1 of 16

David Michael M. San Juan

De La Salle University-Manila
 2 of 16

Another World is Possible: Prospects for The End of American Hegemony

David Michael M. San Juan

De La Salle University-Manila

dmmsanjuan@gmail.com

On September 2009, less than two years before a civil war erupted in Libya, Colonel

Muammar Gaddafi in his first address to the United Nations (UN) strongly criticized the UN for

an antiquated system whose decision-making bodies such as the UN Security Council is

dominated by veto-wielding Western countries. He read portions of the UN Constitution and

threw it near UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon’s place to highlight his contention that the UN

has not been true to its original mandate. Colonel Gaddafi went further as to demand a new UN

system where each country will have one vote on every decision that the UN will make, saying

that “We should resort to the majority of the votes of the General Assembly…if the General

Assembly takes a vote, it should be implemented…and no one should say that I am above the

General Assembly. Anyone who says he’s above the General Assembly should leave the United

Nations and be alone. Democracy is not for the rich…The Security Council is security feudalism,

political feudalism for those who have permanent seats…it should not be called the Security

Council, it should be called the Terror Council…” (transcribed by the author from a video clip

posted at Youtube). Other anti-imperialist leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

has also voiced out his displeasure of the current international system where disputes are

settled arbitrarily by the powerful UN Security Council without the actual consensus of the UN

General Assembly. In the 2006 UN General Assembly, the indefatigable Chavez warned that

the UN system has ceased to function in accordance within the framework of its original

mandate, saying that he doesn’t “…think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let'
s

accept -- let'
s be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War, collapsed. It'
s
 3 of 16

worthless.” With the same implied message, in the 2009 UN General Assembly, Iranian

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, another perennial critic of the US-led Western hegemony in

the UN accused foreign forces of spreading "war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation

in the Middle East” and emphasizes that “It is unacceptable that a small minority should

dominate the politics, economy and culture of vast parts of the world through a complicated

network and establish a new form, in fact, of slavery…” (transcribed by the author from a video

clip posted at Youtube).

At times, the UN Security Council itself is sidelined by stronger players such as the

United States of America (USA). It is instructive to remember that the American occupation of

Iraq was never authorized nor supported by the UN Security Council, yet such military

intervention raged on for seven year. While theoretically, the UN is a democratic organization of

states, its inner workings are far from being democratic. It’s an entity where might is still right for

as long as no mighty nation challenges the mightiest one. At times, its powerful members act in

unison to limit the rising power of a particular enemy state whose political system is different

from theirs and seemingly threatens their dominance. It’s a revised application of the concept of

“balance of power” in which the powerful members of the UN Security Council act, not against

their fellow superpowers, but against aspiring counterhegemonic forces that seem to pose

danger to the status quo. This explains why it’s too easy for most members of the Security

Council to authorize foreign intervention in Libya, while they won’t even bother to at least

condemn Bahrain. For the West-dominated UN Security Council, Libya is a “rogue” state not

only because its leader is a tyrant, but also because it was able to industrialize and utilize its

petroleum resources with minimal foreign aid, thereby offering an alternative pathway to

development, other than the Western formula of neoliberal capitalist globalization. Meanwhile,

chances are very slim that Bahrain, despite its violent crackdown against pro-democracy

protestors aided by Saudi Arabian troops, will be condemned by the UN Security Council

because its ruling clan is staunchly pro-USA and it applies the Western-imposed concept of
 4 of 16

neoliberal capitalist globalization, unlike Colonel Gaddafi. Such application of double standards

lends credence to the widespread belief (at least in the Third World) that the UN is West-

dominated and should be overhauled if it is to exist efficiently.

Weaker countries with no seats in the UN Security Council are of course given all the

time to vent their disgust and frustration through the regular general assemblies where leaders

can talk freely as majority of the other foreign delegates sleep, or chat with other leaders. As

Venezuelan President Chavez wryly notes in the 2006 UN General Assembly, “… it'
s good to

bring us together once a year, see each other, make statements and prepare all kinds of long

documents, and listen to good speeches… But we, the assembly, have been turned into a

merely deliberative organ. We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible

situation in the world…” Chavez’ speech culminated in a call to “re-establish the United Nations”

through the democratization of its decision-making organs such as the UN Security Council.

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva echoed Chavez’ complaint in the 2008 UN

General Assembly: “The strength of values must prevail over the value of strength. Only

legitimate and effective instruments can assure collective security. The United Nations has

spent 15 years discussing the reform of its Security Council. Today’s structure has been frozen

for six decades and does not relate to the challenges of today’s world. Its distorted form of

representation stands between us and the multilateral world to which we aspire…It is also

multilateralism that must guide us toward solutions to the complex problems of global warming,

based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.” Unfortunately, up to this

day, significant reforms in connection with such just and vociferous complaints are yet to be

implemented.

But it seems that “the times they are a-changin’,” to borrow a phrase from Bob Dylan’s

famous song. Vibrant developing giants, specifically Brazil and India have stepped up their

campaign for permanent seats in the powerful UN Security Council, a drastic realignment

naturally opposed by other countries. Aimed at countering the West-dominated bloc in the
 5 of 16

powerful Security Council, this emerging Third World bloc can introduce changes in the

international system from within to complement laudable moves from the outside. Various

citizens’ groups and international non-government organizations (NGOs) have been ceaselessly

drafting plans for the development of a new international system based on the ideals of genuine

democratic representation, for many years now. While it might be argued that the old West-

dominated UN system remains intact, recent events and developments suggest that a

realignment of powers and shifting and/or building of new alliances make the advent of a new

era and a new international system imminent. In analyzing the prospects for such earth-moving

transformation, it is imperative to scrutinize the various forces involved in the greater scheme of

things.

UN Security Council: Rich Nations’ Club

The world today is in a potentially revolutionary situation, though not entirely similar to

the world that heralded the birth of the French Revolution. It’s a world where a certain group of

nations reign supremely over other states. A closer look at the composition of the current UN

Security Council will drive this point home. China, France, the Russian Federation, the United

Kingdom and the United States have permanent seats (states with veto powers) in the council

while Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria,

Portugal and South Africa have non-permanent seats. Among the permanent seat holders,

France and the United Kingdom are from Europe, United States is from North America, China is

from Asia and the Russian Federation is from Eurasia. There’s no African state among the

permanent seat holders despite the fact that Africa is the second most populous continent.

South America has no representative too among the permanent seat holders. It is worth

mentioning that Lebanon is the only Middle Eastern country in the UN Security Council, despite

the fact that the Middle East is among the world’s most politically volatile region, especially after

the Egyptian uprising led to a salvo of popular revolts against local autocrats in the Arabian
 6 of 16

world, not to mention the continuing instability of the current situation in Iraq and the state of war

between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

Socio-economically, the UN Security Council is a rich nations’ club. The usual Third

World complaint on the UN Security Council’s elitism can be bolstered by analyzing data culled

from the Human Development Index, an annual UN publication on holistic human progress.

Among the current members of the Security Council, the following countries are classified as

having “very high” or “high human development”: France, Lebanon, the Russian Federation, the

United Kingdom, the United States, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Colombia, Germany and

Portugal. Labeled as having “medium human development” are China, Gabon, India and South

Africa. The sole state in the Security Council considered as having “low human development” is

Nigeria. Such elitist composition of the UN Security Council is no accident, for the non-

permanent members are elected by representatives of all nations in the General Assembly. In

such elections, a crafty combination of diplomatic overtures and economic leverage is

necessary to win. For example, to drum up support for its bid for a permanent seat in the UN

Security Council, India utilizes loans and other financial concessions for Least Developed

Countries (LDCs). This 2011, India has sponsored a conference of foreign ministers of the

LDCs where it is “…expected to announce a slew of concessions for the Least Developed

Countries from Africa and Asia” in connection with the campaign for the expansion of the UN

Security Council which may lead to the granting of a permanent seat for India (UN Web

Services Section 2011).

Forces of the Status Quo: Will Old Alliances Hold?

Together with their allies around the globe, the permanent members of this sundry group

of nations compose the forces of the status quo, those who are unwilling to change the status

quo, and those who are threatened by resurgent endeavors to upset and/or totally transform the

status quo. While they have varying views on particular international security issues, they are
 7 of 16

more or less united in maintaining the status quo where they monopolize not only the control of

the world’s resources but also its purportedly democratic institutions and semblances of a world

government such as the United Nations, including powerful financial institutions such as the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The more enlightened among the forces

of the status quo will of course attempt to evade irrelevance and obsolescence by trying their

best to repackage themselves as responsible reformers who are willing to adapt to change, for

as long as they’ll still have some relevance and power in the new international system but,

whatever happens, these forces will try to resist any fundamental change in the international

system. Using the French Revolution’s colorful rhetoric, these forces are part of the global and

seemingly crumbling “ancien régime.”

Currently, the world’s number one economy, the United States of America (USA), leads

this bloc. Through its mutual defense treaties and its vast intelligence gathering network around

the world backed with its cultural hegemony over many countries, the USA is able to lead the

forces of the status quo, albeit with increasing instances of challenges from new superpowers

such as the nominally communist People’s Republic of China. It is doubtful if the USA will be

capable of being the hegemon of the forces of the status quo, considering that it’s officially the

world’s largest debtor. Ironically, its closest rival in various matters, the People’s Republic of

China is its biggest creditor. This partly explains why despite its posturings in the international

community, China would not want the USA to lose its socio-political and economic hegemony.

China would of course desire to have a “co-hegemony” with the USA, but it is constrained not to

entirely leave the USA like a miserable sickly old man in the cold, precisely because in the long

run, if the USA collapses, China will collapse too, or the latter will at least experience a financial

crisis. American collapse may not seem imminent but some signs of a shocking economic

earthquake that would instantly smash the foundations of American dominance are now at

hand. As John Avlon (2011) succintly puts it, “The world'

s biggest debtor nation cannot remain

the world'
s sole superpower indefinitely.”
 8 of 16

The USA is yet to fully recover from the financial crisis that began in 2008, as its

unemployment rate (16%) remains high. In fact, independent analysts such as Canadian

proprietor Jeff Nielson (2011) cast doubts on the “economic recovery” of the USA, asserting that

the US economy is still “…mired in a worsening depression. Yet what is even more depressing

is that the only "solution" which the U.S. government has come up with to deal with this

economic catastrophe is to tell larger and larger lies.” By “lies,” Nielson refers to what he thinks

is doubtful employment statistics that US government agencies are providing to soothe

concerns among doubters of the “economic recovery.” Nielson insists that, contrary to the US

government’s claim, “there has been absolutely no recovery.” Local jobs creation through the

manufacturing sector remains “anemic” (Lambro 2011). Despite the relative increase in the jobs

offered by the services sector, such employment remains vulnerable and volatile because of the

“wave of offshoring of services jobs from the US” to other countries, a situation where

“(a)ccounting, payroll, indeed any activity that was internet-enabled, could in principle be carried

out from afar” (Bardhan 2011). Ironically, such dilemma was a result of the neoliberal capitalist

globalization that the USA espoused and imposed to the world.

The intensity of the US financial crisis is evident in America’s huge federal budget deficit

pegged at $222.5 billion as of February 2011 (Del Giudice 2011). After spending more than $3

trillion in the Iraq War (Stiglitz and Bilmes 2010), it is now struggling to keep its social services

afloat. Huge spending cuts have been announced and/or implemented in the fields of health and

education. Recently, the US government announced that a bipartisan deal between the

Democrats (who usually abhor budget cuts) and the Republicans (who always advocate fiscal

prudence through budget cuts) has been reached, enabling America to cut federal spending by

at least $39 billion in the next fiscal year (MacAskill 2011). The Democratic Party’s grudging

support for the said huge budget cut described by House Speaker John Boehner as the “largest

real-dollar spending cut in American history” further reflects the severity of the financial crisis

that America is experiencing. In normal times, the Democratic Party fought tooth and nail to
 9 of 16

prevent budget cuts knowing all too well that the poor and the middle class (its traditional

support base) will be hurt by such.

Huge budget cuts on health, education and other social services have been announced

and as early as 2010, proposals for drastic cuts on military expenditures have been put forward.

Some observers, such as a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst have thus

concluded that the Obama administration is actually preparing for a “post-imperialist” America

(Grenier 2011). Stripped of its creative jargon, such phrase implies that, slowly but surely, the

USA is beginning to wean itself away from being the world’s hegemon due to its financial woes.

Recently, even US Defense Secretary Robert Gates cautioned against US intervention via the

deployment of American troops in Libya, saying that “(i)t was not a vital national interest to the

United States.” Actually, such intervention would be also too costly, considering that America is

still involved in Afghanistan and is yet to totally pull out of Iraq.

Meanwhile, America’s most trusted allies in the United Nations (aside from Israel), the

domestic situation of rich European powers such as Britain and Germany, indicates that they

can’t replace USA as the hegemon. Britain is also in the midst of a fiscal crisis. Its leaders

currently face massive protests against its austerity measures (such as social spending cuts

coupled with increased fees for services such as education). Meanwhile, though Germany has

defied the crisis with its relatively impressive growth despite the international financial crisis, its

conservative leader Angela Merkel is facing strong domestic challenges in the form of a

resurgent Green Party and her old nemesis, the Social Democratic Party. Thus, the current

German government, busy with strengthening its domestic base in preparation for the next

elections, tries to minimize actual involvement in the world’s affairs. As a whole, the European

Union (EU) seems to be reluctant too in stepping in the shoes of the fading hegemon USA.

Currently, the EU is attempting to manage the fiscal crisis in Greece, Ireland and more recently,

Portugal. It’s no surprise that, EU-wide, austerity measures have been announced and/or

implemented too. In Sweden, universities are now charging tuition fees on foreign students. In
 10 of 16

France, the retirement age has been increased. In Portugal, wage cuts have been announced.

In Spain, the unemployment rate is in an all-time high. The deepening crisis in the EU is actually

resurrecting the formerly dormant and/or dead rightist groups that wrongly blame immigrants for

the woes of the EU. These rightist groups have managed to win in parliamentary elections such

as in the Netherlands and Sweden, paving the way for a further realignment of forces in the EU.

With these things in mind, it is evident that the “ancien régime” of the current international

system led by the USA is in trouble. The USA is no longer capable of leading the forces of the

status quo in the long run, and its European allies are unwilling and/or incapable to take its

place due to their own domestic problems that need closer attention. This looming power

vacuum presents golden opportunities for emerging forces in the global South.

Third World No More: Brazil, India and China

The global South generally refers to Third World countries, in contrast with the global

North which generally applies to rich industrialized countries in the West. Currently, some

members of the global South such as Brazil, India and China, have managed to insulate their

economies from the international crisis, albeit without actually lifting all their citizens from

poverty. Simply put, they were able to macroeconomically graduate from being in the Third

World, to becoming unofficial members of the First World club, at least in terms of Gross

Domestic Product (GDP). Such macroeconomic growth enabled these countries to increasingly

assert their influence in world affairs. Brazil is now a giver of financial aid to Third World

countries, whereas in the not-so distant past, it was wallowing in debt too. Meanwhile, Indian

and Chinese corporations have spread their tentacles in many developing countries. With such

clout to boast of, Brazil and India are lobbying for permanent seats in the powerful UN Security

Council. Currently holding non-permanent seats, representatives of Brazil and India, together

with China (a permanent seat holder) generally act as one bloc in vital issues. For example,

Brazil, India and China abstained in the process of voting for or against the UN Security Council
 11 of 16

resolution authorizing UN intervention in Libya. This is a preview of what Brazil and India will be

capable of doing once they became permanent seat holders in the powerful UN Security

Council. It must be noted that permanent seat holders have veto powers on any UN Security

Council resolution. With China and another veto holder, the Russian Federation, Brazil and

India could form a powerful non-West bloc within the UN Security Council, though, as explained

earlier, China wouldn’t want to totally terminate American hegemony because its economy is

now closely tied with the economy of the crisis-battered USA.

21st Century Socialists: Counterhegemonic Forces From Venezuela to Nepal

Providing tacit support to the emerging non-West bloc are the counterhegemonic forces

around the world, nominally led by “21st century socialists” like Venezuelan President Hugo

Chavez. From climate change to the war in Libya, Chavez and his fellow radicals routinely

attack the USA for its stance and policies in international affairs. In Ecuador, leftist President

Rafael Correa expelled the US ambassador for his secret anti-Ecuador remarks revealed by the

Wikileaks, an online group that has made headlines in world papers due to its online publication

of thousands of classified documents on the Iraq War and secret diplomatic cables of American

diplomats. In Bolivia, the pro-environment socialist regime of Evo Morales highlights the need to

resolve climate change issues while condemning the USA for failing to act decisively in favor of

international climate change accords. In the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, Kim

Jong Il consistently succeeds in standing up against US might (what it calls as “foreign

intervention” in purely Korean affairs) through a constant show of force via its shocking war

arsenal and nuclear facilities which were built without the assistance of the US or its allies. In

Nepal, the communists won majority of the parliamentary seats and have announced their

intention to chart the destiny of a new Nepal away from Western economic models such as

neoliberal capitalist globalization. In Cuba, the communist regime keeps on spouting anti-US

rhetoric, especially after the international financial crisis highlighted neoliberal capitalist
 12 of 16

globalization’s vulnerabilities. These socialist governments that have overwhelming domestic

popular support strengthen the Third World’s case against the West-dominated international

system. Time and again, without forming an actual power bloc, these predominantly developing

countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa have managed to discredit the current international

system, at least in the eyes of the poor and marginalized citizens of the Third World. The fact

that these regimes have been able to maintain their grip on power means that, to a certain

extent, their alternative visions remain credible and valid among many citizens of the Third

World. It is thus not surprising that even in the First World, prominent non-government

organizations (NGOs) and international networks have called for reforms in the international

system.

Aside from these ruling counterhegemonic forces, a number of revolutionary

counterhegemonic groups exist around the world. These groups wage protracted armed

struggles against their local rulers who are usually (but not always) allies of the USA and other

forces of the status quo. In the Philippines, the 42-year old Communist Party remains

undaunted in waging a “people’s war” in the countryside, as socialist or socialistic legal parties

make headways in Congress through party-list representation. The Communist Party of the

Philippines remains one of America’s fiercest critics among the world’s resurgent armed rebel

organizations. It regularly posts statements against specific US actions through its website,

while calling the country’s citizens to support the communist insurgency, and eventually forge an

“independent foreign policy” upon the establishment of a worker-led “democratic republic” as

stated in the 12-point program of the communist-led National Democratic Front of the

Philippines (NDFP). In Colombia, despite the setbacks it suffered under pro-US Colombian

President Alvaro Uribe, the leftist Fuerzas Armadas Revolutionarias de Colombia-Ejército del

Pueblo/Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People’s Army (FARC-EP) remains intact and

is still able to carry out attacks against the regime of another pro-US president. In Mexico, the

indigenous socialistic Zapatista rebels persist in their campaign against US-imposed free trade
 13 of 16

and the environmental destruction that it brings. In India, the rebellion waged by the outlawed

Communist Party of India-Maoist (dubbed the “Naxalite” movement, in reference to its region of

origin) has encompassed 1/3 of the vast country (while the legal Communist Party of India-

Marxist has seats in parliament and rules three states).

While these armed struggles are domestic in nature, it is nevertheless evident that in the

long run, if these armed rebel groups are able to succeed in wresting power from traditional

regimes who more or less are part of the US-led status quo, they will use their power to

precipitate the creation of a new international system in which the US and its major allies could

no longer monopolize the decision-making powers.

Out of the Rubble: A New Arabian World

A distinct force that will also contribute to the growing global movement against US-led

Western hegemony in the UN is the resurgent power of the new Arabian world. The uprisings,

revolutions and massive protests that sprouted like wild mushroom in the Arabian world, mostly

against US-sponsored regimes like that of Mubarak in Egypt and that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, are

indirect votes of no confidence on American frameworks and strategies in the region. Egyptians,

Tunisians, Yemenis and even Libyans detest local dictators and they all the more abhor US

hegemony. It must be noted that the transitional governments in Egypt and Tunisia, while

maintaining friendly relationships with America, try their best to steer their country’s direction

away from American hegemony. Indeed, even the anti-Gaddafi rebels of Libya strongly oppose

the possible deployment of foreign troops in their country, reiterating that Gaddafi’s ouster and

the preservation of Libyan territorial integrity and independence are their basic goals. For

America, the Middle East is no longer a “business-as-usual” zone. Finally, the Arabian world has

mustered the courage to apply democracy, and when they say democracy, they mean genuine

democracy which includes freedom from foreign impositions. In the long run, out of the rubble,

genuinely democratic Arabian governments will rise not only to uplift their countrymen from
 14 of 16

poverty, but also to stand up against the current international system that marginalizes them

and the rest of the Third World in actual decision-making. They will work for the creation of a

new system where no country will be capable of monopolizing power for they know all too well

from experience that too much power is too bad as to be granted to anyone or any country. The

policies of accountability in domestic governance that they’re trying to implement after their

successful uprisings are in fact parallel to the global accountability and democratization of the

United Nations for which the counterhegemonic forces are actively campaigning.

Vox Populi: Global Social Movements for Holistic Democratization

The current international system seems to be so full of loopholes and seems to be so

indefensible that even in the First World, the global North, the rich nations, citizens groups,

international organizations, prominent NGOs, old and new radical parties and even elected

government officials have joined the chorus for a new international system based on genuine

democratization.

For example, the World Social Forum which serves a counter-meeting to the G20 (the

elite Group of 20 most industrialized countries) meetings in Europe dubbed as the World

Economic Forum, aims to strengthen the United Nations’ power to control the financial

transactions of rich industrialized countries so as to curb if not eliminate abuse. A number of

organizations in the First World support the World Social Forum. Many groups such as the

World Federalist Movement, the Institute for Global Policy, and the Center for UN Reform

Education espouse more radical ideas to reform the United Nations. Even seemingly single-

issue alliances and movements such as the global anti-war movement are also contributing to

the clamor for a more just international system. The anti-war movement emphasizes that

warfare depletes the world’s resources which can be spent better for the welfare of the people.

It highlights the inutility of the current UN set-up in preventing unnecessary wars at a time when

millions of people around the world suffer from poverty and starvation. Oxfam, Greenpeace and
 15 of 16

other prominent international NGOs have likewise protested against the rich countries’

unsustainable economic models which breed poverty in the Third World and environmental

destruction everywhere.

In the very seats of power, new radical parties such as the Green Parties, and old ones

like Communist Parties are making steady gains. For example, the Green Party won the local

election in Germany, spelling trouble for pro-US German Chancellor Merkel’s re-election plans.

In Moldova, a European country with close ties with the European Union, the Communist Party

is the elected ruling party since 2001. Green Parties and Communist Parties consistently

oppose Western hegemony in international affairs. At least rhetorically, they espouse an

international system based on representation and solidarity. Thus, in the long run, their

headways in elections signal a new era in international affairs.

If these groups in the First World will be able to forge permanent coordinative ties with

like-minded governments and movements in the Third World, a unique broad North-South

global movement for a new international system will gain momentum and may eventually bring

about the desired more equitable and more democratic system. If things and events steadily

progress from the way they are today, chances are good that another world where the UN will

become genuinely democratic is still possible.

City of Manila, Philippines

March 2011

References:

UN Web Services Section 2011, '

India to host ministers from LDC countries'
, Department of

Public Information, United Nations 15 March. Available from <http://

www.un.org/wcm/content/site/ldc>. [11 April 2011].

 16 of 16

Gaddafi, M 2009, '

Gaddafi blasts big powers at UN'
, ReutersVideo. Available from

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Q1DKwPViQ&feature=fvsr> [11 April 2011]

Ahmadinejad, M 2009, '

Ahmadinejad blasts "small minority"'
, ReutersVideo. Available from

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfoytSzizBY&feature=relmfu> [11 April 2011]

Chavez, H 2006, '

Rise Up Against the Empire'
, Counterpunch. Available from <http://

www.counterpunch.org> [11 April 2011]

Nielson, J 2011, '

More Fantasy Jobs From U.S. '
Recovery'
', Yahoo! Canada Finance. 1 April.

Available from <http://ca.finance.yahoo.com>. [11 April 2011]

Lambro, D 2011, '

Don’t Be Fooled by Jobs ‘Increase’'
, The Cagle Post. 09 March. Available

from <http://blog.cagle.com/2011/03/dont-be-fooled-by-jobs-increase >. [11 April 2011]

Avlon, J 2011, '

'Gang of Six'may solve U.S. debt mess'
, CNN. 10 March. Available from

<http://edition.cnn.com >. [11 April 2011]

Bardhan, A 2011, '

In a Borderless World, Innovation Reigns Supreme'
, Yale Global Online. 04

April. Available from <http://yalegobal.yale.edu >. [11 April 2011]

Del Giudice, V 2011, '

U.S. Budget Deficit Expanded to Monthly Record $222.5 Billion in

February'
, Bloomberg. 11 March. Available from <http://bloomberg.com>. [11 April 2011]

Stiglitz, J and Bilmes, L 2010, '

The true cost of the Iraq war: $3 trillion and beyond'
, Washington

Post. 05 September. Available from <http://washingtonpost.com>. [11 April 2011]

MacAskill, E 2011, '

US government shutdown averted by late night deal in Congress'
, Guardian.

09 April. Available from <http://guardian.co.uk>. [11 April 2011]

Grenier, R 2011, '

Obama striving for post-imperialism'
, Al Jazeera. 05 April. Available from

<http://english.aljazeera.net>. [11 April 2011]