In 2009, countries have reached perilous new levels of conflict, tension and military spending characterised by nuclear proliferation, ideological warfare and pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations. As news reports highlight an intensifying competition over natural resources, the international community is faced with a stark choice - to share resources and cooperate, or to continue on the path to further warfare.
Last week, the heads of state and government of NATO's 26 member nations gathered in Istanbul for a major summit. The symbolism of a city that bridges two continents was especially appropriate. In Istanbul, we not only reinforced the alliance's vital transatlantic link, but also built bridges of cooperation to other regions. After the discord over Iraq, the summit demonstrated a new momentum in transatlantic security cooperation, and reinforced NATO's role as the major instrument for that cooperation. The key decisions that we took at the summit make this very clear.
In order for us to understand the real source of American great hostility toward Cuba, we must, in the first place, get a clear concept of the historical events in Cuba over the past 50 years or so. Cuba was then under the tyranny of Fulgencio Batista who was supported by the USA. This man was so beastly that he would not only imprison suspected political opponents without trial, but that he would proceed to have them killed along with their spouses and children.
An investigation into how weapons makers are shaping U.S. foreign and military policies, based on an essay by William D. Hartung that was subsequently published in a book released in mid-1999 and edited by Tom Barry and Martha Honey: 'Global Affairs 2000: A New Foreign