Eduardo Stefani

In our world there has always existed an imperial figure, each one in his epoch, exercising the power using the tools they had in hand. Today it is no different, because we also have our contemporary empire, acting with all avaiable resources and exercising his influence in many ways.

The big question that remains unclear is the approach with other countries, some of them still rich and powerful, but without a global influence. Certainly the approach must be different from that of the past, which the use of the sword and territorial expansion, where the flag was stuck in each ocupied piece of land and the people subjugated or exterminated from his own history.

We must observe that the available tools today are different. A country is able to expand its field and influence over other cultures without one single shot being fired, or using an analogy with the past, without using the sword. Today the markets are globalized and information flows quickly, the conversations inside a meeting room can influence the entire world in a few minutes. A speech can lead a country to despair or remove it from the abyss.

It is to show the embarrassment we are living today, because despite all available resources we have a dominat power who fires shots for its voice to be heard. It does not have the elegance to convince its partner using dialogue, financial fascination and cultural influence.

When we observe the recent past, we conclude the world has been under the actual imperial figure, depending on economic and culture. In his wealth, everybody goes fine, however if something is going bad over there, fasten your seat belts here. The conclusion is that the world has been pre disposed to give in to its pressure.

Today we see an irritation with this approach. Unless the classic rebels, actually his allies subordinate themselves when they observe that have no escape, but all of them, almost without exception, are making plans to reduce their dependence. Its arrogant and agressive approch is not compatible with all the subtile resources available today to exercise its power, so in place of expanding its influence and using the admiration of its allies and colonies, we see a generalized embarrassment.

Taking a look at recent history, we also observe a need to have an enemy to keep his people apprehensive and to get easy money for military investments. In the past, an enemy really existed, with a fixed territory and a clear policy about how the would should be governed. Today, on the contrary, there is no enemy, but we do not know if it really exist, because it can be an illusion from the aggressiveness committed against all, because the target is not the entire world, but an imperial figure.

If we want peace, we cannot embrace the first cause against an enemy who we do not know, put the world against something unclear, without defined borders and normally caused by the violence and exploitation in places where its came from.

Perhaps the ideal imperial figure is one that recognizes himself as an empire and does not behave as a nation still evolving. He who already owns the domain does not have to shout to preserve his hole, just use the tools and work in a quiet way with others. Unfortunately we have the opposite , because it sounds like a nation liberated a few years from his colonizers and screaming for freedom how it discovered the meaning of this word recently. Sometimes I think if they forgot they have a lot of military bases around the world and a culture which influences all of them.

The moment now is to root to avoid radical actions. If not, do not drag the world on as an accomplice. We do not want to pay the price for a particular fight, because each one has his own difficulties and internal problems. In our coutry, to grow is more important than the black gold from the east.

[], Eduardo Stefani – 10/03/2005