is an emeritus professor of Foreign Languages and Literatures and director
of Russian Area Studies at the University of Denver. He is the author of nine
books and a great deal of studies in the field of Slavic culture and civilization.
In addition, he has lectured at numerous institutions of leaming and before
many civic and religious groups on education, literature, and inrernational
relations. He has appeared on three continents and often on radio and television.
A native Czechoslovakian, Dr. Brom is an American citizen. He received his
education at the Czechoslovak Institute of Technology, School of Economics,
the Charles University of Prague, School of law, the San Francisco State University,
and the University of Colorado. In Europe, Dr. Brom served as an economist
and lawyer in International Business and as the chief planner in the research
development, and normalization of Czechoslovak river shipbuilding. As a professor
in the United States, he was selected by the Modern Ianguage Association of
America as the Teacher wih Superlative Performance, named The American by
Choice in Colorado, and received a National Americanism Medal. In the College
Book by the Ballantine Books of New York, '984 he is named Denver University's
best professor. Dr. Brom served in the leadership of many national and international
organizations and was imprisoned by both the Nazis and the Communists. He
is listed in Who'S Who in America and Who's Who in the Morld.
THE WORLD ON FIRE
When Communism was "defeated" and the Cold War ended, many believed a great future was at hand for all mankind. US State Department
official Francis Fukuyama went further when he concluded that the end of the Cold War meant an end of history; since history
was nothing but humanity's struggle for the right ideology, now, no veritable alternative to a capitalist democracy existed.
After the "defeat" of communism free men around the world felt safe. The "victorious" American enjoyed a false sense of prosperity
and freedom. However, a new frustration began to surface, one reflected in a short paragraph that appeared in the press:
Joe Smith awakes having set his alarm clock (made in China), shaves with his electric razor (made in Hong Kong), puts on a
shirt (made in Sri Lanka), designer pants (made in Singapore) and tennis shoes (made in Korea), prepares his breakfast in
an electric skillet (made in India) and sits down with his calculator (made in Mexico) to work on his budget. After setting
his watch (made in Taiwan) to the radio (made in India), he drives his car (made in Japan) and continues his search for the
American job. At the end of a disappointing day he relaxes by putting on his sandals (made in Brazil), pouring himself a glass
of wine (made in Chile), turning on his TV (made in Indonesia) and then wonders why he cannot find a job in America.
Economist Paul Craig Roberts writes: "American communities are losing manufacturing jobs. Americans who used to make things
for a living now have part-time jobs at Wall-Mart selling items made abroad...and maintain their consumption by spending the
equity when refinancing their homes. In the past five years, mortgage debt has risen 55 percent. Total personal debt now stands
100 percent of personal income. The United States has made the transition from the accumulation of wealth to the consumption
of wealth." (Conservative Chronicle, February 22, 2003).
What is true for the individual in the above case is also true for the country. Massive U.S. trade deficits are being financed
by the transfer of American assets to foreign lands. Everyday Americans hand over a billion dollars in treasury and corporate
bonds, real estate, and corporate equities to foreigners. How long will the illusion of prosperity and peace endure before
Americans (living it up importing inexpensive products paid by large trade deficits), realize that the merchandise they purchase
is no longer easy on the pocketbook and their dollar continues to lose its value? How long will it take before trade deficit
in America (once the world's greatest creditor and now the world's greatest debtor) affects the living standard of every citizen?
Publicist Pat Buchanan has concluded that as Congress votes for tax cuts, spends billions to bail out deadbeat countries and
assists decaying international banks, Americans will face a serious economic crisis.
While apostles of globalization, such as Thomas Friedman, believe that exporting the idea of free markets and political democracy
increase prosperity and peace throughout the developing world, Professor of International Trade at Yale University Ama Chua
argues the opposite. In her book World on Fire, researched and experienced as a Chinese brought up in the Philippines, Chua
concludes that instead of peace and increased prosperity free market brings about ethnic conflict and ugly violence in developing
countries. In Asia, Africa, Russia and Latin America a free market has created above all a new class of immensely rich plutocrats
who are mainly members of a minority group‹Chinese in the Philippines, Croatians in the former Yugoslavia, whites in
Latin America, Indians in East Africa, Jews in postcommunist Russia.
Chinese speaking citizens make up only 1 to 2% of the Philippine population, yet own the majority of the country's business
assets and live secluded in a luxurious world fenced off from the indigenous majority whom they hold in contempt. The same
situation existed in Indonesia. The Chinese made up 3% of its vast population, yet owned the great majority of all businesses.
The dictator Suharto and his family had lucrative ties to the Chinese community. When his government fell in 1998, democratization
set off a vicious pogrom against the Chinese. When most of them fled to Singapore, the new Indonesian government expropriated
$58 billion of their assets.
In other words, the market dominant minorities in the Third World become targets of envy. Adding democracy to this violent
mix unleashes suppressed ethnic hate and brings to power ethno-nationalistic governments that pursue aggressive policies of
confiscation and revenge.
Ex-communists around the world take delight at such developments. They see capitalism digging its own grave. Marxists define
America as imperialistic. She controls the sources of the world by neo-colonization, i.e., she exploits former colonies and
backs corrupted regimes resulting in favorable conditions for an inevitable "Second World Socialist Revolution." Communists
behind the former Iron and Bamboo Curtains--from the Czech Republic to the Peoples' Republic of China--have never been defeated.
They have only retreated to take a deep breath to acquire Western technology and develop new tactics toward the conquest of
the world. In the Czech Republic, for example, an agreement was made with dissident Vaclav Havel to vote him in as President
of the republic, orchestrate their "velvet revolution" and establish their phony postcommunism. Thirteen years later the communists
again were decisive in the election of Vaclav Klaus as the second Czech president.
A comparable situation exists everywhere in "postcommunism" where communists govern as capitalists and democrats as is the
case in Poland with Kwasniewski, in Ukraine with Kuchma, in White Russia with Lukashenka, in Azerbaijan with Shevardnadze
and in China with Hu Jintao.
In the rest of the world, where communists and their collaborators are not fully in power, it is the socialists who prepare
the ground for revolution. Europe is already under their spell. The bureaucratic European Union will complete their absolute
rule. In South America, the continent is on fire with strikes, terror, and bankruptcies. Narcotic trade financed guerillas
carry out battles with bourgeois governments. Southern Asia impassioned by class and territorial conflicts and armed with
weapons of mass destruction smolders before exploding. The Near East, the gas station of the world and the permanent arena
of Arabs and Jews, is the source of world terrorism as witnessed by the destruction of thousands of lives in New York's World
Trade Center and Washington's Department of Defense. As Lenin claimed a century ago, the object of history is nothing but
"who gets whom."