America goes too far Part # 1
Historian Paul Kennedy tell that, the great wheel of history is turning against the United States

Paul Kennedy, the renowned historian and author of the classic study of international history, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, has long warned America of the dangers of what he dubbed "imperial overstretch". Since publication in 1988, Kennedy's thesis that imperial powers tend to involve themselves in adventures that sap their energies and resources has provoked immense debate within the US. Neo-conservatives and other cheerleaders of American empire labelled the 61-year-old British scholar a doomsayer, but the current direction of the war in Iraq seems apt illustration of his point.

Kennedy is an engaged public intellectual. Not content to write books from his perch at Yale University, he is also active in political and policy realms. In 1995, as a member of the Independent Working Group on the Future of the United Nations, Kennedy helped author a report on the UN that sought ways to make it a more effective and purposeful actor on the world stage. Recently Kennedy published a book on the UN entitled, The Parliament of Man: The Past, Present and Future of the United Nations.

Since you coined the term "imperial overstretch" pundits have been mapping the possible fall of the American empire, especially following recent military expansions. Do you see real peril resulting from American military endeavours?

My book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers came out in January 1988. It was strongly attacked by American conservatives who said that the economic recovery of the United States in the 1990s proved the thesis wrong. I would rather say that if they had read my book carefully they would have seen I was talking about the tendency or the dangers of imperial overstretch for America by the year 2010.

US Army generals would definitely say that America is overstretched. We are overstretched in two dimensions: military overextension across the globe, especially in Iraq, and financial overstretch because of budget and trade deficits.

My argument is that economic power goes hand in hand with military power. If your economy is becoming less competitive, in the long-term your military position will become less easy to sustain.

If we continue having almost 200,000 troops in Iraq, and troops in other places like central Asia, Afghanistan and Korea, we will be seeing overstretch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>***

Keeping Lebanon cool, If inter-Lebanese tensions can be moderated, despite appearances, Hizbullah has the upper hand over Israel and the US, writes Hassan Nafaa*
UN Security Council Resolution 425, calling upon Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon and for the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south, remained unimplemented for 22 years.

When, in 2000, Israeli forces were forced to evacuate, Israel claimed that it had done what was required of it under the provisions of the resolution and it called upon the Lebanese government to do the same. But the fact is that Israel did not meet its obligations: it held on to Shebaa Farms. If it had withdrawn from that piece of territory and, also, handed back Lebanese prisoners of war it would have pulled the rug from under Hizbullah and its excuses for sustaining the resistance, holding on to its arms and rejecting the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south. True to form, Israel preferred to keep those issues pending in the hope of being able to use them as a pretext for disarming Hizbullah coercively without having to furnish guarantees against invading Lebanon again.

Israel had other alternatives bar a military offensive for responding to Hizbullah's 12 July operation. It chose, however, to put into effect plans it had drawn up with the US aimed at imposing a new set of game rules on the region. It is sufficient, in this regard, to refer readers to the report by Seymour Hersh that appeared in The New Yorker of 14 August, and to that of Wayne Madsen, portions of which appeared in translation in the Lebanese As- Safir newspaper. These articles chronicle numerous meetings held between Israeli and American officials in the US this spring.

Madsen, in particular, discusses a meeting held on the sidelines of a forum sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute 17-18 June in Beaver Creek, Colorado. Attended by Vice-President Dick Cheney, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert, former Israeli prime ministers Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, and member of Knesset Naatan Sharansky, this meeting allegedly put the final touches to plans for an Israeli military offensive aimed at destroying Hizbullah, leaving open only the question of a suitable excuse and the right timing. In other words, there is no doubt that the decision to invade Lebanon was been taken jointly by the US and Israel well in advance of the Hizbullah raid and that the ultimate purpose, as Condoleezza Rice put it, was to create a "new Middle East" despite any Lebanese "birth pangs".

Although the substance of these meetings has not yet been disclosed, the participants must have agreed on some sort of division of labour, whereby Israel would undertake the war effort, and therefore choose the time and excuse for launching the offensive, and the US would wage the diplomatic battle in a manner that would give Israel the time it needed to accomplish its objectives. Israel's declared objectives were to disarm Hizbullah, destroy its military infrastructure and drive its forces north of the Litani River and to secure the unconditional release of the two Israeli soldiers that Hizbullah forces captured 12 July.

The undeclared objectives were much more ambitious. If Israel hoped it could capitalise on its military achievements by altering the political situation on the ground -- so as to ultimately lead to a Lebanese-Israeli peace treaty -- the Americans had their sights set further afield. To hawks in Washington, the Israeli offensive in Lebanon was a "test run" for possible military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. The elimination of Hizbullah was to ascertain the neutrality of the Lebanese front in the event of war with Iran, during which Israel would be expected to furnish, at the very least, logistical support. White House officials also believed that the removal of Hizbullah from the Lebanese political map would weaken Syria, Damascus would be forced to relinquish its alliance with Iran and, perhaps, the Palestinian resistance as well, and accept "reasonable" conditions for a peace agreement with Israel. If Iran's nuclear programme could be destroyed, the Middle East would be on the threshold of that rebirth that Washington has been so ardently anticipating.

Everything was set on the diplomatic stage and, particularly after the Hizbullah raid of 12 July, there would be no obstructions of the sort that preceded the invasion of Iraq. The EU was ready to cooperate with the US to the fullest extent, especially with a new government in power in Germany, warmer Franco-American relations following the passage of UN Resolution 1559, and with key Arab states ready to back the diplomatic cover by casting the blame for an Israeli offensive on Hizbullah. Because all the US had to do was to keep the Lebanese crisis out of the Security Council for as long as possible, the US fully expected a smooth drive through international diplomatic circuits. So things transpired at first.

Washington had no difficulty in persuading its fellow G8 members, meeting in St Petersburg 16 July, to hold "Hizbullah and its allies in Iran and Syria" fully responsible for the war and to regard them as "a source of instability in the Middle East". At the same time, Washington blithely turned a blind eye to all appeals to end the hostilities and call for an immediate ceasefire. Instead, the US secretary of state said, "there should be a ceasefire only when it is determined that the circumstances are such that there will be no return to the unstable situation that existed beforehand."

The success, however, of the American diplomatic drive was contingent upon the realisation of two conditions: the destruction of Hizbullah's military infrastructure within a reasonable period of time and the political isolation of Hizbullah inside Lebanon for having courted the Israeli offensive. Neither of these conditions came to fruition, the first because of the steadfastness and efficacy of the defences of the resistance, the second because of the brutality of the Israeli bombardment. As a result, the American-Israeli plan went awry.

The Lebanese rallied behind the resistance with a resolve that helped isolate those forces or bodies of opinion that might have otherwise supported American plans and the Sunni versus Shia card failed in the face of the massive public outcry in the Arab and Islamic world against Israeli aggression, compelling Arab and other governments to change tack and begin to urgently press for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.

Then came the Rome conference, which the Americans had expected to be a forum for international support for the deployment of Lebanese forces in the south and the dismantling of Hizbullah, which Washington had branded a terrorist organisation bent on forcefully preventing the Lebanese central government from exercising its sovereignty over the whole of Lebanese territory.

Instead, the US suddenly found itself presented with Fouad Al-Siniora's seven point truce plan, forcing Washington to scramble for an excuse to buy Israel more time in the hope that Israel would still be able to resolve the situation militarily and impose its own conditions for a ceasefire. However, the Americans could only procrastinate for so long. In the end it could not continue to obstruct and resist pressure for the passage of Security Council Resolution 1701.

When considering this controversial resolution, it is important to distinguish between a technical reading and a political one. Technically, Resolution 1701 comes down heavily on Israel's side, granting it the prerogatives it had failed to achieve militarily on the ground. Politically, however, the balances of power on the ground oppose the implementation of the American and Israeli interpretation of 1701.

Thus, all is now contingent on future developments. The resolution may have brought an end to a round of military showdown between Israel and Hizbullah, but the war isn't over yet. Indeed, as Robert Fisk points out in The Independent of 17 August, the real war may have only just begun.

Any reading of the situation on the ground has to take into account the fact that Hizbullah was not defeated, regardless of what one might infer from the wording of 1701. In fact, one could actually argue that Hizbullah scored a victory.

After all, it still holds the two Israeli soldiers; it still retains its militia (in spite of the deployment of the Lebanese army in the south and the arrival of large numbers of international forces); Shebaa Farms is officially being regarded as occupied, or at least disputed, territory; and the international community now officially recognises the sensitivity and urgency of the Lebanese prisoner of war question. So long as Israel does not decide to attack again -- and it is highly doubtful that it could with the presence of so many international forces on the ground -- any prospective political settlement must provide for a prisoner exchange and the return of Shebaa Farms to Lebanese sovereignty.

It is now almost impossible to conceive the disarmament of Hizbullah outside the framework of a Lebanese national accord, with Hizbullah voluntarily disarming in exchange for a commitment to build a strong national army, an international guarantee against future Israeli aggression and, perhaps, a solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Clearly, such an accord would be a long time in coming and, undoubtedly, entail the participation of other regional and international powers, which, in turn, will seek some linkage to the other facets of the complex Arab-Israeli struggle.

At the same time, however, we must not forget that 1701 is based on the premise that Hizbullah is a terrorist organisation in the face of which the international community is duty bound to come to the rescue of the Lebanese government.

The logic -- determined, of course, by an international balance of power skewed heavily in favour of the world's sole superpower -- flies in the face of the important reality that Hizbullah is a legitimate Lebanese political party with a bloc in parliament and members in government. In other words, Hizbullah is part of the government that the international community is supposed to be supporting.

Ultimately, therefore, the implementation of 1701 depends on the actions and attitudes of the Lebanese government, which cannot be forced to do anything against its will regardless of how the US and Israel interpret the resolution.

As long as this remains the case, one can envision the situation reaching a danger point only under one condition, which is that the Lebanese government takes the view that Hizbullah is an organisation operating outside of the law and whose militia needs to be disarmed by force. As 1701 gives the Lebanese government broad powers to determine the nature of the duties incumbent upon UNIFIL (the UN Interim Forces in Lebanon), theoretically it can ask these forces to assist it in stripping Hizbullah of its arms.

This, naturally, is a recipe for civil war, which one would think that all parties would do their utmost to avert. Therefore, one can not help but to feel troubled by some of the statements issued by various Lebanese officials and Hassan Nasrallah's angry responses. Surely, Lebanon's past experience should be sufficient to alert the Lebanese to the need to keep cool and rational heads so that 1701 does not turn into a tool for tearing Lebanon apart politically, especially after all the destruction Israel wrought militarily.

The Pharaonic tyranny in Egypt.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion
The Pharaonic tyranny in Egypt, Democracy and Citizenship Rights.

http://discussv5.takingitglobal.org/thread/16275

The Egyptian National Security and the Future of the Middle East ,
WE requires reviewing a new way of thinking, Democracy and Citizenship Rights and a daring approach in finding unique solutions, The fourth annual conference of the National Democratic Party (NDP) saw Gamal Mubarak, the 43-year-old son of President Hosni Mubarak, consolidate his image as a dynamic reformer. During the conference, convened under the banner "New thinking and a second leap towards the future", the president's son played a leading role in all debates, on issues of immediate concern, in point such as that:-

1) Dedicated to constitutional amendments, as
well as
2)To those devoted to strategic and national
security matters,
3) Long- term projects such as the possibility of
building nuclear power stations.
4) Leader of "a new group of reformers who are
now in government".
5) The protector of the poor and marginalised ,
6) While at the same time arguing for less
government intervention in the economy.
7) The hardships suffered by ordinary Egyptian
citizens from Marsa Matrouh in the west to
Sinai in the east
and Aswan in the south... Around major cities
many people live in haphazard communities
and all of them need serious care."

8) To air the hardships and grievances review
which poor families face,
ranging from water pollution and disease in
cities like Kafr Al-Sheikh and Kafr Al-Zayat
to severe unemployment in Upper Egypt."
9) The state can no longer continue to dominate,
as of old, economic activity and business.
10) The state should concentrate on protecting
Egypt's most vulnerable citizens: "the most
vital role of the state
in the coming period will be in protecting the
poor, though it must do this in a new way
11) The divestiture of government services in one
vital sector, less government intervention in
the economy.
12) The role of the state should be in how the
concept of social care can be extended to
serve ordinary Egyptians.. and it is far
removed from the situation in which the state
played the role of investor, employer
and exporter..."

13) There is new vision of the state as a
regulator and facilitator rather than a provider
should be Debates.

14) We must be more daring and open-minded,"
particularly when it came to sectors
such as health and education that are in
urgent need of reform. "In the health sector
public hospitals need be restructured to
allow for private investment while in
education reform will come to a standstill as
long as some continue to hold reservations
about private schools."

15) Need new leaders & leading advocate of
political reform, Democracy and Citizenship
Rights.

16) The nine-point election programme which
included reinforcing the powers of the
legislative and executive
authorities,curtailing the powers of the
president, adopting a new electoral system,
fixing a quota of seats
for women in parliament and devolving more
power to municipal councils. It also adopting
a Western- style anti-terror law to replace
the 24-year-old emergency law and for judicial
authority to be strengthened.

17) We need a clear-cut and detailed government
programme to usher Egypt towards a new
Era of constitutional and legislative
amendments.

18) We should reject foreign initiatives that daily
attempt to dissolve the identity of the Arab
world through what is called the Middle East
Initiative Project (MEIP) and others like it."
That Introduced by the Bush administration
in 2004, MEIP aims to democratise the Middle
East and change its image as a hotbed of
Islamist terrorism.
"we reject both the Greater and New Middle
East and emphasise that these initiatives
will never deflect us from."

19) We expressed outright rejection of all
foreign initiatives which aim to tamper with
the destiny of the people."
20) We denounced Pope Benedict's recent
remarks on Islam.
NDP conference discussions touched on
prospects for political, social and economic
reforms

Now I have some paper work for you post,
your point of view !!
AS Everyone is entitled to his own opinion !!
That is only to prepare your Leadership for the future Government & state, But remember me when ylaying the
foundations of our renaissanceou get there , just call my name,
Fredex126 - King Tutes JR
: THANKS >
BEST REGARDS .
______________________________________________
NOW MY BROTHER GET THER & MAKE YOUR POINT OF VIEW .

http://discussv5.takingitglobal.org/thread/16275

______________________________________________________________________________



September 24, 2006 | 1:38 PM

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion
The Pharaonic tyranny in Egypt, Democracy and Citizenship Rights.

http://discussv5.takingitglobal.org/thread/16275

The Egyptian National Security and the Future of the Middle East ,
WE requires reviewing a new way of thinking, Democracy and Citizenship Rights and a daring approach in finding unique solutions, The fourth annual conference of the National Democratic Party (NDP) saw Gamal Mubarak, the 43-year-old son of President Hosni Mubarak, consolidate his image as a dynamic reformer. During the conference, convened under the banner "New thinking and a second leap towards the future", the president's son played a leading role in all debates, on issues of immediate concern, in point such as that:-

1) Dedicated to constitutional amendments, as
well as
2)To those devoted to strategic and national
security matters,
3) Long- term projects such as the possibility of
building nuclear power stations.
4) Leader of "a new group of reformers who are
now in government".
5) The protector of the poor and marginalised ,
6) While at the same time arguing for less
government intervention in the economy.
7) The hardships suffered by ordinary Egyptian
citizens from Marsa Matrouh in the west to
Sinai in the east
and Aswan in the south... Around major cities
many people live in haphazard communities
and all of them need serious care."

8) To air the hardships and grievances review
which poor families face,
ranging from water pollution and disease in
cities like Kafr Al-Sheikh and Kafr Al-Zayat
to severe unemployment in Upper Egypt."
9) The state can no longer continue to dominate,
as of old, economic activity and business.
10) The state should concentrate on protecting
Egypt's most vulnerable citizens: "the most
vital role of the state
in the coming period will be in protecting the
poor, though it must do this in a new way
11) The divestiture of government services in one
vital sector, less government intervention in
the economy.
12) The role of the state should be in how the
concept of social care can be extended to
serve ordinary Egyptians.. and it is far
removed from the situation in which the state
played the role of investor, employer
and exporter..."

13) There is new vision of the state as a
regulator and facilitator rather than a provider
should be Debates.

14) We must be more daring and open-minded,"
particularly when it came to sectors
such as health and education that are in
urgent need of reform. "In the health sector
public hospitals need be restructured to
allow for private investment while in
education reform will come to a standstill as
long as some continue to hold reservations
about private schools."

15) Need new leaders & leading advocate of
political reform, Democracy and Citizenship
Rights.

16) The nine-point election programme which
included reinforcing the powers of the
legislative and executive
authorities,curtailing the powers of the
president, adopting a new electoral system,
fixing a quota of seats
for women in parliament and devolving more
power to municipal councils. It also adopting
a Western- style anti-terror law to replace
the 24-year-old emergency law and for judicial
authority to be strengthened.

17) We need a clear-cut and detailed government
programme to usher Egypt towards a new
Era of constitutional and legislative
amendments.

18) We should reject foreign initiatives that daily
attempt to dissolve the identity of the Arab
world through what is called the Middle East
Initiative Project (MEIP) and others like it."
That Introduced by the Bush administration
in 2004, MEIP aims to democratise the Middle
East and change its image as a hotbed of
Islamist terrorism.
"we reject both the Greater and New Middle
East and emphasise that these initiatives
will never deflect us from."

19) We expressed outright rejection of all
foreign initiatives which aim to tamper with
the destiny of the people."
20) We denounced Pope Benedict's recent
remarks on Islam.
NDP conference discussions touched on
prospects for political, social and economic
reforms

Now I have some paper work for you post,
your point of view !!
AS Everyone is entitled to his own opinion !!
That is only to prepare your Leadership for the future Government & state, But remember me when ylaying the
foundations of our renaissanceou get there , just call my name,
Fredex126 - King Tutes JR
:cool::stunned::confused::cool::o:):)

:crying::D:o:(:);):angry: ALL OF IT THANKS >
BEST REGARDS .
______________________________________________
NOW MY BROTHER GET THER & MAKE YOUR POINT OF VIEW .

http://discussv5.takingitglobal.org/thread/16275

______________________________________________________________________________

Presidential, not president

The NDP's three-day conference, which ends today, saw Gamal Mubarak consolidating his position within the party.The fourth annual conference of the National Democratic Party (NDP) saw Gamal Mubarak, the 43-year-old son of President Hosni Mubarak, consolidate his image as a dynamic reformer. During the conference, convened under the banner "New thinking and a second leap towards the future", the president's son played a leading role in all debates, on issues of immediate concern, such as that dedicated to constitutional amendments, as well as those devoted to strategic and national security matters and long- term projects such as the possibility of building nuclear power stations.

Gamal Mubarak's ever rising profile came at the conference followed his being singled out by US President George Bush for praise. Bush was quoted in the Wall Street Journal of 9 September as saying that Mubarak junior was the leader of "a new group of reformers who are now in government".

Indeed, many observers noted that Gamal Mubarak's performance at the NDP conference was nothing short of presidential -- improvisation, political acumen and winning personality. Nevertheless, he distanced himself from suggestions by certain party members that he should run for the presidency. "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. Hold me accountable only for what I say," he explained.

From the moment the conference opened on Tuesday Gamal Mubarak easily overshadowed his sole old-guard rival, NDP Secretary-General Safwat El-Sherif, dominating the event to such an extent that many younger NDP members began openly to speak of him as the heir apparent of his father.

On Tuesday he introduced himself to the audience with a difficult balancing act, presenting himself as the protector of the poor and marginalised while at the same time arguing for less government intervention in the economy.

"Many assumed I would use the conference's opening speech to proudly list the achievements of the government and party members," he said in his keynote speech. "They will be disappointed, because in this conference I aim to focus on the hardships suffered by ordinary Egyptian citizens from Marsa Matrouh in the west to Sinai in the east and Aswan in the south... Around major cities many people live in haphazard communities and all of them need serious care."

The principal job of participants at this conference, he added, "is to air the hardships and grievances which poor families face, ranging from water pollution and disease in cities like Kafr Al-Sheikh and Kafr Al-Zayat to severe unemployment in Upper Egypt."

To meet the challenges Egypt faces, he argued, "requires a new way of thinking and a daring approach in finding unique solutions."

"I think it is now apparent to everyone that the state can no longer continue to dominate, as of old, economic activity and business."

Instead the state should concentrate on protecting Egypt's most vulnerable citizens: "the most vital role of the state in the coming period will be in protecting the poor, though it must do this in a new way," he said, before outlining the ways in which he thought the government should be acting.

"The divestiture of government services in one vital sector like telecommunications allowed the state to relieve itself of a heavy burden while at the same time raising large sums of money for the treasury against the third mobile phone licence." Of the sum raised, he added, LE5 billion has been allocated to improving railway services, LE2 billion to bolstering drainage infrastructure and LE1 billion to creating new employment opportunities in Upper Egypt. He also praised the government's decision two months ago to raise petrol prices and then use some of the revenues generated to subsidise bread.

"These are just two examples of what the role of the state should be and how the concept of social care can be extended to serve ordinary Egyptians... and it is far removed from the situation in which the state played the role of investor, employer and exporter..."

He urged party members to be more insistent in promoting this new vision of the state as a regulator and facilitator rather than a provider.

"In conveying this message party members must be more daring and open-minded," he said, particularly when it came to sectors such as health and education that are in urgent need of reform.

"In the health sector public hospitals need be restructured to allow for private investment while in education reform will come to a standstill as long as some continue to hold reservations about private schools."

Opposition groups interpreted the speech as a call for sweeping privatisation. Diaaeddin Dawoud, leader of the Nasserist Party, told Al-Ahram Weekly that "Gamal Mubarak is a businessman and the role he is playing now is to broaden the scope of business under the guise of reform."

More dangerous, he added, "is that by giving himself the right to speak about the state and its functions Gamal Mubarak has become not just the head of the NDP's Policies Committee but is usurping the prerogative of the head of state who has the absolute right to raise such crucial matters."

On the conference's second day Gamal Mubarak was keen to present himself as a leading advocate of political reform. He took charge of reviewing Democracy and Citizenship Rights, an updated version of the 2003 paper of the same title to which two chapters had been added, the first dealing with the NDP's progress in implementing political reforms over the past year, the second addressing the constitutional and legislative amendments to be pursued in 2007.

The paper placed special emphasis on President Mubarak's 2005 nine-point election programme which included reinforcing the powers of the legislative and executive authorities, curtailing the powers of the president, adopting a new electoral system, fixing a quota of seats for women in parliament and devolving more power to municipal councils. It also called for adopting a Western-style anti-terror law to replace the 24-year-old emergency law and for judicial authority to be strengthened.

Gamal Mubarak insisted President Mubarak's election programme was not the product of debates held behind closed doors.

"It is a clear-cut and detailed programme that was announced by the president in July 2005 to usher Egypt towards a new era of constitutional and legislative amendments... Some people alleged that this programme was just a smokescreen but they have been proved wrong, especially after laws dealing with judicial sovereignty, publication offences and remand-into-custody were passed."

Leaders of opposition parties, though, are far from convinced, writing of this commitment to reform as no more than rhetoric.

"The amendments introduced by the NDP are very modest and certainly will not shake the foundations of Pharaonic tyranny in Egypt," said Rifaat El-Said, leader of the leftist Tagammu Party.

When he alerted the audience's attention to a paper headlined Egyptian National Security and the Future of the Middle East it seemed that Gamal Mubarak was donning a pan-Arabist hat. Having been praised by President Bush two weeks earlier, he seemed keen to distance himself from the US administration.

"We reject," he told conference delegates, "foreign initiatives that daily attempt to dissolve the identity of the Arab world through what is called the Middle East Initiative Project (MEIP) and others like it."

The audience went into a rapture of applause.

Introduced by the Bush administration in 2004, MEIP aims to democratise the Middle East and change its image as a hotbed of Islamist terrorism.

NDP Secretary-General El-Sherif echoed his words, saying "we reject both the Greater and New Middle East and emphasise that these initiatives will never deflect us from laying the foundations of our renaissance."

"The NDP's leader -- President Mubarak -- expressed his outright rejection of all foreign initiatives which aim to tamper with the destiny of the people." El-Sherif also drew applause when he denounced Pope Benedict's recent remarks on Islam.

C a p t i o n : NDP conference discussions touched on prospects for political, social and economic reforms