Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970612092357.11bf9eb4@mail.telecom.net.et> Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 09:52:53 +0300 From: Dawit Angelo <mailto:dangelo@TELECOM.NET.ET> Subject: Re: average American's perception of the US role in the 1st To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Selam kerry,At 09:18 PM 6/11/97 -0500, you wrote: >Dawit,
> "It's not whether you win or lose, it's whether you play the game."
>
Did I imply otherwise? It was not my intention if I did. How could there be any winner/looser when there is only a single player anyway? >
>As for the MAI and
> > The right of money is to be put above the laws of
>> nations who are no more allowed to control thier destiny.
>
>One should not overlook the fact that the _nation_ is a problematic concept.
>The best line of defence against globalization may be the city-state.
>
I didn't yet buy the change of heart for the nation state. I am wondering why now? I think, nationalism played a vital role in the development of the first two worlds. I wouldn't be sure of the viability of the city-state either. I find the regional economic intigrations more appropraite to repeat what Cherbert once called ''the trick''. I am enjoying a near utopia discusion at ftr-cities. But they didn't yet come to this one. The city-state sounds less practical on the resource front. I didn't quite get the line of defence though. Tell me about it.bye for now Dawit
>
>kerry
>