The Ever Changing Global System

By Richard L. Dixon

We are witnessing a changing, transforming, and declining of not only nations but whole

regions. One can truly witness the transfer of wealth, raw materials, and political

influences. An excellent example of that changing of regions and countries is the BRIC

(Brazil, Russia, India, & China) as coined by the investment firm Goldman’s Sach’s.

“Back in 2001, the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) - eager to push its clients toward

emerging markets investment - created the acronym “BRIC” to stand for Brazil, Russia,

India and China, the four emerging markets the investment bank’s strategists believed

would become a dominant part of the world economy in the years ahead.” (Mike

Caggeso, March 3, 2009). This group represents the fastest growing economies in the

world. Of the four, China has been the most aggressive in terms of flexing its economical

and political muscle. Since the 2008 Olympics, China has been on an infrastructure

building bend to shore up its competitive strength in the Global economy. With the onset

of the worldwide economic crisis, it has taken advantage of the declining economies of

Australia and Europe by buying up companies that are staggering from debt and one step

away from bankruptcy. “While the rest of the world is grappling with the global

slowdown, China is figuring out ways to exploit it.

Over the past few months, China has capitalized on the financial turmoil that has

paralyzed the world’s “developed” economies by stocking up on cheap commodities,

weeding out competition to its largest state-run companies, and acquiring even more

foreign assets.
Indeed, with China’s economic growth projected at an enviable 8% for this year, that

country’s government has been able to spend less time promoting immediate growth and

liquidity, and more time preparing for the economic renaissance that almost certainly

seems to be the Asian giant’s destiny.

By exposing Western free-market capitalism, undermining the United States economic

clout, and eviscerating commodities prices, the financial crisis has offered China the

perfect opportunity to advance its domestic agenda.” (Jason Simpkins, January 28, 2009).

As one can see, the ascension of China, India, Brazil, & Russia in the Global Economy

has caused conflict, friction, and tensions with other Regions in the Global Community.

The changing economic conditions have also caused political and social unrest in LDC’s.

In other words, in terms of the Global Economy what may have been China’s golden

goose may in actuality has led to chaos, civil war, famine, poverty, and the political

meltdown of individual countries. Regional Hegemony of World Powers becomes blurred

in the chaotic state of world affairs. Alliances and allegiances betweens nations constantly

change not due to what is good for an individual nation but what is based on the personal

preferences of whatever individual leader is in charge. Hence conflict, change, and

disorder between nations and leaders are in most cases self-induced instead of an

evolutionary process. John Dunn (professor of Political Theory at Cambridge University)

in his essay entitled “Civiilizational Conflict and the Political Sources of the New World

Disorder,” defines the actions and political maneuvering by Maverick and monopolistic

leaders of a particular nation as structural fatality. “In the second (or fatalist) format we

could see civilizations as entities or units, or in metaphorical sense even agents,

compelled to clash by the principles which constitute their existence. We could see as
their core the aspiration to monopoly, a universalization of devotion, which can be

abandoned only by a sort of suicide, a surrender not merely of their hopes or aspirations

but their whole raison d’etre. Seen that way, it is not obscure why civilizations should

often have clashed in the past not merely with what they saw dismissively as barbarism,

but every bit as bitterly with one another, rival aspirants to monopoly, but in each other’s

eyes more or less shameless and illicit pretenders to it. The aspiration to monopoly is an

apparent enough source of danger, amply confirmed by historical induction. But that

alone is insufficient to establish structural fatality. History is littered with aspirants to

monopoly, many of them scarcely mistakable for civilizations even by themselves. The

issue of structural fatality can be settled definitively only by discovering frameworks

which limit the impact of the aspiration to monopoly to imaginative competition (the

market in souls), and excluding from it all corporal bullying or intimidation.” (John

Dunn, November 26 to December 10, 2007).

Dr. Dunn repudiates Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilization by explaining that

conflicts are not caused between civilizations, cultures, or ideologies but rather through

the monopolistic ambitions of nations, leaders, and ex-facto groups. An excellent

example is the regional hegemony of conflict and civil wars that are taking place on the

continent of Africa. Countries such as Chad, Sudan, Somalia, and the Congo have

descended into the realms of fragile or failed state status because of the maneuvering and

infighting between rebel groups, corrupt leaders, and power hungry outside interest like

TNC’s (Transnational Corporations). In this volatile scenario we see a dangerous mix of

conflict diamonds, weapon proliferation, and oil as dangerous fuses which light up these

powder kegs of conflict. One will find that deep data resources such as the CIA Fact book
or Freedom House continually demonstrate the relationship of GDP as an indicator of a

gradual rise to a democratic process and the eventual orientation of a particular’s

countries political process to democratic rule. However, there are other sources that are

more readily available from NGO’S (Non Governmental Organizations) that give more of

a real world outlook of the state of world civilization that now exist in its transition

between regions and Global Powers. Once such NGO is Amnesty International which

correctly analyzes, predicts, and gives summations of a particular regions or country’s

human rights records in its annual The State of the World’s Human Rights. In the context

of the conflict and destabilization that is now taking place in sub-Saharan Africa, its

prognosis of the situation is timely accurate. “The rights of many people in Africa

continued to be violated in 2007. Economic and social rights remained illusory for

millions of people. The internal armed conflicts that continued to ravage several states

were accompanied by gross human rights abuses including unlawful killings and torture,

including rape. In some countries all forms of dissent were suppressed, and in many

freedom of expression was restricted and human rights defenders suffered intimidation

and harassment. Women endured widespread discrimination and systematic human rights

abuse. Throughout the continent, those responsible for human rights violations escaped

being held to account.” (Amnesty International, 2008).

Africa is not the only region where we see the forces of disintegration taking place. The

Middle East particularly in the Persian Gulf region has also become unstable in recent

years. The advent of fossil fuels and mineral wealth can be destabilizing factors as our

well. There are players in the region such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran

who are jockeying for influence and power within the Gulf after a vacuum of leadership
was created with the fall of Saddam Hussein of Iraq. The use of Oil revenue has become

a catalyst of power for Iran and a potential confrontation for the United States. To really

illustrate of how the quest and possession of fossil fuels by one nation or individual can

create conflict we need to go no further than Russia’s attempt to nationalize the Arctic

Circle for its own National Interest, as the cumulative effects of Global Warming

continues to melt the Arctic Ice Shelf thereby making it easier to extract vast deposits of

both Oil and Gas. “Russia said on Monday it was watching the extent of militarization in

the Arctic as global warming makes potentially valuable resources in the polar region

more accessible and would plan its strategy accordingly.

Russia has already staked its claim to a majority of the Arctic waters, which it shares with

four NATO countries and planted a Russian flag on the seabed under the North Pole 18

months ago to reinforce its position.” (Reuters News Agency, February 23, 2009).

In a sense, economics by any country can be used to stabilize a country’s political system

or can become a liability in a continuous progression of monetary and financial

downturn. Russia in its present situation economically does not have the revenue to

sustain a prolonged development or stronghold in the region. However, it does have

strategic reserves of Natural gas deposits that it can use to straitjacket and blackmail the

economies of Eastern Europe particularly its former Soviet States of Georgia and the

Ukraine by refusing to honor trade treaties. The end result has been massive shortages of

Natural Gas in these countries to take care of the needs of its citizens. The Russians

therefore utilized political leverage economically to advance its agenda to keep its former

states under its sphere of influence and away from the path of westernization that both the

Ukraine and Georgia have pursued especially in seeking membership into the NATO
Military Alliance. In terms of spheres of influence, the actions of nations against each

other demonstrate that that they are more economically interconnected and integrated in

connection with the Global Economy. What economic or political fallout that may affect

one will eventually affect or destabilize the whole region. G. John Ikenberry in his article

entitled “Globalization and Political Order the Sources and Consequences of World

Economic Integration” validates the notion that Economic Regionalization as utilized by

the Russians in influencing the political outcome of Eastern Europe is a correct

interpretation of the series of events that evolve into a larger picture in the shaping of the

world economic integration system model. “Globalization is a more powerful force

shaping world political economy than regionalism. The argument that the world is

moving to regional blocs or antagonist regional groupings – advanced frequently in the

early 1990s – is less convincing than ever before. Regionalism is driven more by agendas

of economic openness and integration than by exclusion and insularity…the impacts of

globalization on inter-state relations are real and do make it more difficult or less

attractive for states to pursue relative gains or narrowly nationalist policies. The character

of trade interdependence and the workings of global production networks confuse

nationalist calculations. Vested economic interests create pressures for continuous and

stable relations.” (G. John Ikenberry, July 2000).

In terms of world systems construct, the biggest impact that the changes of Global

Political and economic integration has to be on the development of emerging

democracies. History has shown that without a sound foundation, international support,

and financial assistance the democratic institutions in these countries are doomed to fail.

It only takes a few events either on the international scene (high fuel cost, Climate
change, or rapidly rising food prices) or national scene of a particular nation for the

Pendulum to swing from emerging democracy to fragile or failed state status. “Despite

the West’s political commitment to support democratization, the durability of the new

democratic age remains an open question. By some accounts, at least half of the world’s

youngest democracies-often referred to in the academic literature as being unconsolidated

or fragile-are still struggling to develop their political institutions, and several have

reverted back to authoritarian rule. Among the countries in the early stages of democratic

institution building are states vital to U.S. national security interest, including

Afghanistan and Iraq. Ensuring that the developing world’s democracies survive and

prosper is therefore a crucial policy challenge.” (Nathan Converse & Ethan Kapstein,

March 2006).

Successful and developing young democracies are in the best interest of the US and its

Western Allies. However, democratic applications under countries that have been under

authoritarian rule have had mixed success lately because these institutions were not

allowed to develop over a period of time as had been the case in the past. The two

countries that come to mind are both Iraq and Afghanistan. The US’s attempt to bring

democracy to these two countries initially did not take into account the century’s old

conflict between tribes and spheres of religious influence. In addition, both countries are

rift with corruption at both the local and national level. What should have been done first

would have been the installment of a strongman who would have had the support of the

various ethnic, religious, and tribal groups in both countries. The US could have provided

technical, political, and financial assistance without appearing to pry into their internal

governmental affairs. In addition, these countries must be committed to a developing

economy which will provide the mechanics for infrastructure development, commerce,

and the ascension of a stable Middle Class. None of these attributes have taken place as

of yet. The reason that developing democracies in Malaysia, South Korea, Peru, Brazil,

Chile, Ukraine, and Georgia have been successful is that these necessary building blocks

were followed. In Africa, the most successful developing democracy that comes to mind

is Senegal. It has remained a stable democracy since its Independence from France in

1960. “Senegal remains one of the most stable democracies in Africa. Senegal was ruled

by a Socialist Party for 40 years until current President Abdoulaye Wade was elected in

2000. He was reelected in February 2007.” (CIA World Fact Book). Senegal under

President Abdoulaye Wade has attempted numerous infrastructure and Agricultural

Development the most important of which is a new green revolution to stop the

desertification of the region. “Speaking at the FAO conference in Rome, Maitre

Abdoulaye Wade, President of the Republic of Senegal, described an ambitious project

which the sahelo-saharan nations have launched in Africa to prevent the spread of

desertification. The project, called the "Great Green Wall" is a continental effort

coordinated by Senegal in relation to the Commission of the African Union.

As President Wade put it: "This project consists in planting trees over a distance of 7000

km from Dakar to Djibouti to constitute a 5 km wide green strip across the desert to stop

any further progress of desertification process. With the regeneration of biodiversity, we

plan to give our planet a new 'green lung' and contribute thus to the fight against climatic

changes.... We have already identified the course of the Great Green Wall and selected the

tree species to be planted according to climatic zones, each country crossed by the Great
Wall being responsible for its edification within its borders.” (LaRouche Political Action

Committee, June 4, 2008).

Another potential roadblock of the integration of developing countries into the sphere of

the Global Community is the eradication of poverty and the closing of the income gap

that now exist even in established democracies such as the United States. There must be a

system of social transformation that has to occur. That can only happen if the government

provides for their general welfare in terms of essential services such as water, sanitation,

healthcare, education, and infrastructure development. “A powerful historical pathway of

structural transformation is experienced by all successful developing countries. The

structural transformation involves four main features: a falling share of agriculture in

economic output and employment, a rising share of urban economic activity in industry

and modern services, migration of rural workers to urban settings, and a demographic

transition in birth and death rates that always leads to a spurt in population growth before

a new equilibrium is reached. Political pressures generated along the pathway have led to

diverse policy approaches designed to keep the poor from falling off the pathway

altogether.” (C. Peter Timmer & Selvin Akkus, July 2008).

The country that comes to mind that utilized and implemented structural transformation

effectively is the country of Malaysia. I have stated in a previous essay that I wrote

entitled “Sons of the Soil (Bumiputra),” Malaysia was able to successfully narrow the

income gap between the wealthier Chinese Minority and the Malay majority through a

series monetary initiatives called the NEP (National Economic Plan), 2nd Malaysian Plan,

and Vision 2020 to become a fully developed nation. In the process, they were able to

propel their economies as one of the fastest developing ones in the world.
“The policy that has certainly had the most profound effect on how Malaysians relate to

each other, how they perceive each other across ethnic lines, and how they view

themselves and their future in the country must be the affirmative action program, the

New Economic Policy (NEP). This was implemented in 1970 after racial riots the year

before, and was originally meant to end in 1990.

Most were convinced at that time that such a programme was necessary if the

multicultural country was to survive as a single entity. However, the addition to its

rationale that made it acceptable to most Malaysians was the caveat that redistribution of

wealth should occur within a growing economy and never through confiscation.

In the 1973 mid-term review of the second Malaysian Plan, it was proclaimed that the

goals of the NEP were to be undertaken "in the context of rapid structural change and

expansion of the economy so as to ensure that no particular group experiences any loss or

feels any sense of deprivation in the process."

This "no confiscation" principle was in practice a very tall order. The NEP is after all a

wide socio-economic programme meant to rectify unhealthy conditions left behind by the

colonial system. There was no way that no particular group would in the long run

experience loss and a sense of deprivation.” (Ooi Kee Beng, April 6, 2007).

Malaysia, like the United States is a pluralistic and multi-cultural society. Therefore, it

was quite remarkable that they were able to rectify the social and inequitable ills in their

society during their very young stage of nationhood. Probably no other Malaysian

personified that success than the leadership of Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir bin

Mohamad. It was his abilities as a coalition builder and compromiser that he was able to

get both the Chinese and Indian minorities to buy into the NEP and second Malaysian
Plan by emphasizing that all Malaysians were Sons of the Soil regardless of their ethnic,

culture, or religious background. Structural transformation worked well in Malaysia

because the Malaysians planned the evolutionary process of both their country both

economically and politically during their time under British Home Rule. The crucial key

to Malaysia’s success was long-range central planning. In the early years they moved

from an economy that was depended on rubber, tin, and palm oil (as had been the case of

its economical origins as a colonial asset of the British Empire) to one based on high

tech, manufacturing, and banking. “Eventually the country decided during the seventies

to shift dependence from the primary sector to manufacturing under a protection

regiment. Foreign assistance from Japan and the West eased and hastened the process of

transformation. Exports of manufactured goods were soon fuelling the country’s growth.”

(Hassan Zubair, November 7, 2007).

Structural formation if done correctly can elevate and integrate a country quickly within

the Global economy. However, if structural transformation policies are pursued too

quickly or developed incorrectly, they can have dire consequences for the internal

operations of a country politically, economically, socially, and culturally. This was

actually the case in Latin America during the early 1960’s when the cry of revolution

filled the air right after the overthrow of Battista by Castro and the Communists during

the Cuban Revolution. Up to the point of the revolution, countries such as Columbia,

Educador, Brazil, Venezuela, and Bolivia were ruled by a Dictatorship, Military Junta, or

Land rich aristocracy who utilized a form of feudalism to keep the population in

perpetual poverty. With the advent of the Cuban revolution, the citizens in these countries

rose to power (as was in the case of the Socialist Allende government in Chile) and
decided to pursue a path of development called economical structuralism (which was a

bastard form of structural transformation) through a command control monetary

philosophy to redress and correct the inequalities that had existed for decades. A large

part of economic structuralism was land reform and the other part dealt with

manufacturing, production of goods and services, and infrastructure development.

“Constraints on growth stem from Latin America’s specific position on the periphery of

the developed world. Prebisch used the term “peripheral” economies in order to contrast

them with the “central” economies. The main argument is that the differences between

the two are associated with poor growth conditions in the periphery, which impose

constraints on the industrialization process and technological progress and require growth

strategies coordinated by the State, since, under those conditions, market forces are not

sufficient, in themselves, to sustain viable growth.” (Ricardo Bielschowsky, April 2006).

The main theorists behind this shift in both economical and political philosophy was a

special section of the United Nations dedicated to the development of the Latin American

Region called “Comision Economica para America Latina de las Naciones Unidas"

(CEPAL) (United Nations Economic Comission for Latin America, ECLA, today known

as Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, ECLAC). “The main

theoretical tenet of ECLA's approach was that former colonies and non-industrialized

nations were "structurally" different from industrialized countries, and, therefore, the

former needed different recipes for economic modernization than the latter.

ECLA argued that colonization transformed former colonies' economies in "structures

especialized in producing raw materials, cash crops and foodstuff at low prices to meet

the needs of the colonizer's economies". That created economically "fractured" societies,
in which a modern sector was being constrained by international trade, and a traditional-

backward sector was blocking any process of economic modernization. These structures

were creating a dynamic that was impoverishing former colonies instead of promoting

capitalist industrialization.” (Robinson Rojas, 1992).

The fatal flaw in the ECLA philosophy was that they did not compensate for changing

developments in the Global Community and Economy. Their state-controlled models

were too rigid to adapt and actually held their nations captive in terms of further

development and the gradual improvement of the lives of their citizens as outlined earlier

in this essay piece with the ideology of structural transformation. It was this rigidness

which led to the collapse of the Soviet Economy in the 1990’s and convinced the Chinese

to abandon the failed state collectivism of the cultural revolution of Chairman Mao and

the adaption of a decentralized less intrusive state-controlled economy with a free market

approach that greatly encouraged FDI’s Foreign Direct Investments. When India loosened

the tight state control strains of its economy in the 1990’s they saw phenomenal growth

as well. The same could be said about South Korea as well as Taiwan. These countries

with the exception of India used this growth as a catalyst to fuel infrastructure

development to improve the General Welfare of its citizens as well as their productivity.

India has done the least to improve the welfare of its citizens and still has some of the

highest concentrations of poverty in the world. The concentration of wealth still lies in

the hands of a privileged class. India compared to China, has just started to develop a

mobile and well-educated Middle Class.

The growth of these emerging economies were somewhat stymied by the economic crisis

of the 1990’s starting with the devaluating of the currency in Thailand. Countries such as
Thailand which had taken out huge loans with both the IMF and the World Bank had to

restructure them because the interest rates were too much to bear. It should be noted that

both the IMF and World Bank have been notorious in forcing market based initiatives

that have been proven to be incompatible with the growth based models of second and

three-tier LDC’s (Low Developing Countries). “Despite this growing consensus, aid and

debt relief is still tied to economic policy reforms. The main culprits are the World Bank

and the IMF, who continue to use their aid to push inappropriate economic policies on

developing countries. Their conditions have a significant impact, given the large volume

of aid that the World Bank gives. Moreover, nearly all other rich-country donors (for

example the French or British governments) use the presence of an IMF programme - and

compliance to its conditions - as a signal to give their own bilateral aid to support poor-

country budgets. They also often tie their aid to the framework of conditions developed

by the World Bank.” (Oxfarm International, 2006).

Asian countries such as Malaysia and Thailand borrowed heavily from the IMF & World

Bank in order to grow their economies by building basic infrastructure projects such as

roads, bridges, canals, water sanitation plants, schools, and hospitals in order to provide

for the general welfare of its people. However, organizations such as the World Bank &

IMF would place stipulations on the aid that were given to poorer countries called

conditionalties. That is to say that a country had to go through certain market based

stages and criteria in order to qualify for the money. “But if this aid and debt relief comes

with large numbers of inappropriate strings attached, or what are known as conditions, its

utility can be seriously undermined. Aid should of course come with some terms

attached. Donor countries, which after all are spending the taxes of their own citizens,
have a right to expect their money to be spent in a transparent way and to be clearly

accounted for. They – and poor people around the world – are also entitled to expect the

aid to be used to contribute to goals to eliminate the unacceptable suffering which exists

in so many countries.” (Oxfarm International).

Hence, for example poor countries such as Ghana & Mali would be hit with back-loaded

interest rates if they didn’t meet the benchmarks or performance standards as set by the

IMF from a Keynesian neo-liberalism economic model. Therefore, both second and

especially third tier countries were forced to stop growing their economies and impose

harsh austerity measures on the backs of their people just to make the minimum

repayments to the IMF, and that was just on the interest alone. These austerity measures

caused hyperinflation, joblessness, starvation, and acute forms of poverty which lead to

political unrest. Thailand chose to go ahead and renegotiate its loans with loaded

conditions that did not sit well with its economy. Malaysia however, under the leadership

of Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad chose to defy the IMF and World

Bank by riding the economic crisis storm and pursued policies that would benefit the

growth of his country. “There were some discussions between the IMF and the Malaysian

government at that time, but Mahathir rejected the IMF package claiming that it was too

restrictive and counter productive. For example, one of the measures proposed by the

IMF was a financial restructuring which would have had the effect of turning many

bumiputras (Malay owned) companies over to foreign ownership. The IMF also called for

the discriminatory practices to be stopped, and recommended western style democracy

and open competition in both private and public sectors.” Dr. Mohammad took steps to
protect the national currency called the ringgit by affixing a fixed exchange rate contrary

to the popular practice of speculating on the open market against floating currencies.

The other initiative that Prime Minister Mohamad emplaced was to lower the interest

rates in both the bonds market and banking sector. He realized that providing cheap stable

credit to businesses in order to grow their enterprises was the best hedge against the

inflationary cyclone which consumed other Asians such as Taiwan & South Korea. “The

high interest rate policy lost its effect on the spot exchange rate in the second period.

Mahathir was justified in cutting the interest rate, and acting contrary to the advice given

by the IMF. With a depleted foreign reserve and the short-term interest rate losing its

influence on exchange rates, the only option left for stabilizing the exchange rate was to

introduce foreign exchange control. To this end, Mahathir acted swiftly and implemented

the control comprehensively.” (Ser-Huang Poon)

Dr. Mohamad also initiated public sector initiatives in conjunction with the National

Economic Policy and the Second Malaysian Plan in order to shore up the Industrial and

Manufacturing by providing buffer against the inflationary cyclone that had consumed

the national economies of his other Asian neighbors such as Singapore & the Philippines.

While the Southeastern Asian economies during this period became both stagnant and

paralyzed with negative growth, the Malaysian economy achieved real growth. “Several

initiatives were introduced to improve Malaysia’s long-term economic fundamentals.

First prioritizing the large infrastructure projects, especially the ones that required high

import content, would improve the quality of investments. Second the overall balance of

payments deficit would become a surplus by reducing the service account deficit and by

strengthening the merchandise account through technological advancement in capital

goods. Third, the government would adopt a relatively conservative fiscal policy,

although it would continue to support economic activities if the crisis should continue.

The measures also committed to maintaining a flexible and responsive monetary policy

and price stability. Finally a flexible wage system, linking wages to productivity, and

providing tax exemptions on bonuses would encourage Malaysia’s labor

competitiveness.” (Melissa M. Appleyard, October 21, 2008).

In actuality, Malaysia came out the strongest from the financial that engulfed all of Asia

and capitulated itself into a major economic and political leader within the region and the

Global Economy. The Latin American Region is still in the first few stages of

development that Asia actually went through in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. In

retrospect, economic and political integration in global communities can build, make, or

decimate a whole region or country. The success of that nation’s development is

predicated on the political savvy of a leader or group of leaders who can master and

develop bonds with organizations such as the World Bank, IMF, WTO, TNC’s, and the

United Nations that will benefit their citizens and project a healthy sense of Global

Influence.
 Endnotes

1. Mike Caggeso, “Russia’s Economic Demise Could Turn “BRIC” to “BIC,”

Money Morning, March 3, 2009,

http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/03/03/bric-russia/ (accessed March 18,

2009).

2. Jason Simpkins, “What Companies Are Profiting From China’s Commodities

Crusade?” Money Morning, January 28, 2009,

http://www.moneymorning.com/2009/01/28/china-commodities/ (accessed March

18, 2009).

3. John Dunn, “Civiilizational Conflict and the Political Sources of the New World

Disorder, ”(2007 International Conference in Honor of Professor John Dunn—

Taking Unreason's Measure: Facing the Global Challenge of Politics, Taipei,

Taiwan, November 26 to December 10, 2007),

www.rchss.sinica.edu.tw/politics2007/Paper02.pdf (accessed August 27, 2009), 8.

4. Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2008-The State of the

World’s Human Rights, (London, England: Amnesty International Secretariat,

2008), 4.

5. Reuters News Agency, “Russian General Says Watching Arctic militarization,”

Mon Feb 23, 2009,

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE51M3ES20090223?feedTyp

e=RSS&feedName=worldNews&rpc=22&sp=true (accessed August 27, 2009).

6. G. John Ikenberry, “Globalization and Political Order the Sources and

Consequences of World Economic Integration,” Universidad Torcuato Di Tella,

Working Paper #1 (JULY 2000), 5-6.

7. Nathan Converse & Ethan Kapstein, “The Economics of Young Democracies:

Policies, and Performance,” Center for Global Development, Working Paper

Number 85 (March 2006), 2.

8. CIA World Fact book, “Senegal,” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-

world-factbook/geos/sg.html (accessed August 27, 2009).

9. LaRouche Political Action Committee, Senegal President Wade: Green the

Desert!” June 4, 2008, http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/06/05/senegal-

president-wade-green-desert.html (accessed August 27, 2009).

10. C. Peter Timmer and Selvin Akkus, “The Structural Transformation As A Pathway

Out of Poverty: Analytics, Empires, and Politics,” Center for Global

Development, Working Paper Number 150 (July 2008), 2.

11. Ooi Kee Beng, "50 Years of Malaysian Independence: Celebrate 0r

Contemplate?” Opinion Asia, April 7, 2007,

http://www.opinionasia.org/50YearsofMalaysianIndependence (accessed August

27, 2009).

12. Hasan Zubair, “Fifty Years of Malaysian Economic Development: Policies &

Achievements,” International Islamic University, Malaysia (IIUM), Munich

Personal RePEc Archive, Formerly Published in Review of Islamic Economics,

Vol. II (November 2, 2007):2

13. Ricardo Bielschowsky, “Celso Furtado’s Contributions to Structuralism and Their

Relevance Today,” Cepal Review 88 (April 2006)

http://www.eclac.cl/revista/noticias/articuloCEPAL/3/26313/LCG2289iBielschow

sky.pdf (accessed August 27, 2009), 8.

14. Róbinson Rojas, “Notes on ECLA's Structuralism and Dependency Theory,” The

Robinson Rojas Archives, 1992 http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/ecla1.htm

(accessed August 27, 2009)

15. Oxfarm International,” Kicking the Habit-How the World Bank and the IMF are

still addicted to attaching economic policy conditions to aid, Oxford Briefing

Paper #96, (Oxford: Oxford International, 2006), 8-9.

16. Ibid., 6.

17. Ser-Huang Poon, “Malaysia and the Asian Financial Crisis A View from the

Finance Perspective,” Lancaster University, United Kingdom, African Finance

Journal, Special Issue (October 12, 1999): 4.

18. Ibid., 11.

19. Appleyard, Melissa M. “Malaysia Faces the New Millennium (A),” Portland State

University – Management, Social Science Research Network, (October 21,

2008):1-41