Articles

Debt is taking the blame. We watch trillions pile up in the United States, France, Italy and elsewhere in Europe, and wonder how far it can go. But debt is not the disease. It is the symptom. The disease is a budget deficit that has become permanent. We need to go back to Keynes. John Maynard Keynes never envisioned deficits as a normal, permanent feature of government. His thinking was rooted above all in the economic cycle. When the economy collapses, private investment dries up, unemployment rises, and fear paralyzes businesses and households, the state must step in. It spends, invests and accepts a temporary deficit. Monetary policy can also become more accommodative.

Marco Rubio’s recent speech in Athens, calling for the renewal of Western civilization and the restoration of its political, economic, and military strength, raises a fundamental question: Are we witnessing a temporary crisis of Western leadership, or have we reached the historical limits of the political and social order upon which Western dominance was constructed? I would argue that we are witnessing several interconnected crises: the limitations of Western democracy, the transformation of historically dominant identities, the declining capacity of the nation-state to address global challenges, and the inadequacy of security policies based primarily on military power.

The following text is a translation of a panel discussion on Dr. Mohammad Ali Mokalled’s book, “ The End of Hezbollah and All Forms of Fundamentalism ”, held as part of the Beirut Book Fair. The author of this text, our contributor Hisham Dibsi, endorses and values the practice of questioning accepted ideas in order to correct our understanding of history. He therefore appreciates Mohammad Ali Mokalled’s approach to historical and political research. In Lebanon, critical reassessment of relations with the state, society, and violence should not begin by examining the experience of others, but rather one’s own role, then that of one’s party, while also scrutinizing the social milieu that provided its setting and support.

Rather than attacking American or Israeli interests head-on, the Iranian regime appears to be pushing its proxies toward confrontation elsewhere: the Houthis with Saudi Arabia, and Hezbollah with domestic opponents in Lebanon. Iran’s proxies in the region are increasingly going on the offensive, but not against their usual enemies, the United States and Israel. With Israel’s parliamentary elections just days away and the US midterm elections a few weeks off, the Iranian front around the Strait of Hormuz is (more or less) quiet, while in southern Lebanon, the Israeli military continues its attacks without resistance from Hezbollah.

In recent years, the Nobel Prizes have become part of the political, social, and cultural transformations taking place around the world. They offer a subject for reflection that goes beyond scientific or literary achievements themselves, serving as a mirror of human behavior in a geopolitically troubled world and as a means of understanding the relationship between knowledge, power, politics, and society. Such a reading requires us to return to the human and behavioral dimension embodied by the laureates, as well as the geopolitical dimension of a global distinction that transcends borders without existing outside history. Peace, economics, literature, and science operate within a world marked by inequalities of power, influence, and resources. The choice of a particular laureate may confer symbolic legitimacy on a cause, draw attention to a conflict or crisis, or open a debate about the standards and rules by which the international community recognizes achievement, and the distance separating value from reality. A peace prize may be awarded while wars continue. The world may celebrate a scientific discovery even as inequalities in access to its benefits widen between social classes. Or it may honor a writer, whether obscure or well known, who defends human freedom in a world where freedom of expression is shrinking even in the most influential democracies! Here, it is important to distinguish between the reasons given by the Nobel Committee for its decisions and the political, social, and economic conclusions that may be drawn from them. Not every choice constitutes a deliberate geopolitical statement, even if it lends itself to a geopolitical interpretation.