$dh "@%%&'),,-//60C0'14578:x Rx x x Rx x {H#x 8x ox ox x +x Rx x Cqx x x x &x N /x x Cqx ox Cqdhgd[dh dh7$8$H$ $dh7$8$H$a$$dha$ $dh7$8$H$a$::G=>!>t>!?4? ABFHpKLTPQSSUmVVVWWXY~[\x Rx 4'x x Rx Yx x Rx Cqx Cqx 6x Cqx 4'x x 2x x x Rx Cqx x Rx x x Rx x x x dhgd[dh$dha$\._0`d*dgggghhijllnooooooPpppp+qdqx {H#x ox 6x Rx N /x Rx x x 8x Rx x x \x Rx Cqx x x x x x Rx "x "x "x x "x dhgd[$dha$dhdqqqqqqqqqqq rbrrrrrrrrrrrx x x Fx Fx x x x x x x x x x xx $h]ha$h]h&`#$dh$dha$dqqqqqq r rrbrcrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrͻͻh[0JmHnHu h[0Jjh[0JUh[mH sH h[jh[0JUh[h[OJQJh[h[CJOJQJh[h[CJOJQJ+ 0&P 1h. A!"#$% R@R Normal)B*CJOJQJ_HaJmH phsH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k@(No List 4@4 Header  9r .)@. Page Number4 @4 Footer  9r V@"V  Footnote TextCJPJaJmH nHsH tHu@&@1@ Footnote ReferenceH*6U@A6 Hyperlink >*B*ph@ jV      j!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&!"&! "&! "&! "&! "& "& "&^tS#,4C=FNW`gj1}Y n  ./0123CDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^| V S@!$$%''6(C('),-/022G56!6t6!747 9:>@pCDTHIKKMmNNNOOPQ~ST.W0X\*\____``abddfggggggPhhhh+idiiiiiiiiiii jbjjjjjjjjjj0000000000000000000000 0 00 0 00 00 0 000 00000000000000000000000000p0p0p0p0p0p00 00p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p00p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p00p0p0p000p0p0p0p0p0p0p0p00p0p00`0p0p0p0p0p0p00p0p00p0p0p0p0p0p0p000p00p0p00p0p00M90zM90!M90!M90!00M90zM90z #####&dqr:BX:\dqr;=>?@Ar<j &!!TXuFYLZhM[ MpZOq[OrD;Ks|;Kt;Ku;Kv$`N?N@NANB@N33;LL""^^gg11++33==$  ffg=h=hDhGhLhhhhhhii#iiiiiiijjjOjOjVjYj^jj      !"#$%'&()*+,-./012345768<9:;=>?A@BDCEHFGIMJKLNROPQS:BB  NN$$bbkk331188BB'  gggChFhJhOhOhhhhhh"i)i)iiiiiijj j jUjXj\jajajj  !"#$%'&()*+,-./012345768:;<9=>?A@BDCEGHFIKLMJNPQROS (Purn:schemas:contacts nameSuffix(Rurn:schemas:contacts middlename=D*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=E*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNameB,*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region Qurn:schemas:contactsSn'Surn:schemas:contacts GivenName8=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity>T*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PersonName9J*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace JTSQTSRQPJ,J,J=QJ,J,J,J,J,J,QJ,QJ,J,J,TSQQQQQJ,J,QJ,J,JEDTSRQPJ=TSQTSQTSRQTSRQPTSRQP""##++q+y+l6r6@@DDDE_HeHII_____`LhNhhh#i)iiiiiijj!01 < a fffggPhhidjjjjjj::::::::::::]]'' 6 6mNmN~_~_ijjjjjjijjjjITDeptITDeptITDeptITDeptITDeptITDeptITDeptITDeptITDeptJolaina Nasseri#ohh^h`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.#o['~_iijj@gg=ggj`@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :ArialE& Century Gothic?5 :Courier NewCFComic Sans MS;SimSun[SO"qhUt[[[t Y6Y64diiGH?[:C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Templates\Jojo's.dot?The Eternal Return: Imperialism &  Globalisation Reconsidered Jolaina NasseriJolaina Nasseri  Oh+'0 $4 LX t   @The Eternal Return: Imperialism & Globalisation Reconsidered he Jolaina NasseriolaolaJojo's Jolaina Nasseri6laMicrosoft Word 10.0@vA@G%@@@=Y ՜.+,0( hp|  t6iA @The Eternal Return: Imperialism & Globalisation Reconsidered Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]_`abcdeghijklmpRoot Entry F=Yr1TableD3WordDocument-SummaryInformation(^DocumentSummaryInformation8fCompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q