Latest news with #GeorgeSantayana
The Wire
26-05-2025
- General
- The Wire
What Have We Learnt From the World War II?
A World War II aerial photograph collected from Wikimedia Commons via The Public Domain Review. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute Now As the world marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in 2025, the warnings of philosopher George Santayana – 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it' – resound with chilling urgency. What was once hailed as the final, most brutal lesson in the futility of global conflict now appears to have faded into historical abstraction. World War II was supposed to be humanity's last descent into large-scale, industrialised slaughter. Yet on May 11, 2025, Pope Leo XIV stood in St. Peter's Square and uttered a plea that rang as both a warning and lament: 'No more war.' His words come at a time when the world finds itself on the verge of repeating the gravest mistakes of the 20th century. As global conflicts intensify and militarisation escalates, the phrase 'third world war' has moved from speculative fiction to a real and terrifying possibility. The world's failure to heed the lessons of 1945 is no longer a philosophical concern – it is a matter of survival. WWII's enduring warnings World War II, fought between 1939 and 1945, remains the deadliest and most destructive conflict in human history. With a staggering toll of 70 to 85 million lives – including 27 million Soviet civilians and 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust – it left scars that continue to shape international consciousness. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki introduced a new era of existential threat, claiming over 200,000 lives and marking the dawn of the nuclear age. Pope Paul VI later called these bombings 'a butchery of untold magnitude,' while American bishops, in a rare moment of candor in 1946, lamented the 'widespread, unspeakable suffering' they had unleashed. The creation of the United Nations that same year – founded to 'save succeeding generations from the scourge of war' – was born from this trauma and intended to be a global mechanism for peace. Yet these lessons have faded. The reverence for the sanctity of human life, the moral clarity against indiscriminate destruction, and the commitment to dialogue over violence have all eroded. The years following WWII did not evolve into a promised era of peace, but into an increasingly fragmented and militarised world. Cold War to cold reality The end of WWII did not deliver the enduring peace it promised. Instead, it marked the beginning of the Cold War, a geopolitical standoff between the US and the Soviet Union from 1947 to 1991. This period saw the rise of proxy conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, and the unchecked proliferation of nuclear weapons. The 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis brought the world closer to nuclear annihilation than ever before. Yet even after the Cold War's end, peace remained elusive. The 1990s saw bloodshed in the Gulf and the Balkans. The 21st century opened with prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while recent years have witnessed brutal civil conflict in Syria, Russia's war in Ukraine, and Israel's war in Gaza. These are not isolated flashpoints. They are parts of a grim pattern: a global system that defaults to militarism, ideological division, and strategic dominance. On May 8, 2025 – V-E Day's 80th anniversary – the World Socialist Web Site remarked that the world is observing this milestone 'under conditions of escalating global conflict.' Also read: Countdown to Surrender: How World War II Ended in Europe Military spending, too, reveals the dangerous trajectory. In 2024, the world spent a record $2.7 trillion on arms. Alarmingly, former aggressors like Germany and Japan are now among the top spenders – indicative of a world regressing to militarism, ignoring Pope John XXIII's 1963 call in Pacem in terris to pursue negotiation over arms. Hiroshima's echo The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only uses of nuclear weapons in war – but the threat they introduced has only grown. Pope Francis, during his 2019 pilgrimage to these cities, condemned the possession of nuclear weapons as 'immoral,' and in 2024, Pax Christi USA echoed that view. Yet nuclear stockpiles persist. The United States and Russia still hold 14,000 of the world's 15,000 warheads. Nine nations continue to rely on the threat of mutual destruction, undermining disarmament treaties like the Non-Proliferation Treaty (1970). The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock now stands at 90 seconds to midnight – the closest it has ever been, reflecting unprecedented risk. Einstein's 1946 warning – that 'the unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking' – remains heartbreakingly apt. While exhibitions by groups like Soka Gakkai have raised awareness among millions, progress toward disarmament is frozen. Nuclear deterrence remains state policy, while new threats – cyber war, space militarisation – compound the risks. The new world disorder Pope Leo XIV's reference to a 'third world war fought piecemeal,' echoing Pope Francis, captures the terrifying fragmentation of contemporary violence. Today's wars may lack the clarity of nation-state alliances, but they are no less interconnected or destructive. Ukraine is now the site of Europe's largest land war since 1945. In Gaza, civilian suffering has reached horrifying levels, with statements like Israeli producer Elad Barashi's call for a 'Shoah' (Holocaust) sparking global outrage and chilling reminders of past genocidal rhetoric. Elsewhere, tensions mount in the South China Sea, the Arctic, and even in space – fueled by nationalism, resource competition, and emerging technologies. The failure of international mechanisms to contain or prevent these conflicts exposes the weakening of multilateral institutions, including the UN. As Secretary-General António Guterres observed in 2020, the world's inability to fulfill the UN Charter's peace mandate reflects deep failures: rising inequality, eroding democratic norms, and unchecked disinformation. Disarmament The moral imperative for disarmament has never been clearer. From Pope John XXIII's era to Pope Leo XIV's, the message is consistent: humanity must walk away from the precipice. The United States, as the only nation to have deployed nuclear weapons in war, bears a unique responsibility. Global initiatives – from the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission to the Toda Institute – demonstrate that alternatives exist. A world without nuclear arms is not fantasy but a matter of political will. Moreover, reducing conventional arms flows, banning landmines, and curbing the global arms trade – largely driven by the U.S. – are essential to preventing future atrocities. Equally important are education, healthcare, and sustainable development. The World Day of Peace messages have long urged nations to divert resources from 'bullets to classrooms, clinics, and clean energy.' Giving peace a chance 'Give peace a chance' – John Lennon's refrain – should no longer be dismissed as idealism. It is a mandate for survival. The 80th anniversary of World War II's end is not just a moment of reflection; it is a dire call to action. Peace requires more than treaties – it demands global resolve. That means strengthening international cooperation, reforming global governance, and rekindling a collective moral compass. It means refusing the seductive logic of war and embracing the hard, unglamorous work of diplomacy and dialogue. As Pope Leo XIV's voice rises above St. Peter's Square, the question is whether the world is listening. If we fail to remember – and act on – the lessons of 1945, we may find ourselves not at the edge of another war, but at the end of peace altogether. Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier's College, Mumbai.
The Age
05-05-2025
- Politics
- The Age
The Liberal Party does not need a renovation. It's a knockdown rebuild job
Previously, I have written that unlike political leaders who come and go, major parties don't have a use-by date. Party machine operatives invariably avoid the fallout of defeat or dysfunction, regardless of their performance. The flak is typically reserved for the politicians, ignoring that the party machine has a crucial, at times the crucial, role to play in who wins the hard-fought democratic race. Truisms are hard to avoid at election time. If the Spanish philosopher and writer George Santayana's estate does not get a good royalty stream, it should. Santayana is credited with these words: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Perhaps the point will be more sharply made by simply invoking Groundhog Day, as the umpteenth election report is tabled, showcasing how the Liberal Party can improve its performance. Here's my gripe as someone who has been a Liberal Party member for almost 50 years and seamlessly active for all that time. We're told repeatedly the party is a 'lean, mean, fighting machine'. That is delusional garbage. The real problem is that enough members believe the delusional garbage, so getting a meaningful debate off the ground about reform is impossible. The truth is that the Liberal Party is both organisationally moribund and dysfunctional. But it's more contrived than that. Of the Liberal Party's KPIs, nothing is more important than building a large membership. The number of members in Australia has always been a well-kept secret, which has more to do with Byzantine factional games than anything else. On a good day, we're told there are about 70,000 members in a nation with a voting population of about 18 million. A significant proportion of membership is factionally driven. For many, it's the reason they belong. To do justice to the term 'mass organisation' the Liberal Party should have a KPI of at least 500,000 members, better described these days as supporters. This cohort needs to be a diverse and vibrant as the Australian nation. This is not a quest for trophy numbers. These are the workers and volunteers who make 'people power' happen – something that the Liberal Party has let drift into obscurity for decades. A new-look Liberal Party needs to be a statement of embracing the end of the two-party structure. It needs to be part of the solution rather than bemoaning how it's all turned to custard. Loading With 500,000 supporters, the Liberal Party founded 80 years ago would be able to put the feet on the ground in an election campaign that Climate 200 and the teal MPs it supports has since its founding in 2019. Anecdotal feedback from teal seat to teal seat confirms a repeat of the 2022 federal election, where the Liberal Party was frequently outnumbered by 10 to one on polling booths, shopping centres and transport hubs. This does not require a renovation. It requires a knockdown rebuild. Starting with a base of 500,000 supporters, a political fighting machine can be taken seriously in conducting genuine community-based events, conducting strategic pre-selections, and genuine, grassroots fundraising. The hallmark of fundraising should be to raise money from large numbers of donors. As it is, political fundraising is about raising large amounts of money from small numbers of donors – something Climate 200 is coy and defensive about. They should come clean. How much more evidence do we need that the electorate is resentful of our adversarial, two-party democracy? It's time to get with a program underpinned by user-friendly structures that make them part of local communities. The Liberal Party needs to embrace a modus operandi where it does politics with people rather than at people. As for the dancing-on-graves ritual, Dutton deserves a dignified departure from parliamentary politics. He has with sincerity and speed taken responsibility for one of the more lamentable election nights since Federation. Loading The more enduring dancing is likely to be on the grave of the two-party political system, at least as we knew it. The federal political pie chart now has three roughly equal slices, rather than two, based on first preference votes. Denial is no response to this move in the shifting tectonic plates of Australian democracy. On Saturday night, a 'landslide' result was recorded by the Labor Party with what looks like a 35 per cent primary vote, significantly less than the combined 'others' vote, at this stage of counting. Welcome to the latest update in the death throes of the two-party system.
Sydney Morning Herald
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
The Liberal Party does not need a renovation. It's a knockdown rebuild job
Previously, I have written that unlike political leaders who come and go, major parties don't have a use-by date. Party machine operatives invariably avoid the fallout of defeat or dysfunction, regardless of their performance. The flak is typically reserved for the politicians, ignoring that the party machine has a crucial, at times the crucial, role to play in who wins the hard-fought democratic race. Truisms are hard to avoid at election time. If the Spanish philosopher and writer George Santayana's estate does not get a good royalty stream, it should. Santayana is credited with these words: 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' Perhaps the point will be more sharply made by simply invoking Groundhog Day, as the umpteenth election report is tabled, showcasing how the Liberal Party can improve its performance. Here's my gripe as someone who has been a Liberal Party member for almost 50 years and seamlessly active for all that time. We're told repeatedly the party is a 'lean, mean, fighting machine'. That is delusional garbage. The real problem is that enough members believe the delusional garbage, so getting a meaningful debate off the ground about reform is impossible. The truth is that the Liberal Party is both organisationally moribund and dysfunctional. But it's more contrived than that. Of the Liberal Party's KPIs, nothing is more important than building a large membership. The number of members in Australia has always been a well-kept secret, which has more to do with Byzantine factional games than anything else. On a good day, we're told there are about 70,000 members in a nation with a voting population of about 18 million. A significant proportion of membership is factionally driven. For many, it's the reason they belong. To do justice to the term 'mass organisation' the Liberal Party should have a KPI of at least 500,000 members, better described these days as supporters. This cohort needs to be a diverse and vibrant as the Australian nation. This is not a quest for trophy numbers. These are the workers and volunteers who make 'people power' happen – something that the Liberal Party has let drift into obscurity for decades. A new-look Liberal Party needs to be a statement of embracing the end of the two-party structure. It needs to be part of the solution rather than bemoaning how it's all turned to custard. Loading With 500,000 supporters, the Liberal Party founded 80 years ago would be able to put the feet on the ground in an election campaign that Climate 200 and the teal MPs it supports has since its founding in 2019. Anecdotal feedback from teal seat to teal seat confirms a repeat of the 2022 federal election, where the Liberal Party was frequently outnumbered by 10 to one on polling booths, shopping centres and transport hubs. This does not require a renovation. It requires a knockdown rebuild. Starting with a base of 500,000 supporters, a political fighting machine can be taken seriously in conducting genuine community-based events, conducting strategic pre-selections, and genuine, grassroots fundraising. The hallmark of fundraising should be to raise money from large numbers of donors. As it is, political fundraising is about raising large amounts of money from small numbers of donors – something Climate 200 is coy and defensive about. They should come clean. How much more evidence do we need that the electorate is resentful of our adversarial, two-party democracy? It's time to get with a program underpinned by user-friendly structures that make them part of local communities. The Liberal Party needs to embrace a modus operandi where it does politics with people rather than at people. As for the dancing-on-graves ritual, Dutton deserves a dignified departure from parliamentary politics. He has with sincerity and speed taken responsibility for one of the more lamentable election nights since Federation. Loading The more enduring dancing is likely to be on the grave of the two-party political system, at least as we knew it. The federal political pie chart now has three roughly equal slices, rather than two, based on first preference votes. Denial is no response to this move in the shifting tectonic plates of Australian democracy. On Saturday night, a 'landslide' result was recorded by the Labor Party with what looks like a 35 per cent primary vote, significantly less than the combined 'others' vote, at this stage of counting. Welcome to the latest update in the death throes of the two-party system.
Jordan Times
19-02-2025
- Business
- Jordan Times
Trump's looming deficit disaster
WASHINGTON, DC – The Spanish philosopher George Santayana famously warned that those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. Judging by US President Donald Trump's continued insistence that he can eliminate the trade deficit through import tariffs, one cannot help but wonder whether he has learned anything from his failure to do so during his first term. If he had, he might have recognized a basic economic reality: tariffs alone will not reduce the trade deficit, especially when paired with massive tax cuts that cause the budget deficit to balloon. The belief that the United States' trade deficit is a problem has been a defining feature of Trump's economic worldview. In his telling, foreign countries have taken advantage of the US by exporting more to it than they import, siphoning off US manufacturing jobs and accumulating wealth at America's expense. His solution? A relentless push for import tariffs, which he sees as the most effective tool to correct this imbalance. During his first term, Trump pursued an aggressive trade policy, imposing 10-20 per cent tariffs on approximately $350 billion worth of Chinese imports, along with similar tariffs on steel and aluminum. But instead of shrinking, the trade deficit increased by nearly 40 per cent from $480 billion in 2016 to $680 billion in 2020. What is often overlooked is that the real reason the trade deficit widened under Trump was not tariffs but tax cuts. While Trump was raising import duties, he was also aggressively slashing taxes. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act had two major effects: incentivizing investment by lowering the corporate tax rate and increasing the budget deficit, thereby reducing the national savings rate. Consequently, even before the COVID-19 pandemic caused the deficit to surge, it had already jumped from $584 billion in 2016 to $984 billion in 2019. The key economic lesson Trump should have taken from his first term is that trade deficits aren't determined by tariffs but by a country's spending relative to its production. Or, as John Maynard Keynes put it, trade deficits are driven by the gap between savings and investment. As long as a country saves less than it invests, it will run a trade deficit, no matter how high its tariff wall may be. Fast forward to today, and Trump is once again pushing the same failed policies, this time on steroids. In the first three weeks of his second presidency, he imposed a 10 per cent tariff on Chinese goods, announced (and then paused) 25 per cent tariffs on Canada and Mexico, and slapped 25 per cent tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports. He has also signaled plans to impose punitive tariffs on the European Union and Japan if they continue to run trade surpluses with the US. At the same time, he remains committed to a radical tax-cut agenda, vowing to extend his 2017 cuts and eliminate income taxes on Social Security benefits and tips. The consequences could be severe. Over the next decade, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Trump's proposed tax cuts would add $7.8 trillion to the budget deficit – already at 6.5 per cent of GDP. This raises a fundamental question: Since Trump's tax cuts are likely to incentivize investment while reducing national savings, why wouldn't they widen the trade deficit, just as they did during his first term? If Trump is serious about reducing the trade deficit, he should rethink his planned tax cuts and focus on devising a coherent strategy to shrink the budget deficit by increasing revenues and reining in public spending. Such an approach could be coupled with pressure on China to reform its economy in ways that boost household spending and curb its savings glut, which has long contributed to global trade imbalances. Instead, Trump's current policies risk triggering a trade war, derailing the global economic recovery, and reviving the destructive beggar-thy-neighbour policies of the 1930s. Having seemingly learned nothing from his first term, he seems determined to double down on his aggressive trade policies despite the widening trade deficit. This, in turn, would almost certainly provoke America's trade partners to retaliate. Given the stakes involved, we can only hope that Trump changes course before his policies push the world toward an economic downturn. So far, however, there is little indication that he intends to do so. Desmond Lachman, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is a former deputy director of the International Monetary Fund's Policy Development and Review Department and a former chief emerging-market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2024.
