History suggests apartheid ends not through appeals to conscience alone but through sustained economic and political pressure, says HUGH LANNING
MANY economists these days talk of a process of “de-globalisation” taking place; some others talk of the neoliberal regime of yesteryear no longer existing.
Of course, nothing remains the same forever: as the Greek philosopher Heraclitus said, “you cannot step into the same river twice.” Some change in the neoliberal order is inevitable with the passage of time.
But the real point is: has the analytical frame used for understanding the economic reality of the contemporary world, with a view to changing it, become obsolete and hence in need of serious revision?
Marking milestones in the histories of China and the United States, this week offers a chance to examine two very different visions of the international order, says CARLOS MARTINEZ
Friedrich Merz’s call for a new Plaza Accord ignores how Washington’s 1985 currency ambush destroyed Japan without fixing US deficits — China, a sovereign socialist state with 1.4 billion consumers, cannot be bullied the same way, writes CARLOS MARTINEZ
Western nations’ increasingly aggressive stance is not prompted by any increase in security threats against these countries — rather, it is caused by a desire to bring about regime changes against governments that pose a threat to the hegemony of imperialism, writes PRABHAT PATNAIK
FRANCISCO DOMINGUEZ says the US’s bullying conduct in what it considers its backyard is a bid to reassert imperial primacy over a rising China — but it faces huge resistance


