Volume 4, Issue 2

The objective of this article is to contribute to the further comprehension of the basis of the formation of international coalitions, or partnerships, of the South-South-type in the new context of the multilateral agenda, taking as an indication of the preferences of such countries the adopted positions in key international arenas. As can be observed the first arrangements of the new round of WTO negotiations, the Doha Round, the coalitions are going to have a central role. In those, the leadership of the regional powers from the South or of intermediate countries will be fundamental. The cooperative efforts of this nature have already consubstantiated with the formation of a series of coalitions, primarily the G-20 or G-3 (IBSA, India-Brazil-South Africa coalition). The convergence of international trade interests at the IBSA is clearly counterintuitive in the efforts of building international coalitions. Indeed, the rationale of the formation of the India-Brazil partnership demands an explanation that centers simultaneously on a deeper and systematic comprehension of the economic interests of both countries and on other interests that go beyond those trade questions.

While there is recognition that globalization affects societies in various ways and that local reactions to globalization may be unpredictable and unstable, the literature has not produced many focused analyses of the effects of globalization in particular countries. This article analyses Russia’s participation in the interconnected world and explores the possibility of Europeanization and Americanization in Russia’s domestic and foreign policies. The article also describes the trends in search for authentic Russian values and a model of development, a “third path.” It argues that Russia’s engagement with globalization is shaped by both endogenous factors, such as national interest and strategic calculations as well as external pressures and opportunities. In the domestic realm, Russia strives for political, economic, and social self-determination by constructing its own vision of strategic objectives and forms of cooperation in the world. Internationally, Russia continues to have a difficult relationship with the dominant international order, intertwining engagement with suspicion and openness with nationalism. Russia’s involvement with globalization fuses the proliferation of socio-economic reforms and global integration with only partial acceptance of neo-liberal forces as well as the assertion of its national spirit and sovereignty.

It is generally accepted that the English School of international relations theory, associated with the London School of Economics, approaches its subject from a different perspective than its American variants. This perception has endured into the post-Cold War era. Despite their countries’ “special relationship,” the American and English approaches are assumed to be separated by a common language, opposing assumptions, and divergent global interests.The following article challenges this perception by introducing global opinion theory, an American approach that shares more with its British counterpart than previous theories. A rhetorical research design, which focuses upon common usages in the quality press, will be used to test areas where the two approaches overlap and conflict in an attempt to reconcile and enrich both theories.

This is a manifesto – a deliberately provocative and evocative text – designed to call on scholars of globalization to focus our work more directly on the study of the ongoing global crisis (which is seen far into the future) rather than on the specialized academic niches our work generally occupies. This is the move from (at best) a “critical globalization studies” to a “global crisis studies.”Secondly, it urges global studies scholars, even those already engaged in public sociology or public intellectual work, to push further into making our work relevant and accessible to wider publics well beyond the university and journal publishing systems.And finally, it advocates moving beyond even a “public sociology” directly to “global justice work” in a call to arms to academics and intellectuals to engage ourselves in global social justice action in any way of which we are capable. The text offers a reading of the global crisis as an organic set of interlinked crises, uses literary-like short case study sketches to make its points, provides a succinct thesis about how radical social change is successfully made, and includes a set of resources for scholar-activists.

China and India are often portrayed in the media as competitors, each about to overtake the other with impressive economic growth and development. A closer look demonstrates that the two countries are much further apart in this as well as other areas than is generally admitted.