Positive and negative effects

The term "globalization" is used to refer to these collective changes as a process, or else as the cause of turbulent change.

· Economically, socially and ecologically positive: As an engine of commerce; one which brings an increased standard of living, literacy and health to Third World countries (most particularly women and children, through improvements in child mortality, access to clean water and education) and further wealth to First World countries.

· Economically, socially, politically, and ecologically negative: As an engine of "corporate imperialism;" one which has no connection to local standards of human rights in developing societies. Negative effects include cultural assimilation via so-called cultural imperialism, the export of artificial wants, and the destruction of national identity or inhibition of what is currently determined to be the "authentic" local and global community, ecology and cultures.

14. Brief Review of the relations between China and Kazakhstan

China and the Republic of Kazakhstan established diplomatic relations on January 3, 1992.

October 18-21, 1993, at the invitation of President Jing Zemin, Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev paid an official visit to China. President Jiang Zemin and Premier Li Peng had talks or meetings with President Nazarbayev separately. The two sides signed the Joint Statement on the Foundation of the Friendly Relations Between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Kazakhstan. The representatives of the Chinese and Kazakhstan Governments signed respectively the agreement on civil air transport, the government agreement on official business travel by citizens of the two countries and the 1993-1994 program of cultural cooperation between the culture ministries of the two countries.

April 25-28, 1994, at the invitation of President Nazarbayev, Premier Li Peng paid an official visit to Kazakhstan. The two sides signed the Boundary Agreement Between China and Kazakhstan, the Agreement on the provision of Chinese Government Loan to Kazakhstan, the Summary of Talks on the Development of Railway Passenger and Freight Transport Between China and Kazakhstan and other documents.

September 11-13, 1995, at the invitation of President Jiang Zemin, Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev paid a state visit to China. President Jiang Zemin and Premier Li Peng had talks or meetings with the visiting President separately. The two sides signed the Joint Statement on Further Developing and Deepening the Friendly Relations, the Agreement on the Utilization of the Lianyungang Port to Handle and Transship the Transit Freights of Kazakhstan, the Memorandum of Cooperation Between the Ministries of National Defense of China and Kazakhstan, the Agreement on Cooperation in Meteorological Technology and the notes to be exchanged on the instrument of ratification of the boundary agreement between China and Kazakhstan.

April 26, 1996, President Jiang Zemin of the PRC, President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan, President Akayev of Kyrgyzstan, President Yeltsin of the Russian Federation and President Rakhmonov of Tajikistan jointly signed in Shanghai the Agreement on Confidence Building in the Military Field in Border Areas Between the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tajikistan. Before the signing ceremony, President Jiang Zemin had a separate meeting with Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev.

July 4-6, 1996, at the invitation of Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev, President Jiang Zemin paid a state visit to Kazakhstan. President Jiang Zemin held talks with President Nazarbayev, and met with Kazakhstan Parliament Lower House Speaker Ospanov and delivered an important speech entitled "For a Better Future of Friendship and Cooperation Between China and Central Asia". The two sides signed a joint statement, the extradition treaty, the agreement on cooperation between the People's Bank of China and the Kazakhstan National Bank, the agreement on cooperation in quality control and mutual certification of import and export commodities and other documents.

April 24, 1997, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev , Kyrgyz President Akayev, Russian President Yeltsin, and Tajikistani President Rakhmonov signed in Moscow the Agreement on Mutual Reduction of Military Forces in the Border Areas Between the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Tajikistan.

September 24-25, 1997, at the invitation of Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev, Premier Li Peng paid a visit to Kazakhstan and attended the signing ceremony of the agreement on petroleum cooperation between China and Kazakhstan. Premier Li Peng and Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev signed the Supplementary Boundary Agreement Between China and Kazakhstan.

July 3, 1998, at the invitation of Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev, President Jiang Zemin went to Kazakhstan to attend the five-nation summit meeting of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan. President Jiang made the speech at the meeting entitled "Maintain Peace and Stability, Promote Development and Prosperity". After the meeting, the foreign ministers of the five nations signed the Joint Statement of the Almaty Meeting.

July 4, 1998, at the invitation of Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev, President Jiang paid a working visit to Kazakhstan. The two Presidents signed the second supplementary agreement on the border between China and Kazakhstan, which marks a complete and thorough settlement to the question of the 1700-kilometre-long boundary between China and Kazakhstan.

August 24, 1999, President Jiang Zemin met with Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev in Bishkek, where he was attending the five-nation summit meeting of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

November 23-27, 1999, Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev paid an official visit to China on invitation. President Jiang Zemin, Vice President Hu Jintao and Vice Premier Li Lanqing held talks or met with President Nazarbayev separately. The two sides signed the joint statement on the further strengthening of comprehensive cooperation between China and Kazakhstan in the twenty-first century, the joint communiqué on complete settlement of the boundary question between China and Kazakhstan, the agreement on cooperation between the two countries in anti improper competition and anti monopoly, and other documents. In addition to Beijing, the President Nazarbayev also visited Sanya, Hainan Province.

July 27-30, 2000, at the invitation of Kazakhstan President Nazarbayev, Vice President Hu Jintao paid an official visit to Kazakhstan. During the visit, Vice President Hu Jintao met with President Nazarbayev and held talks with Prime Minister Tokayev. The two sides exchanged views on bilateral relations and international and regional issues of common concern, and signed the Agreement on Economic and Technological Cooperation Between China and Kazakhstan.

On June 15, 2001, President Jiang Zemin met with President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan who was participating in the meeting of heads of state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The two sides had an exchange of views on China-Kazakhstani relations and other issues of common interest.

From June 16 to 18, President Nazarbayev visited Hong Kong after his participation in the summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Tung Chee-hwa, Chief Executive, met with him and offered a banquet in his honor.

Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between the People's Republic of China and the Kazakh Republic:

The Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Kazakh Republic, in conformity of the interests and desires of the two peoples, have decided to establish diplomatic relations at ambassadorial level effective from January 3, 1992.

The two Governments agree to develop the relations of friendship and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and peaceful co-existence.

The Government of the Kazakh Republic recognizes that the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of China and that Taiwan is an integral part of Chinese territory.

The Government of the Kazakh Republic affirms that it will not establish official relations with Taiwan in any form.

The Government of the People's Republic of China supports the Government of the Kazakh Republic in its effort to safeguard national independence and develop economy.

The two Governments have agreed to provide each other with all the necessary assistance for performance of the functions of their respective diplomatic representatives in accordance with international practice and on the basis of equality and mutual benefit.

15. Oligarchs and Foreign Football

Last week it was announced that Russian billionaire and steel baron Alisher Usmanov had acquired a 14.58-percent stake in England's Arsenal FC from the club's former vice chairman David Dein. It was bought by Usmanov's investment vehicle, Red and White Holdings, for 75 million pounds. The holding immediately appointed Dein chairman, and although they said they have no plans for an immediate full takeover of the club, Dein has been given the task of acquiring more shares.Alisher Usmanov is not the firstRussian billionaire to make a foray into foreign sports. Roman Abramovich,Russia's best-known oligarch abroad, purchased Chelsea FC for 140 million pounds and invested vast amounts of money to make the club one of the top sides in British and European football. Alexander Gaidamak, the son of Arkady Gaidamak, a Russian-born Israeli businessmen with numerous interests in Russia, owns a stake in Portsmouth FC, which reportedly cost him 15 million pounds. Aluminum tycoon Viktor Vekselberg bought the rights to organize and broadcast 24 warm-up matches of the Argentine national football team to be played abroad in preparation for the next World Cup. Vekselberg will pay the Argentine Football Association $750,000 for each match - a total of $18 million. Such interest in foreign football clubs certainly raises the question of why these businessmen are investing completely outside their usual circle of business interests. Is it business or pleasure or something else? A shrewd observer might say they are simply taking money out of the country to protect their wealth from possible troubles with authorities. But both Abramovich and Usmanov are on very good terms with President Vladimir Putin, and Gaidamak is an Israeli citizen. Veksel­berg has the most strained relations with the Russian authorities, but he is not acquiring an asset - simply paying for the rights to 24 games. If pleasure was the real issue, they could have invested in Russian football - after all, football is popular in Russia as well. And what greater pleasure than to pump money into a weak team, buy some good players and see it advance through the ranks? The problem with such a project is that Russian football is less about business than it is in Europe.

I admit that I know very little about football, but I would guess that every second fan of Chelsea FC has at least a team jersey, which costs between $35 and $79. And then there are scarfs, mugs, sweatshirts, flags and lots of advertisers who pay top price to have their billboards installed around the football field. Being the owner of Chelsea FC, Arsenal or even Portsmouth is much more profitable than being the owner of Spartak, Lokomotiv or AK Bars. Not only that, but it is also much more prestigious, and prestige seems to be very important among Russian businessmen.

Surfing LiveJournal recently, I read that linguist and psychologist Rebecca Frumkina recently said that a real sign of a middle-class person is his readiness to take part in social life, for example through charity. Frumkina said that Abramovich is a classic example of a stray child, who wants a bigger yacht when he already owns one. The same, I guess, could be said for buying a football club in another country. I do not want to make Abramovich or Usmanov scapegoats. After all, they earned their money, not only because they were in the right place at the right time, but also because they worked for it and took chances. They earned their wealth and now have the right to do what they want with it - for business or for pleasure. But I often wish that people with such fortunes would find a little bit more pleasure from simply giving to charity.

2.2 Статьи для самостоятельной работы студентов

1. Artists needed to block out concrete evidence.

By Stewart Tendler, Melissa Kiteand Dalya Alberge

HOW do you make two-ton concrete security blocks unobtrusive and tasteful outside one of the most famous buildings in the world?

Well, one way is to paint them matt black to blend in with the black railings outside the Palace of Westminster.
But as workmen began the big coverup yesterday, artists and MPs protested that they were now an even bigger eyesore and called for a more creative approach, as is often adopted with boardings around building sites. Peter Howson, a former official war artist, was swift to volunteer his services. ”I would especially like to do something religious,” he said. ”I could do a full-length crucifixion along the side.” And Gill Hedley, director of the Contemporary Art Society, said she could recommend several artists who could do a better job than the official painters. Lothar Goetz, for example: ”He does glorious large-scale paint jobs, abstract blocks of colour. That could work well. Otherwise, the supreme decorator is a French artist, Daniel Buren, who did the amazing black and white garden at the Palais Royale.” When plans were being drawn up for the 4ft-high security blocks to be put up. Black Rod promised that they would be decorated. Sir Michael Willcocks, who oversees parliamentary security, wrote to peers saying: ”Care will be taken to minimise the visual impact by painting them a suitable colour.”

But several MPs are already complaining that the paint may have made things worse and is likely to frighten away tourists. One said they ought to be decorated with hanging baskets full of flowers; another suggested covering them in Pugin patterned wallpaper ”if there is any left over from the redecoration of Lord Irvine´s apartment”. Anne Elliott, a sculpture curator, wanted something more radical: ”If this is going to be permanent, you could replace the concrete with granite. I´d recommend the German artist Ulrich Ruckriem, who works with huge lumps of stone for massive sculptures.”
Glynn Williams, the sculptor and professor of sculpture at the Royal College of Art, said: ”If you´ve got some basic concrete slabs, a lot of artists would be very inventive. If you were casting concrete barriers, one could cast a more interesting mould. It´s a splendid idea.

They´ve started using artists in a small way on boardings round building sites, to make them less of an affront to passers-by. Let artists have a go at this.”

2. Britain and US urged to show arms evidence

Doubts grow about quality of intelligence that led to war

From Tim Reid

in Washington

and Philip Webster

The Sunday Times

PRESSURE was growing on Tony Blair and President Bush last night to publish the evidence on weapons of mass destruction that they used to justify going to war in Iraq.
Scores of MPs are backing an early day motion demanding that the Government spell out its case after a minister admitted that an important claim about Saddam Hussein´s weapons was based on uncorroborated information.

Congress is also to investigate the Bush Administration´s assertions that Saddam held massive stockpiles of illegal weapons. Coalition Forces have so far found only two suspect lorries in spite of intensive searching for the arsenal, and even the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has conceded that Saddam might have destroyed any weapons he had before the invasion.
Further doubts about the rationale for the war and its conduct were raised yesterday when an American team reported that the bunker bombed in an attempt to assassinate Saddam on the first night of the war did not exist. The head of the search operation was quoted as saying: ”What they saw were giant holes, no underground facilities, no bodies.”
The questioning of the intelligence used to justify the war came as the Prime Minister admitted to British forces in Iraq that many thought he had been wrong to go to war.
Standing on the terrace of Saddam´s former summer palace in Basra, he lavished praise on the troops of the Seventh Armoured Brigade, saying: ”I know there are a lot of disagreements in the country about the wisdom of my decision to order the action, but I can assure you of one thing: there is absolutely no dispute at all about your A copy of the letter, seen by The Times, asks Mr Tenet whether the intelligence was of sufficient quantity, quality and reliability, how it was analysed, and whether ”any dissenting views were properly weighed”. The Senate Intelligence Committee is also planning similar hearings.
Porter Goss, the House committee´s Republican chairman, told The Times: ”My concern is that we did not have enough good intelligence to draw the necessary conclusions that our policy-makers need to be completely confident. Wouldn´t it be nice if we gave them professionalism and your courage and your dedication.”
Mr Blair made no reference to the elusive weapons, but referred constantly to the liberation of Iraq, adding to the impression that both the British and American Governments had decided to make that, rather than the weapons, the justification for war.
Helping to liberate the Iraqis was a ”huge, momentous and mighty act”, he said. ”When people look back they will see the war as one of the defining moments of the century,” he said.
In London, however, the concern about the justification for the war was growing and it increased when Adam Ingram, a Defence Minister, said that Mr Blair´s assertion that Saddam would be able to launch biological weapons within 45 minutes had been based on only one source.
Downing Street also faced allegations – which it denied – that it had put pressure on the intelligence services to toughen up their weapons dossier.
In Washington both Democrats and Republicans were also expressing fears that the main premises on which the war was justified – the weapons and links with al-Qaeda – were based on false or exaggerated intelligence. There were also suggestions that intelligence information may have been manipulated to rally public opinion behind the war. Both the Senate and House of Representatives are to hold hearings to determine whether ”the analysis relayed to our policy-makers was accurate and unbiased”.
Jane Harman, the senior Democrat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence, said: ”This could be the greatest intelligence hoax of all time. I doubt it, but we have to ask. It was the moral justification for the war. I think the world is owed an accounting.” The House committee has written to George Tenet, the CIA Director, asking him to respond by July 1 on several questions, with a view to holding hearings that month.

better information to base their judgments on?”
The CIA has launched a separate review, which was originally suggested last October, to monitor the intelligence process that led up to the war. The main call for that review came from Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary who was then frustrated by the CIA´s inability to find a ”smoking gun” that would justify an invasion.
In an effort to unearth incriminating intelligence against Saddam, Mr Rumsfeld created the Office of Special Plans, a unit inside the Pentagon under the direction of his hawkish deputy Paul Wolfowitz. That became a direct rival not only of the CIA, but the Pentagon´s Defence Intelligence Agency, and its staff relied heavily on information from Ahmed Chalabi, the exiled leader of the Iraqi National Congress and the Washington hawks´ choice as the man to lead a post-Saddam Iraq.
Patrick Lang, a former director of Middle East analysis at the Defence Intelligence Agency, said this month that the Office of Special Plans ”started picking out things that supported their thesis and stringing them into arguments that they could use with the President. It´s not intelligence. It´s political propaganda.”
The Pentagon strongly denies that it manipulated evidence or relied too heavily on untested sources. But defence officials concede that Saddam´s illegal weapons may no longer be in Iraq.

3. Bush Tells Putin Not to Interfere With Democracy in Former Soviet Republics

MAASTRICHT, the Netherlands, May 7 - President Bush used the 60th anniversary of Nazi Germany's defeat to warn President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Saturday that "no good purpose is served by stirring up fears and exploiting old rivalries" in the former Soviet republics on his borders.

"All the nations that border Russia will benefit from the spread of democratic values, and so will Russia itself," Mr. Bush said in a speech in Riga, Latvia, in the Small Guild House, a neo-gothic meeting hall in the capital's Old City. "Stable, prosperous democracies are good neighbors, trading in freedom and posing no threat to anyone."

The president pointedly said, "The United States has free and peaceful nations to the north and south of us" and "we do not consider ourselves to be encircled."

Mr. Bush then flew to the Netherlands for a brief overnight stay before a meeting and dinner with Mr. Putin at the Russian presidential dacha outside Moscow on Sunday, which is taking on the appearance of a showdown as Mr. Bush has spoken repeatedly of the pain that Baltic nations like Latvia endured under the Soviet occupation after World War II. Mr. Bush is in Europe to mark the anniversary of Hitler's defeat; he will join Mr. Putin for celebrations in Red Square on Monday.

In his speech on Saturday, Mr. Bush seemed certain to irritate Mr. Putin further when he warned him as he had in February about retreating on democracy. "All free and successful countries have some common characteristics - freedom of worship, freedom of the press, economic liberty, the rule of law and the limitation of power through checks and balances," Mr. Bush said.

In the last year the United States has grown concerned over Mr. Putin's prosecution of business leaders, his increasing control over the press and his involvement in the affairs of Georgia and other neighbors.

Mr. Putin has not reacted positively to such criticism from Mr. Bush in the past, and this week he told the CBS News program "60 Minutes" that Mr. Bush had little business lecturing him about democracy when the 2000 presidential election in the United States was decided by the Supreme Court.

In a joint news conference with Baltic leaders in Riga earlier on Saturday, Mr. Bush put more pressure on Mr. Putin by calling for "free and open and fair" elections in Belarus, the last dictatorship in Europe, whose president, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko, is backed by Mr. Putin. Mr. Bush also did not dispute the premise of a question from a reporter implying that the United States was behind revolutionary change in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.

"The idea of countries helping others become free, I hope that would be viewed as not revolutionary, but rational foreign policy, as decent foreign policy, as humane foreign policy," Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Bush, who is on the second day of a five-day trip to Latvia, the Netherlands, Russia and Georgia, is trying to ensure that his attendance at the celebration on Monday does not endorse the Soviet repression and rise of totalitarianism that followed.

So he leveled his harshest criticism against Russia for acts after World War II, and seemed to lean as much toward a denunciation of postwar Soviet acts as celebratory words for the Nazi defeat.

"As we mark a victory of six decades ago, we are mindful of a paradox," he said. "For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked the end of fascism, but not the end of oppression."

The Russians have been angered by Mr. Bush's trip to Latvia and his scheduled visit to Georgia on Monday and Tuesday, and have accused the United States of meddling in the affairs of their former republics, now independent nations with contentious relationships with Moscow.

Mr. Bush on Saturday seemed likely to anger the Russians even more, because he repeatedly used the word "occupation" to describe the Russian acts in the Baltics - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - after World War II. The Russians have furiously responded that they were invited in.