Clash of Ideologies - Essay Example

Clash of ideologies Authoritarianism is a form of government in which citizens have to strictly obey the authority of a state. The state maintains and enforces power using intimidation, oppression and coercion. Many aspects of citizen lives are subject to state authority in an authoritarian form of government. Libertarianism is a political philosophy which calls for minimum government intervention with possible individual liberty. This philosophy believes in granting many rights to its citizens while upholding private property and promoting personal responsibility. The end of the cold war has witnessed a new struggle between authoritarianism and libertarianism. Much of this struggle is because of the presence of a single superpower, the United States dominating the world with its ideology and economic capacity. The Cold war was a period of tension, confrontation and uneasy peace between the USSR and USA. The rivalry between the two superpowers was in many different arenas like military technology, space race, arms race, nuclear missile development, economic system and many proxy wars. The Cold war lasted from 1940s till the early 1990s. The political struggle in the world was dominated by a clash between Capitalism and Communism. However by the early 1980s, the USSR clearly had the largest conventional armies in the world. However the Soviets were dramatically lagging behind the West. The huge military budget had put an enormous strain on Moscow at the expense of consumer goods and investment in civilian sectors. Economic stagnation further crippled the Soviet economy which provided an example of the failure of the communist system (Altemeyer, 2006). Mikhail Gorbachev ascended to power in 1985 when the Soviet economy was close to zero percent in terms of growth rate and witnessed a sharp fall in hard currency earnings. A reform program directed by Gorbachev called to redirect the country’s resources from Cold war military projects to more profitable areas in the civilian sector. There were treaties with the United States reducing the level of conventional forces and nuclear weapons in Europe. Communist governments in East Europe also were toppled by mostly peaceful revolutions launched by local parties in 1989. By February 1990, the USSR had also collapsed with the union dissolved into fifteen separate independent states. During the cold war, it was easy for small countries to play one superpower with another. The collapse of the Soviet Union transformed the global politics into a unipolar arena dominated by one superpower. Some countries like Syria and Cuba faced an economic crisis because they were heavily subsidized by the Soviet Union for food, oil and other supplies. They also were the recipients of Soviet weapons to counter their enemies. With the end of the Soviet system, they had to diversify their economic and military sources. Many countries like Libya and Iraq which were anti American also lost the veto power of the Soviet Union. The USSR had used its veto power in the Security Council to protect the interests of its client states. China and Vietnam pursued economic reforms while maintaining strong political control of their populations. But by opening the economy and pursuing capitalist style economic reforms, both countries could not offer any serious opposition to Western policies in the world (Altemeyer, 2007). The British labor party was formed in the nineteenth century due to the trade unions which emerged during the industrial revolution. Originally the party advocated the philosophy of socialism in which the government would control public industries and provide social services to its citizens. Since the 1980s, the labor party has embraced some aspects of liberal capitalism. It has advocated the Third Way which is political philosophy embracing the aspects of market and interventionist philosophies. It rejects socialism and liberal capitalism but focuses on the development of technology, education and competitive mechanisms to pursue economic growth. It is described as a combination of socialism and capitalism. Third Way has finished the political struggle between the left and right wing parties in liberal democracies. Many Western liberal democracies have adopted the Third Way as a viable philosophy of economic growth (Baars, 2006). The Third Way has been described as different from liberal capitalism which believes in the merits of free market and democratic socialism which emphasis on the management of public industries by the state. The Third Way favors growth, business and wealth creation in combination with social services and justice. It views the state as both generating and redistributing wealth. Australia has seen New Way economic policies pursued from 1983 till 1996 by the Bob Hawke and Paul Keating governments (Dahl, 2003). These governments reduced tariffs, reformed the Australian taxation system and privatized several banks. Supporters of the Third Way in Australia have believed in competitive markets which however require government intervention by using different policies (De Grazia, 2002). The former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been cited as a Third Way politician. Inside the United States, Third Way politicians have focused on fiscal conservatism and preferring market solutions for various economic and social problems. They have rejected some aspects of liberal capitalism. The Third Way style of governance was adopted by the Bill Clinton administration (Dekker, 2004). Inside Canada, Jean Chrétien focused on reducing the debt of Canada. They also cut several dollars from provincial programs. Although the debt was eliminated, the quality of health services in Canada degraded. The Canadian military and provincial departments also complained of lack of resources. The Third Way has been criticized for mixing capitalism with socialism. Advocates of liberal capitalism have been the staunchest opponents of a mixed economy. Advocates of the Third Way argue that it combines the principles of resource allocation and models of capitalism. They insist on a social democracy which is an alternative to the neo liberal project of the 1980s by applying the principles of social democracy to current circumstances. They say that society has changed in which the traditional left and right values cannot be viable for twenty first century society. There has been a weakening of institutions between government and civil society that have resulted from the growing individualization of values. They also criticize the socialist welfare state model for its growing inflexibilities and dependencies. Liberal capitalism has failed to eliminate the income inequalities, crime and anti social behavior which is prevalent in liberal democracies (Duckitt, 1999). Globalization is a process in which the people of the world are united by a single society and transforming certain things into global ones. Economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces have now been united into a single society. It is also used to refer to the integration of national economies with the international economy by trade and foreign investment. The impact of globalization can be measured by the goods and services which form the proportion of national incomes. It can also be measured by the net migration rates and direct investment that comes inside a country by foreign organizations. Finally the impact of international research and development and the proportion of populations using modern technologies like the cell phone, internet, and motorcar on a country can measure the affect of globalization for a particular country. Global financial markets have emerged in different parts of the world which provide better access to external financing for corporations and local borrowers. The creations of world organizations which regulate the relationships between nations and protect their rights have sprung up due to globalization. China is an amazing success story of globalization because of its tremendous economic growth rate. In recent years China’s economy has rapidly grown. This rapid growth of economy is the important point in the field of economic development which has been acknowledged by the international community. Globalization has also seen global environmental challenges which can be solved only without international cooperation. Multiculturalism as a philosophy has spread and provided better access to cultural diversity (Eckhardt, 2001). Globalization is affecting everyone because it diminishes the current culture in a country by bringing in foreign ideas and practices. This raises the threat of eroding the national cultural identities. Many developing countries are trying to open their markets in order to obtain financial assistance for their economies. Politically globalization has created much controversy. The World Trade organization deals with the rules of trade between nations. Globalization has led to a heightened awareness of what is happening in other countries. Trade barriers are being reduced and new international markets are being opened up. This has led to the formation of regional trading agreements between particular countries. These agreements strengthen the economic links of member states by removing trade barriers and promoting investment amongst themselves. The European Union and the European Free Trade Organization are examples of two trading blocs. Globalization is forcing regional countries to integrate into powerful economic and political blocs. The EU is becoming a respectable power with political and economic clout to match the United States and Japan. Other trade groups are emerging like the The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Andean Group and Mercosur which have significant economic and political influence in their regions (Eiser, 2006). The dynamics of globalization ensure that each country is integrated politically and economically with its neighbors and other world powers. No single nation can succeed in its quest for economic development and political supremacy without integrating itself with regional trading blocs. Globalization could one day lead to the unification of countries with one government and market. This will however lead to opposition by local people as they see their cultural identity and national sovereignty eroded (Ekehammer, 2006). Tensions between authoritarians and libertarians are increasing in many places of the world. Burma is a country where these tensions have erupted into clashes between Buddhist monks and students with the military regime. Burma is a military dictatorship which has suppressed genuine forms of dissent and protest. The National League for Democracy is the main party which has agitated for democracy and human rights in Burma. The military dictatorship has always justified military rule because they say that Western style democracy is not suitable for Burma. They believe in a guided and paternalistic type of democracy. The 1990 elections saw the National League for Democracy win the majority of votes. The regime did not honor its promise to transfer power to a civilian government. This led to many bloody riots and protests which were ruthlessly suppressed by the Burmese military regime. Western and Asian countries have also pressurized Burma to open its political system and allow democracy to flourish in the country. International pressure forced the government to release Aung San Suu Kyi, a key leader of Burma’s opposition to military rule. The NLD however continues to be banned from engaging in any political activity. The party is also facing serious problems of membership as many people are not interested in joining it. Burmese frustration appears to be mounting as the economy has also not performed well. Inflation, corruption, poor infrastructure, stagnation, unemployment are some of the problems which could potentially lead to an overthrow of the Burmese regime (Feather, 1993). Recently Buddhist monks participated in a series of protests against the military government. This has been surprising given the fact that the Buddhist monks have traditionally been supporters of the regime. Hundreds of thousands of monks occupied temples challenging the regime in the most defiant wave of demonstrations in nearly two decades. The increase in the price of fuel had seen an increase in public agitation and protest. The monks could have threatened the government’s grip on power. The Buddhist clergy have enormous clout over the Burmese public because ninety percent of Burma’s population is Buddhist. Traditionally monks have launched protests such as during the British colonialists and the 1988 pro democracy rebellion (Eysenck, 2006). One tactic which they used in the recent protests was refusing alms from the military regime. The military regime responded in a cautious manner to the protests because of the ability of monks to create dissent. It tried to persuade the monks and gave material enticements to calm the anger of the monks. The participation of the monks began when during September 2007; authorities beat up several hundred monks peacefully protesting the fuel price hikes. As the crisis escalated, the regime began using new regiments to crack down on the protestors. Hundreds of people were arrested or injured in the clashes as Burmese soldiers also used live ammunition to fire on the protestors. A few people were also killed in these clashes. The crackdown also resulted in the execution of hundreds of monks. International reaction was swift with many European countries and the United States imposing sanctions on Myanmar. These protests have shown that authoritarian regimes will have to face people who advocate libertarian values and those who fight for democracy and human rights. Another recent example of a clash between authoritarians and libertarians was the rise of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation army in Mexico’s urban north and state of Chiapas. The group was formed to protect the rights of indigenous people; The Zapatistas launched an armed uprising in 1994 on the same day when the North American Free Trade Agreement became operational. The Zapatistas are a group that has violently protested the policies of the Mexican government. They have opposed globalization as infringing the rights of the indigenous communities in the state of Chiapas. The uprising led to the seizure of several municipalities in Chiapas as the guerillas declared war against the Mexican government. They also announced their plans to overthrow the government and advance towards Mexico City. The fighting continued for few weeks in which the guerillas were defeated by the superior Mexican army. A ceasefire was agreed between the government and the rebels (Goertzel, 2005). The dialogue between the government and rebels resulted in the San Andres Accords which gave special rights to indigenous people. However tensions remained because many promises made by the government were violated. The Zapatistas moved into the jungles while the military increased its patrols in Chiapas. The Zapatistas also accused the government of detaining and killing Zapatistas. The Zapatistas have maintained an uneasy peace with the government and army since the ceasefire. They have succeeded in minimizing clashes with the military. Their efforts to increase the role of women and political matters have not been successful (French, 1999). The Zapatistas have opposed the worldwide trend towards a neo liberal globalized economy. They believe that the current government policy establishes a corporate state that is exploiting the indigenous people. They view the war on terror, IMF/World Bank economic prescriptions and free trade agreements as implementation of capitalist policies to dominate the world. They have also frequently accused the government of expelling indigenous people from their homes in order to gain control of natural resources. The Zapatistas have organized autonomous zones in their area of control. They have tried to establish an education and healthcare system in places neglected by the government. There are an estimated thirty two rebel municipalities in Chiapas (Arieli, 2006). These autonomous municipalities have been tolerated by the government. The Zapatists do not tax the inhabitants but they decide through their assemblies to work in community projects. Anyone who refuses to work has to pay for medicine in Zapatista pharmacies. All members of the community have an opportunity to participate in the community projects. Another revolutionary ideal of the Zapatistas has been to promote the empowerment of women. They believe that women should work and participate in all community projects. They believe in empowering women to become part of the revolution by serving in the armed forces. They also have called for ending discriminatory laws towards women. They have advocated the use of harsh punishments for crimes like rape. The Zapatista movement is an example of how people are trying to resisting the pressures by authoritarian regimes to impose their political and economic system on them. The indigenous people have a movement which can advocate their interests and fight the exploitation of their resources (Appleby, 2005). Colombia has seen an armed insurgency by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia for several decades. FARC was established in the 1960s as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party. The group has been actively involved in the illicit drug trade since the 1980s. FARC is another example of a local group fighting a government. The movement is reported to be operating in twenty percent of the country. The movement is organized along military lines with several urban and militia cells. It claims to fight against the wealthy elite of Colombia and US influence in the country. It has also fought against privatization of resources, corporations and exploitation of resources by the government. It claims to represent the rural poor of Colombia. It has known to fund itself using kidnapping, extortion and drug trafficking. It perceives the Colombian government as being unfriendly because of historic violence directed against Colombian Communists. However the group has been considered to be a terrorist organization because of its indiscriminate attacks, bombings and shootings against civilians (Chamberlain, 2003). FARC has been known to operate since the 1960s as an offshoot of the Colombian Communist Party. Originally it aimed to create a communist state and to eradicate all traces of capitalism in Colombia. A failed peace process led to a renewal of fighting between the Colombian government and FARC. The United States has spent huge amounts of aid in providing training, equipment and assistance to the Colombian armed forces. Recently FARC has been weakened because of desertion or killing of commanders. New tactics by the Colombian government have inflicted heavy losses on the movement. Another country where authoritarians and libertarians are clashing is Uzbekistan. The country gained independence in 1991 following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Islam Karimov, a former Communist Party official was elected president in a rigged election. Karimov has ruled Uzbekistan with an iron fist. The threat of radical Islamic movements has been used an excuse by the government to crack down on genuine political dissent. In February 1999, a series of bomb attacks hit Tashkent. The government responded by launching a crackdown in which thousands of people were imprisoned (Hayek, 2003). Islamic opposition groups have tried to launch several attacks against the government. Karimov has routinely used the specter of Islamic radicalism to crack down on democracy groups. The secret police routinely detains hundreds of opposition leaders before any election. A massacre of protestors occurred in 2005 when Uzbek security forces opened fired in Andijan. The protests were launched in response to the imprisonment of twenty three local businessmen who were charged with extremism and fundamentalism. An estimated four thousand people gathered around the courthouse to hear the verdict. Armed gunmen attacked the prison where the businessmen were held and freed many prisoners. The armed men reportedly took over the regional administration building. The Uzbek army responded by a brutal crackdown on the armed gunmen and protestors. It is reported that hundreds of people were killed by Uzbek security forces. The Karimov regime insisted that those killed were terrorists and accused Islamic groups of plotting to overthrow the government. While at the moment the regime continues to maintain its grip on power, the future could see more uprisings by local civilians against the corruption and repression of the government (Mises, 2006). Another clash between authoritarians and libertarians came in Ukraine. The country witnessed a peaceful Orange Revolution in response to the 2004 Ukrainian presidential elections which were perceived as being corrupt and fraudulent. The movement was characterized by civil disobedience and general strikes organized by the opposition movement. Victor Yanukovych and Victor Yuskchenko were two of the leading candidates in the election. Reports of fraud and voter intimidation in favor of Yanukovych led to days of protests by the opposition forces. The official count was very different from the exit poll results. Yuskchenko called on the opposition to protest the allegations of fraud. These protests began in November 2004 and spread to cities across Ukraine. Many local councils refused to accept the legitimacy of the official election results (Martin, 2004). Student activists played a leading role in the Orange Revolution by using grassroots campaigning and coalition building among the opposition. Western organizations are reported to have trained these activists in the use of political organization and non violent resistance. The Russians apparently supported Yanukovych as many Russian businesses provided assistance. The greatest achievement of the revolution was the political organization and mobilization of hundreds of thousands of people. Further they successfully used the combination of political tactics, sit-ins and civil disobedience tactics without resorting to violence. The Orange Revolution has proven the effectiveness of political mobilization, coalition building and non violent tactics in response to authoritarian government. The authoritarians in this case were the Yuskchenko party and the libertarians the opposition led by Yanukovych. Nepal was a country ruled by an authoritarian monarch until 2006. A democracy movement launched by leading political parties and Maoist rebels led to the end of the monarchy. This struggle was also characterized as between authoritarians and libertarians. In 2005, King Gyanendra appointed a government and enforced martial law. This was done in response to a growing Maoist insurgency. Several opposition leaders were detained and arrested (Bramsted, 2005).The Seven Party Alliance was organized to counter the monarchy and martial law. The SPA also signed a pact with the Maoist rebels in whom the latter committed themselves to democracy and freedom of speech. By 2006, the SPA had launched a nationwide agitation movement around the country. Municipal elections were boycotted by the SPA and Maoists. A four day nationwide general strike was launched in April 2006. The protests continued despite government orders to shoot protestors at sight. The Nepalese monarchy claimed that the protests had been infiltrated by the Maoists. The following days would witness hundreds of thousands of people taking part in the protests. These protests eventually pressurized King Gyanendra to hold elections and talks with the opposition party. The old Nepal House of Representatives was reinstated. The SPA accepted the reinstating and vowed hold new elections to write a new constitution. The Maoists however initially refused to participate but they declared a unilateral ceasefire if the elections were free and fair. The powers of the King have been stripped and elections will be held in 2008. Nepal’s relatively peaceful revolution was another triumph for libertarians against authoritarian governments. Kyrgyzstan witnessed a tulip revolution in 2005 to overthrow the Askar Akayev regime which was accused of being corrupt and authoritarian. The revolution was relatively peaceful and successful as Akayev fled the country. There was some violence during the initial days in which a few people were killed. Protests were held by the opposition party because the election results were considered to be rigged and fraudulent. Attempts by police to use force resulted in injuries and the detention of hundreds of civilians in the city of Jalalabad. The opposition forces in Kyrgyzstan lacked unity in removing the government. They also lacked an obvious leader who could have inspired the people to protest. The revolution was characterized by spontaneous populist revolts. As violence spread in various parts of the country, Akayev ordered the Election Commission to investigate charges of fraud and intimidation. The international community also responded to several deficiencies in the election process. Many election observers found significant shortcomings in the process. The initial violence incidents were followed by peaceful demonstrations in various parts of the country. Various international organizations provided printing materials and literature to the opposition forces. The United Nations also appealed to the government and opposition parties for a peaceful settlement. Russia and neighboring Central Asian countries were concerned with the actions of the opposition. The protest movement had become widespread and there was also an extent of unity between the opposition leaders. The revolution successfully led to the removal of an authoritarian government (Bramsted, 2005). The United Kingdom has also witnessed the clash of authoritarian parties like the BNP and libertarians. The British National Party is a far right white only political party in the United Kingdom. The party is committed to fighting the tide of non white immigration in the United Kingdom. It seeks to change the makeup of the British population to white. It offers firm but voluntary incentives to immigrants to return home. It advocates the removal of all anti-discrimination legislation. It only allows membership for members of the Caucasian race. Recently the BNP has focused on the threat of radical Islam. The party has been strongly criticized by mainstream British parties. The BNP has been described as a party with Nazi, racist and xenophobic beliefs. The party however insists that it only wishes to make Britain a white state. They are opposed to mixed-race relationships on the ground that racial differences must be preserved (Macedo, 2007). The party has been accused of anti Islamic phobia. The party also supported the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006. They consider Muslim immigration and birth rates to be a threat to Britain. Officials of the British National Party remarked that Muslim immigration to Britain is a precursor to an invasion of the country by Islamic radicals and to convert British people to Islam. The BNP has also agitated against other immigrants. They have advocated the use of laws to restrict immigration. They have proposed a system of giving incentives to immigrants to return to their native country (Norman, 2006). The rise of far right authoritarian parties like the British Nationalist Party has removed the debate between left and right wing parties in the United Kingdom. It has become a struggle of authoritarianism and libertarianism. The BNP has been condemned by the mainstream media including right wing newspapers. The three major British mainstream parties have condemned the BNP even though the party has managed to win local elections. Politicians from the mainstream parties have called their own supporters to vote for anyone but the BNP. Major parties recently fielded candidates in seats where they are unlikely to win. This was designed to reduce the BNP vote. Some organizations like the Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight have aimed to oppose the BNP and other far right organizations. Other organizations like the Anti-Nazi League, National Assembly Against Racism, etc have also joined these groups in criticism of the BNP. Many faith and community leaders belong to mainstream British parties and grassroots organizations have joined in opposing the views of the BNP. Many anti BNP groups have called for no coverage to be given to far right organizations like the BNP. They describe the views of the BNP as being hate speech. A more militant position is to deny the BNP any platform to voice their views. This policy has been implemented in student unions and debating societies. This has resulted in BNP candidates being banned from speaking at various meetings around the country. The struggle between the BNP and anti fascism organizations is a classic struggle fought between authoritarians and libertarians in the United Kingdom (Rustow, 1999). The cold war between the USSR and US divided the world into two camps of Communism and Capitalism. In many developing countries there was much conflict between left wing and right wing parties over the implementation of the best ideology. The collapse of the USSR and communist bloc has led to the emergence of a unipolar world dominated by the United States and its capitalist views. Even communist nations like Vietnam and China have embraced the concepts of the free market. Because they are integrated with the global economy, they cannot offer any serious opposition to Western policies. The end of the cold war has witnessed a new struggle between authoritarians and libertarians in many parts of the world. Globalization has led to the erosion of national identities, integration of economies and formation of regional blocs. Inside the United Kingdom, the advocates of the Third Way have effectively ended the dispute between the implementation of liberal capitalism or socialism. The new struggle is between mainstream political parties and far right authoritarian parties in the United Kingdom. Many authoritarian regimes in the past years have been forced to give up power due to popular struggles launched by opposition movements. Ukraine, Nepal and Kyrgyzstan are recent examples where opposition parties successfully used mostly peaceful democratic tactics to overthrow authoritarian regimes. Some regimes like the Burmese and Uzbek governments have used brute force to crush protests by people. In some parts of the world like Colombia, many organizations are fighting against local governments. The twenty first century will definitely witness a clash between authoritarian and libertarian movements. References: Altemeyer B., Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Winnipeg, University of Manitoba Press, 2006. Altemeyer B., Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2007. Baars J., Scheepers P., Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of the Authoritarian Personality, in Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 29, 2006 Dahl R.A., Modern Political Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 2003 De Grazia S., What Authority Is Not, in American Political Science Review, 53, 2002 Dekker P., Ester P., Working-Class Authoritarianism: A Re-Examination of the Lipset Thesis, in European Journal of Political Research, 15, 2004 Duckitt J., Farre B., Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Political Intolerance Among Whites Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), 1999 Eckhardt W., Authoritarianism, in Political Psychology, 12, 2001 Eiser J.R., van der Pligt J., Attitudes and Decisions, London, Routledge, 2006 Ekehammar B., Sidanius J., Political Perception and Political Preference: An Exploratory Study of Swedish Political Parties, in Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 18, 2006 Eysenck H.J., The Psychology of Politics, London, Routledge & Keegan Paul, 2006 Feather N.T., Authoritarianism and Attitudes Toward High Achievers, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65 (1), 1993, French J.R.P.Jr., Raven B.H., The Bases of Social Power, in Studies in Social Power, Ed. by D. Cartwright, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1999 Goertzel T.G., Authoritarianism of Personality and Political Attitudes, in Journal of Social Psychology, 127(1), 2005 Barry, Norman. On Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. New York: St. Martints Press, 2006. Macedo, Stephen. Liberal Virtues: Citizenship. Virtue, and Community in Liberal Constitutionalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007. Rustow, Alexander. Freedom and Domination: A Historical Critique of Civilization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. Hayek, Friedrich A. The Road to Serfdom. University of Chicago Press, 2003. Bramsted, E.K. and Melhuish, K.J., eds. Western Liberalism: A History in Documents from Locke to Croce. London: Longman, 2005. Chamberlain, John. The Roots of Capitalism. New York: Van Nostrand, 2003 Von Mises, Ludwig. Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2006. Appleby, Joyce. Capitalism and a New Social Order: The Republican Vision of the 1790s. New York: New York University Press, 2005. Arieli, Yehoshua. Individualism and nationalism in American Ideology. Baltimore: Penguin, 2006. Martin, James J. Men Against the State: The Expositors of Individualist Anarchism in America, 2004 Read More