<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Dominique<br>
<br>
Labels at this level tend to be imprecise. So concepts like South,
Third World, Global South are NOT to be dogmatically affirmed in all
circumstances. However in many instances there is a South/TW/GS
position that stands counterposed to the developed countries, Group
B, G7/8... for instance in CIR while there were some exceptions it
would not be out of order to put it into a North-South context...<br>
<br>
What is important from a civil society point of view for me is that
the Third World and concepts like this serve as an organising
principle.<br>
<br>
And On Milton's query Non-Aligned from what is a query that has
historical roots, but that is given shape by the
uber-neoliberalisers (for others and themselves, but for themselves
they are a little fussy) or the dominant or hegemons - or what have
you, typically but not always the North.<br>
<br>
And yes, good initiatives can come from the North, hence it is not
to be dogmatically affirmed. However, some of us do choose to "look
a gift horse in the mouth" like GMO corn for Zambia during a famine
or CIR. Institutions have a lag in adapting to change - like the UN
Security Council. Another institution of interest to the North would
be the G7, in charge of maintaining financial stability ; ) (yea go
figure...)<br>
<br>
Riaz<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/29 03:22 PM, Dominique
Lacroix wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:503E1795.7070706@panamo.eu" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Sorry, a very short and rapid insight, because I'm overbooked these days.
myself I don't like a lot the geo-economied 'South'.
Because a write rationale for peace and development could be supported also by Northern and Western organizations. Even by American organizations and famous personnalities.
I should propose for example a Peace Group, because our concern, here in my European group, are:
- the militarization of Internet
- the strenght of quasi-monopoly positions of a group that will create great frustrations in a lot of countries
- the privatization of everything, even words, that lead to war-minded processes.
But still open to other proposals.
@+, best
--
Dominique Lacroix
Société européenne de l'Internet
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.ies-france.eu">http://www.ies-france.eu</a>
+33 (0)6 63 24 39 14</pre>
<br>
<br>
Le 29/08/12 14:28, Riaz K Tayob a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:503E0B00.4080401@gmail.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
Sure there is lots to a definition of a group... except that the
G77 on a daily basis at the UN in New York speaks...<br>
<br>
And claims for legitimacy in the 'Global South' also meet with
the inevitable list of collaborators... so it is not easy, but
in this case definitions can be reduced to mere platitudes...
myself I prefer the unadjectivised 'South'<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2012/08/29 01:36 PM, McTim
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CACAaNxjSO9ADWt++U5uz30c8fyyGVSe=JoakBSe_QaW_A39XWg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:53 AM,
Guru गुरु <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Guru@itforchange.net" target="_blank">Guru@itforchange.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Some
mails have questioned the notion of a 'global south'...<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
or at least the notion that one person can speak for such
a diverse grouping of folk.... <br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
McTim<br>
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it
is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>