King and Kendall devote several chapters to the historical development of the nation state from the early modern era onwards when the notion of sovereignty became highly influential. They also discuss how the global spread of liberalism and capitalism affected countries in different ways.

Over all this book provides its readers with a sound analysis of how globalization has spread and worked in ways that have limited but not yet completely taken away sovereignty from national governments everywhere.

To add to all of this he had really left the Western psyche as a threat a long time ago. People only really thought about Osama Bin Laden when he was involved in some kind of joke or poke at Bush/Obama. He had long since been brushed aside for more relevant news for a few years.

With him not running Al-Qaeda and the people not really thinking about him his death hasn’t, in reality, effected much in the way people seem to think. Does it really seem like the war is over now and that the US will leave Afghanistan (And for some reason, Iraq)? Indeed it doesn’t. Muslim extremists will now be angrier then they were before the death, however I believe that this threat is overblown; and the morale of the West, the United States more then anyone, will be lifted for brief period. Those are really the only two things to change. Al-Qaeda still has an ever radical leader and a hatred for the west and the people of the United States and the West have other things to worry about so this will soon leave their minds.

As far my understanding goes, I generated political change in three countries simultaneously.

I sent $3000 from USA through hawala transaction in 1998. Ms Mona Kat-re took my signature and name through phone/fax/email.

My Eldest brother received Rs 125000/- in cash in Mumbai and deposited the cash in Central bank of India. As far as my belief goes, the cash was in Rs 500/- notes. I believe the notes were fake notes.This is blackmoney. So the Central bank of India reported this fake notes to CBI. This could be termed as “national cash register”.

The “hawala” money goes to the hands of “kashmiri militants”. In kargil of Jammu & Kashmir militants also advanced inside India.

This was a political issue. CBI must have reported the matter to the FBI or interpol. There was an atomic explosion in Rajastan. 

The CBI started kargil war in 1998 and won. This was termed as Operation “Vijay” and BJP led NDA came in power with absolute majority and Mr Atal Behari Vajpayee became the PM of India. India also went for French Defense by Defense Minister George Fernandes.

In USA there was also political change… Mr Bill Clinton was the President of USA. FBI wanted a political change desperately.

So his secrets with Monica Lewinsky came out in the public. He said “he has done something which is sexually inappropriate” and his democratic government was demolished and Republicans came into power. Mr. George Bush became the president of USA. I also came under American blue scan i.e. “visibility by human beings” due to signed hawala transactions as well as star wars and as per my blogs the muslim tycoon had influenced this. Some say that I am “Sunil” (always visible) and some say I am “Anil”(not visible).

Image via Wikipedia

 Also there was a political change in Pakistan. Atomic explosion took place.

Mr. Parvez Musharaff founded the military govt. Nawaz sharif govt. was demolished.

The High court failed to solve the crisis. Basically the Judge was biased.

Situation was not favourable to me in USA as I was bogged down with problems as stated by a colleague of mine.

I had to leave the country for good and I came back to India.

My eldest brother told me about instruction and showed 500/- note. He said it is blackmoney.

I wanted to join my Dad’s party in W.B i.e. Bengal congress but it was mistaken as Congress of India by my eldest brother.

In the meantime, Muhammad Atta from middle east blasted the the twin towers in New york. He did not like pregnant women or women with newborn kid. Some people also suspect me as a terrorist, but I am not a terrorist.

Anyway Vajpayee govt. did not last for long as he could not prove majority and Congress led UPA govt. came in power.

Mr Manmohan Singh became the PM.

Similarly in USA republicans did not last for long and democratic party came into power. Mr Obama became the president of USA. In pakistan also military govt. failed and party based govt. came into power.

Anyway I feel that my signed hawala transaction caused these political changes in three countries simultaneously. So I conclude that I was behind these political changes in 3 countries directly.

Kenneth Waltz’s first major book about international relations and political science was entitled ‘Man, The State, And War’ and at the time of its original publication it was widely regarded in academic circles as offering ground – breaking notions and ideas about the causes of war in world politics. Man, The State, and War made Kenneth Waltz internationally known as well as respected amongst international relations academics and also their students, not to mention proving to be a seminal work within its own right 9Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 351). The ideas that Kenneth Waltz put forward in Man, The State, and War were incomparable in their scope concerning the causes of war in world politics than other international relations works written in the 1950s or indeed earlier (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41).

Kenneth Waltz despite being a member of the Realist school put forward explanations of the causes of war in world politics based around a fusion of academic disciplines, rather than just concepts drawn from international relations or indeed political science. In many respects, Kenneth Waltz had adopted and used concepts from outside of international relations theory and political science to provide a wider perspective concerning the causes of war in world politics (Jackson, 1993). A multidisciplinary approach to evaluating the causes of war in world politics was according to Kenneth Waltz the best method of understanding military conflicts with a high degree of adaptability, as well as relevance even for understanding present day world politics (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41).

When Kenneth Waltz put forward his concepts and explanations of the causes of war in world politics he must have hoped his ideas would appear to be highly relevant over a long period of time. The continuing relevance of Kenneth Waltz’s concepts concerning the causes of war in world politics was he argued due to the perceptive nature of his ideas about human nature and its consequences for fighting or not fighting as a result of strained diplomatic relations (Waltz, 1959). Just like any other self respecting Realist international relations academic Kenneth Waltz contended that human nature did not alter even if technology advanced, nation states came and went being made or broken as a consequence of wars. Understanding the factors that caused wars in world politics would always remain relevant, as there would always be wars being fought somewhere across the globe (Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 352). Besides Kenneth Waltz’s use of the multidisciplinary approach to evaluating the causes of war in world politics meant that a very wide range of economic, social, political, military and psychological factors could be included amongst the catalysts for specific conflicts (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 42).

As far as Kenneth Waltz was concerned the starting point for his work on the causes of war in world politics was the shortcomings of previous notions about the factors that have directly and also indirectly led to military conflicts. Kenneth Waltz basically argued that although some of the factors previously regarded as a well established causes for war in world politics, which did not adequately explain the beginning or the build up to military conflicts and wars in certain circumstances (Waltz, 1959). For instance Kenneth Waltz in Man, The State, and War noted that many international relations theorists in common with military historians attached a great deal of importance to the notion of the balance of power (Dunbabin, 1994 p.5). The notion of the balance of power was regarded as a major direct cause or strong yet indirect underlying factor in numerous military conflicts and wars throughout history as well as within contemporary world politics (Hobsbawm, 1994 p.5).

The gist of the balance of power notion is that nation state in the past, in the present, and also in the future would form military as well as political alliances. These military, diplomatic, and political alliances are set up to maintain equilibrium that some nation states would fight to keep in place (Ferguson, 2003 p. 300). To a large extent the theoretical and practical merits of the balance of power can be recognised as much for understanding and analysing the numerous wars of the 17th century and the 18th century (Chamberlain, 1985). It is a notion that in many respects is better suited to understand the past than it can for the military conflicts and wars, which have taken place in the framework of contemporary world politics. According to the ideas of Kenneth Waltz the balance of power notion was declining as an important factor in the causes of war in present day world politics (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41). The notion of the balance of power is a factor that fails to cover all of the causes of war in present day world politics. The balance of power notion still holds a great deal of sway especially amongst the Realist school of international relations, and remains useful for evaluating the impact of rivalries between nation states and alliances, such as the Cold War. At its time of writing Man, The State, and War was a classic work of the realism school of international relations, although Kenneth Waltz’s later books would be more accurately described as being of the neo-realism school of international relations (Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 351). Anyway Kenneth Waltz argued that the notion of the balance of power was not adequate enough to explain all of the causes of war in present day world politics. The inadequacies of the notion of the balance of power stems from the fact that some military conflicts and wars have very complex short –term as well as long –term factors that combine together to set off fighting and conflicts (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 45).

In Man, The State, and War the young Kenneth Waltz argued quite convincingly that social and economic factors could be just as important for causing military conflicts and wars than the notions of nationalism and the balance of power. As a realist international relations theorist and academic Kenneth Waltz was unusual in contending that factors that acted as the causes of war in present day world politics went beyond the notion of the balance of power and nationalism (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41).

Kenneth Waltz contended that social and economic factors could be amongst the causes of war in present day world politics just as much as the notions of the balance of power and the phenomena of nationalism (Waltz, 1959). The line of argument presented by Kenneth Waltz that various social and economic factors could be regarded as prominent causes of war in present day world politics still retains a great deal of validity. Nationalism of course is a phenomenon that could also be viewed as a social factor that can in some instances play a significant role in causing war in present day world politics (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 105).

After all nationalism is a social sentiment that can cause, or indeed can be used to justify military conflicts and war in present day world politics. There are differing levels of nationalism and nationalist feelings, which when combined with other factors cause military conflicts and wars in present day world politics. When nobody attempts to increase nationalist sentiment or inject militancy into it then it is not always powerful enough to be the main factor in causing wars in their own right in present day world politics. Nationalism is also closely connected to the development of patriotism, racism as well as a less militant and militaristic pride in one’s own country (Ferguson, 2003 p. 301).

Kenneth Waltz did not dispute the importance nationalism could have in causing not to mention escalating wars in present day world politics. In the 1950’s Kenneth Waltz only had to mention the significance of nationalism in the First World War then the Second World War to be understood by his readers and his students. The struggle of colonies in Africa and Asia after the end of the Second World War for independence also demonstrated the role that nationalism could play in causing wars in present day world politics. Nationalism in its many various guises is therefore an important cultural, social and political phenomenon that could have peaceful consequences just as much as being a major contributing factor to the outbreak of military conflicts and wars in present day world politics (Jackson, 1993). The emergence of the Cold War within a few years of the Second World War ending frequently added an ideological element to military conflicts that might otherwise have just been simple wars for independence from colonial powers such has Britain and France. The Cold War itself was like an old style competition to gain the upper hand in the balance of power, with the United States being ranged against the Soviet Union (Hobsbawm, 1994 p. 490).

However, the rivalry between the two superpowers had a heavy ideological influence over it, with the US favouring capitalism and the Soviet Union espousing the virtues of communism and the planned economy. Despite the intense nature of the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union did not end up being involved in fighting each other directly. Of course, had the superpowers ended fighting each other it would have resulted in the Third World War and the probable extinction of the human race (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 43). The Cold War did witness proxy conflicts involving in some way or another the two superpowers, especially in the Korean War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War, not to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The Cold War perhaps because the superpowers both had nuclear weapons did not lead to a major war, whilst it meant the regional military conflicts, wars and civil wars were considered to be of vital strategic and therefore military importance for the United States as well as the Soviet Union (Todd, 2001 p. 15). These military conflicts were not however considered important enough to start a nuclear war over, despite the United States being tempted to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. The Cold War was of course already underway when Kenneth Waltz put forward his main ideas and concepts about the causes of war in present day world politics. Kenneth Waltz found the ways in which nuclear weapons had changed the way that the superpowers made foreign policy and military decisions in order to avert the onset of the Third World War. Arms races were certainly not a new feature of the Cold War they had taken place before various wars in world politics, perhaps most notably prior to the First World War (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41).

Kenneth Waltz also contended that the governments of nation states have always regarded the use of military force as valid instrument of national defence, as well as foreign policy. Governments regard wars as sometimes being necessary to protect national interests of their respective countries and short victorious military conflicts have been known to increase the popularity of the governments involved in fighting wars. Deciding to start wars to increase their domestic popularity has not always been a wise choice by national governments that have inadvertently led their respective countries to either humiliating defeat, or long drawn out stalemates. Quick fire military victories have in the past been successful for the governments that started them. For example Piedmont and Prussia leading to the unification of Italy and Germany respectively. In more recent times the Argentine invasion of the Falklands Islands as well as the Iraqi invasions of Iran and Kuwait in the end adversely affected both regimes. Governments will in certain situations seek to use war for territorial gains or increased economic resources attack other nation states in order to grab what they want. This seems to be particularly the case for undemocratic regime such as the Argentine military Junta and the autocratic regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Argentine military Junta lost power after the British took them by surprise with the successful recapture of the Falkland Islands, conversely victory increased the public popularity of Margaret Thatcher markedly, for without it the Conservative Party would probably have lost the next general election. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein wrongly believed that a quick victory would be achieved against Iran that had been put into turmoil by the Iranian Revolution of 1978. The subsequent Iran-Iraq War lasted over eight years, mainly because the Iranians proved to be a lot tougher than the Iraqi army had originally expected. Saddam Hussein did not learn his lesson though. The successful Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was reversed by the United Nations forces led by the United States in the Gulf War of 1990-1991. Such military conflicts fitted with the ideas of Kenneth Waltz concerning the causes of war in world politics.

In many respects Kenneth Waltz was making a valid point when he contended that there were economic factors which can act as significant causes of war in present day world politics. However, the potential economic gains of going to war are certainly easily outweighed by the actual costs of conducting military campaigns. Kenneth Waltz was certainly not the first person and will certainly not be the last to argue that peaceful co-operation and trading between nation states will provide greater economic gains than fighting wars would. Apart from the United States, Russia or China no nation states could expect to quickly win any war that they started to makes substantial and net economic gains (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41). Only these nation states have enough firepower to potentially defeat their enemies very quickly, for long drawn out military conflicts would be economically detrimental, rather than beneficial. Increasingly even rapid military victories do not equate to economic gains, not even the defeats of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively have brought the United States economic gains, aside from companies that specialise in reconstruction work. The military presence of the United States as well as other forces from other NATO member states such as Britain have remained in Afghanistan for longer than expected due to the inability of the new regimes in these countries to put down militant insurgents (Todd, 2001 p. 1).

There have been changes to who can make economic gains from wars since Kenneth Waltz first put forward his perspectives on how wars are caused in present day world politics. In the contemporary modern world it is not the participating nation states in wars, which could make economic gains after the fighting has finally finished. The economic gains from modern wars and military conflicts are made not by nation states as such but by multinational corporations instead. Profits and economic gains are made when the nation states involved in wars are reconstructed to restore the infrastructures destroyed from fighting. In some cases, the biggest gainers from war have been from countries that were not originally involved in the fighting when the military conflict had begun. That was the case in Bosnia – Herzegovina and Kosovo when the United States and NATO eventually intervened to stop the fighting and prevent further incidences of ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Serbians. The Americans after providing most of the armed forces used in Bosnia – Herzegovina and Kosovo then proceeded to give highly lucrative reconstruction projects to American based or owned multinational corporations (Fisk, 2006 p. 1027).

Indeed the United States since the Gulf War of the early 1990s has demonstrated a marked inclination to intervene in wars and civil wars upon humanitarian grounds with the proviso that American multinational companies should whenever rebuild shattered countries, whilst of course making hefty profits. It has been a pattern that has been repeated in the wake of the United States interventions in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq. Despite rapid victories over the outmoded armies of the former Afghan and Iraqi regimes, the United States has been able to provide stability in either country even though American companies have profited from reconstruction projects (Todd, 2001 p. 2).

Kenneth Waltz also contended that ideological factors were certainly capable of being causes of war in world politics whether in there own right or in conjunction with other factors. Ideological perspectives have been able to shape and even directly cause disputes and eventually wars between nation states. In more recent years especially after September 11th ideology has caused wars between countries and non-state actors, Al-Qaeda in particular. Ideological factors have often added an extra dimension to international rivalries and wars. For instance, the Second World War witnessed the totalitarian Nazi regime against the democracies of Britain, France and the United States. The greatest ideological conflict within the Second World War was between Germany and the Soviet Union, mainly due to Hitler’s determination to destroy communism. It was no accident that the Eastern Front was the most vicious theatre in all of military history (Crawford, 2002).

In the last two decades or so it has not been the validity of Kenneth Waltz’s contention ideology can cause wars in world politics that has changed. Instead it has been the types of ideologies and the nature of conflicts that has actually altered (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 275). The Cold War had the ideological differences between capitalist liberal democracy and totalitarian communism centred at its very core. The Cold War ideological confrontation as previously noted contributed to the Korean War and the Vietnam War as well as other conflicts in developing countries such as the civil wars in Angola and Mozambique. At times it seemed that the Cold War could become a hot war particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Korean War and with the renewed nuclear arms race, which followed on from the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan (Hobsbawm, 1994 p.489). American President Ronald Reagan’s decision to back Afghani resistance to the Soviet Union and then step up the nuclear arms race accelerated the end of the Cold War not to mention the collapse of the Soviet Union itself (Crawford, 2002). With the effective end of communism as a world- wide ideology, some predicted that ideology would not longer play a role in the causing of conflicts and wars. The September 11th attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda proved that ideology cannot e discounted as a caused of wars in world politics. Indeed the Al-Qaeda attacks led to the United States interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq (Fisk, 2006 p. 1026).

Personally the most convincing image is that nation states are generally increasingly reluctant to go to war and will only do so when their national self- interests are under significant threat. Kenneth Waltz was arguably correct to assume that there are a variety of factors, which can cause wars in world politics. It is compelling to believe that the countries with the most to lose from fighting ware are the most reluctant to start conflicts that could prove to be very costly (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 43).

It is widely assumed amongst the international theorists including Kenneth Waltz that liberal democracies are very unlikely to fight wars against each other. The image that stands out is that nation states are all prepared to go to war if their governments believe that they have to do so. Liberal democracies might not fight each other but they have frequently fought wars against non-democratic nation states when it has suited them to do so. If anything it is the governments of the poorer and weaker nation states that are most likely to be involved in wars (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 45).

To conclude Kenneth Waltz’s ideas about the causes of war in present day world politics have maintained a great deal of relevance for the students of international relations and academics alike. Kenneth Waltz was right to argue that traditional explanations for the causes of wars in world politics such as the bop and nationalism do not explain everything. Wars have certainly been caused by disputes centred on the balance of power and nationalism, yet other factors should be considered in explaining the outbreak of wars. Nationalism in its different guises has done much to form and shape the modern world. The balance of power and nationalism contributed to many of the wars from the 18th century onwards and arguably to the Cold War during the post-war period. Kenneth Waltz was indeed perceptive when he contended that social and economic factors could have large roles to play in causing wars in world politics.

The Cold War due almost entirely to the superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union both having nuclear weapons did not lead to a major war. However the lack of a war between the United States and the Soviet Union meant that numerous regional military conflicts, wars and civil wars were considered to be of vital strategic and therefore military importance for the United States as well as the Soviet Union. These regional wars, civil wars, and military conflicts were not however considered important enough to start a nuclear war over, despite the United States being tempted to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. The Cold War was of course already underway when Kenneth Waltz put forward his main ideas and concepts about the causes of war in present day world politics.

There are differing levels of nationalism and nationalist feelings, which when combined with other factors cause military conflicts and wars in present day world politics. When nobody attempts to increase nationalist sentiment or inject militancy into it then it is not always powerful enough to be the main factor in causing wars in their own right in present day world politics.

Waltz has also argued that ideological factors were certainly capable of being causes of war in world politics whether in there own right or in conjunction with other factors. Ideological perspectives have been able to shape and even directly cause disputes and eventually wars between nation states. In more recent years especially after September 11th ideology has caused wars between countries and non-state actors, Al-Qaeda in particular. Ideological factors have often added an extra dimension to international rivalries and wars.

Kenneth Waltz did contend that economic gain as well as perceived national shortages of vital materials and supplies have been regarded as a cause of wars in world politics. Increasingly even rapid military victories do not equate to economic gains, not even the defeats of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively have brought the United States economic gains, aside from companies that specialise in reconstruction work. In our very own contemporary modern world it is frequently not the participating nation states in wars, which could make economic gains after the fighting has finally ended, and that means the United States as well as the sole surviving global superpower. The economic gains from modern wars and military conflicts are made not by nation states as such but by multinational corporations instead. Profits and economic gains are made when the nation states involved in wars are reconstructed to restore the infrastructures destroyed from fighting. In most cases, the biggest gainers from war have been from countries that were not originally involved in the fighting when the military conflict had started.

Bibliography

Brown C, with Ainley K, (2005) Understanding International Relations 3rd edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke
Chamberlain, M. E. (1985) Decolonization: the fall of the European empires. (Oxford: Blackwell)
Crawford, N. (2002) Argument and change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonisation and
Humanitarian Intervention
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
Dunbabin J P D (1994) The Cold War – The Great Powers and their allies, Longman, London

Eatwell R & Wright A, (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London

Evans G & Newnham J, (1998) the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, Penguin, London

Ferguson N, (2003) Empire – how Britain made the modern world, Penguin, London

Fisk R, (2006) The Great War for Civilisation – the conquest of the Middle East, Harper Perennial, London

Hobsbawm, E (1994) Age of Extremes, the Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991, Michael Joseph, London

Jackson, Robert H. (1993) ‘The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization: Normative Change in
International Relations’, in Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy, pp. 111-138. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press
James, H (2003) Europe Reborn – A History, 1914 – 2000, Pearson Longman, Harlow

Todd A, (2001) Democracies and Dictatorships – Europe and the World 1919 – 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

In 1960 Sirivamo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the world’s first female elected Premier Minister. In 1974 Isabel Perón of Argentina became the first woman President. From then on, women have become prominent rulers contrary to what most of us believe.

Here is a list of women presidents who made an impact as world leaders.

Lydia Gueiler Tejada, Bolivia (17.11.1979-18.07.1980)

As President she was also head of the Cabinet. She used to be a member of Parliament 1956-64 and afterwards in exile for 15 years. She was deposed by Coup d’etat shortly before elections was due.

Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Iceland (01.08.1980-01.08.1996)

She was the world’s first democratically elected female President. Since 1996 she has been involved in a wide range of international humanitarian and cultural organizations.

President Agatha Barbara, Malta (15.02.1982-15.02.1987)

She resigned as President 2 years ahead of time because Labour lost the 1987-elections.

Maria Corazón Sumulong Cojuangco Aquino, The Philippines (25.2.1986-30.06.1992)

Cory Aquino became leader of the opposition after the murder of her husband Ninoy Aquino in 1986. She was brought to power by the so-called “People Power.”

Ertha Pascal-Trouillot, Haiti (13.03.1990-07.02.1991)

She was the first female High Court Judge 1986-90, and became acting President during the turbulent political situation in Haiti in a period where one Coup d’etat followed the other.

Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, Nicaragua (25.04.1990-10.01.1997)

In 1979 Doña Violeta was member of the Ruling Junta after the overthrow of the Somoza-dictatorship but left because of disagreement with the Sandinistas. Between 1979-90 Publisher of the opposition newspaper La Prensa after the murder of her husband, opposition leader Joaquín Chamorro Cardenal. As Executive President she was also Head of the Cabinet and Minister of Defence.

President Mary Robinson, Ireland (03.12.1990-12.09.1997)

In 1969 she was appointed Professor of Law, 1970-90 she was Labour-senator. Her Irish title and name was Uachtarán na hEeireann Máire Mhic Roíbín. She did not run for re-election.

Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga, Sri Lanka (14.11.1994-19.11.2005)

As Executive President she was also Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and held the Portfolio of Defence and Finance and Planning 1994-2001 and was Minister of Defence, Information and Interior from November 2003. She is the first person in the world to be daughter of two premier ministers, Solomon and Sirivamo Bandaranaike and the first to have appointed her mother to the post of Prime Minister.

Janet Jagan, Guyana (19.12.1997-11.08.99)

Her country’s first white and first female President and was executive President but worked together with the Prime Minister. Janet was chosen as her party’s candidate in the following Presidential elections. She was in office until July 1999 when she suffered a mild heart attack and chose to resign from her post 3 years ahead of time.

President of the Confederation Ruth Dreifuss, Switzerland (01.01.1999-31.12.1999)

A former trade union-leader, she was Councillor of Interior in 1992-2002 and Vice-President 1998-99. (b. 1939-).

Executive President Mireya Moscoso Rodrígez, Panama (01.09.1999-01.09.2004)

As Executive President she is also head of the Cabinet, and she is the first female President to have officially appointed a First Lady – her sister, Ruby Moscoso de Young. She was constitutionally barred from running for re-election. Mireya was first married to President Arnulfo Arias Madrid (1901-88) who was President of Panama 1940-41, 1949-51 and 1968. Married to Mr. Gruber 1991-97 and mother of an adopted a child. (b. 1946-).

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, The Philippines

As executive GMA is also Head of the Cabinet. In January 2001 she was succeeded Joseph Estrada. In 2004 she was re-elected to the post of President.

Megawati Sukarnoputri, Indonesia

When she became leader of the Democratic Party in 1993, she triggered the opposition against President Quarto. In 1999 her party won the most seats in the Parliament, but Abdulrahman Wahid was elected President. This caused serious riots all over the country and she was elected vice-President the following day. In August 2000 the ailing President Wahid charged her with the running of the daily business of the government and state and she chaired the cabinet meetings. At the 23rd of July he was ousted and she inaugurated as President.

Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Liberia (16.01.2006- )

1972-73 and 1977-79 Secretary of State of Finance, 1979-80 Minister of Finance, 1980 President of the National Bank, 1980-85 worked for the World Bank, 1985-86 in house arrest after her return, 1990-92 Leading member of exile-government of Amos Sawyer in United States of America, 1992-97 African Director of the UNDP (United Nations Development Program). From 1997 Leader of the Unity Party. Presidential Candidate in 1997, Candidate for the Chairmanship of the National Transitional Government in 2003 and finally won the presidential elections in November 2005. She is divorced, mother of a number of children, and grandmother.

Women are considered as the weaker sex that is why most people would think that they are less efficient and less effective compared to their male counterparts. However,  effective and efficient governance is not all about being a man or a woman. So, women leaders and other aspiring women leaders should not be judged this way.

Governments are encouraging companies and individuals to reduce their carbon footprints to tackle “global warming” – caused by modern-day energy expenditure.

Is this the whole truth?

Weather control is not sci-fi, it is a reality, yet very little is publicised about it and the long term effects of weather manipulation are an unknown.

In the knowledge that if a country can control the weather, they can control the world, an Environmental Modification Treaty was signed or ratified by 70 of the world governments in 1977 to prevent hostile weather manipulation.

Actions that would contravene the treaty would be: triggering earthquakes, manipulating ozone levels, alteration of the ionosphere, deforestation, provoking flood or drought, use of herbicides, setting fires, seeding clouds, introduction of invasive species, eradication of species, creation of storms, destruction of crops.

Weather control is the ultimate weapon.

Forget nuclear weaponry, bombs, rockets and guns – weather control technology is the new weapon of mass destruction, the technology is the ultimate state / terrorist weapon and / or deterrent.

To assume that in signing the treaty, Governments would completely disregarded weather control research – the ultimate weapon – would be naïve to say the least.

In June 08, the LA Times reported that in response to criticism of the 2008 Olympic Games being held in Beijing, China, during the rainy season, the Chinese Meteorological Bureau’s of weather modification had assured the public that they had set aside, 30 aeroplanes, 4000 rocket launchers, 7000 anti-aircraft guns to modify the weather to prevent rain.

The Chinese weather control would not be in contravention of the treaty, as it would be done without hostile intent, however, it proves that governments have invested in the research and development of weather control techniques.

The above picture is HAARP in Alaska – High frequency Active Aural Research – this is one of at least seven research facilities around the globe.

These facilities were built by the US to monitor the ionosphere, the outer defence of earths atmosphere.

The ionosphere retains the globes warmth and protects the planet from the suns solar flares – variations on any point of the ionosphere can severely affect the weather.

The facility can gather valuable information in respect of the earth’s atmosphere.

However, more worryingly, the facilities have an active capability to superheat specific points of the ionosphere, creating holes or incisions, which then allow solar flares to enter the atmosphere – thus significantly affecting weather conditions below.

Under the remit of serious research, the facilities do not contravene the Environmental Modification Treaty, however the technology has the potential to used as a weapon of mass destruction on a global scale.

Details are available on http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/haarp/ion4.html

The Government website noted above, confirms that the HAARP facility has been actively tested.

An environmental study was carried out on the Alaskan facility in 1992 which concluded “all of the significant environmental impacts associated with HAARP Alaska can be mitigated to an acceptable level. Some insignificant potential impacts such as loss of habitat, socioeconomic and wildlife impacts may not be mitigated.”

Further explanation of the ominous wording highlighted above, the immediate and long term effects of the use of the facility upon the environment / weather patterns and the military potential of the HAARP system are not listed on the website.

The Russian government have also developed Project Woodpecker- Electron Cyclotron Resonance Heating Method.

The system was developed from experiments carried out by Nickola Tesla into electro magnetism and the potential to use the planets natural electromagnetism as an energy source which could be further developed for use as a powerful weapon.

Woodpecker transmitters emit ELF – extreme low frequency elecro-magnetic pulses.

The transmitters, positioned in facilities around the globe generate an electro-magnetic grid which circumnavigates the globe using natural high density water vapour trails as conductors (essentially five water vapour rivers which naturally occurring in both the North and South Hemispheres of the Earth’s atmosphere).

Disruption in their frequency acts as an early warning system for incoming missiles or aircraft.

Convergence of transmissions on the grid, at any pre-determined point, will disrupt the ionosphere, the release of electromagnetic energy pulses by the transmitters can either be used as a weapon and disrupt weather conditions

The Woodpecker system has the capability to disrupt the path of the Northern Hemispheres Jet Stream Flow – Which can, and may already have had cataclysmic effects upon the world’s weather patterns.

It was reported in the Wall Street Journal on 2nd October 1992, that a Russian Company called “Elite Intelligent Technologies” were selling weather control Technology with the slogan “Weather made to Order”. They claimed to be able to fine tune the weather over a 200 square mile radius for $200.00 per day.

This article only touches upon some of the technology involved in weather control / manipulation. There are many internet sites where weather manipulation and control is being discussed – Please take a look for yourself.

In conclusion, we cannot and must not trust the propaganda regarding global warming – until we are given the full facts regarding the short and long term effects of planetary weather manipulation/ weaponry.

The past and future consequences of weather manipulation cannot no longer be ignored or brushed off as conspiratorial sci-fi.

Until the public takes the time to research this topic for themselves, spreads awareness, loses the apathy and demands answers from who are elected to govern on our behalf, we, our children, and our planet will continue to hang on a precipice of oblivion.