Perspectives on Regionalism in (Southern) Africa
This review essay uses the works of Nana Poku (2001), James Sidaway (2002) and Andrew Grant and Fredrik Soderbaum (2003) as principal texts for the discussion on regionalism in Africa. Together, the works of both authors create an elaborate text on regionalism in the continent and provide the intellectual space for re-assessing regionalisation in (southern) Africa against the backdrop of discourses of regionalism elsewhere. The essay is not intended to offer book reviews. Rather, the aim is to tease out salient points in the texts in order to bring them into a coherent discussion. The intensive re-conceptualisation of regions, place, space and scale has yielded a quite different appreciation of regions and their formation than what the areal differentiation school of thought once offered. The result has been to conceive spatial differentiation in terms of practices and processes rather than some given or preconceived qualities. Accordingly, 'it has become typical to understand regions as historically contingent social processes emerging as a constellation of institutionalised practices, power relations and discourse' (Paasi, 2004, p. 540). In this sense, spatial differentiation cannot be reduced to a single scale (Duncan and Savage, 1989). Agents of regionalism are not necessarily limited to the regional scale, but are part of a constellation of practices and a mix of actors. As Beauregard (1995, p. 239) has correctly noted, 'once we focus our attention on the agents who literally make scale, the partitioning of space into global-national-regional-local seems simplistic . . . In fact, it is the mix of those actors, and the distribution of influence among them, that results in such places becoming regional, national or international nodes in the world-system'. It can be argued that the ramification of power relations, together with changes in the nature and scales at which regions are formed, render the notion of the region unstable. Indeed, calls for new regionalisms have become a familiar feature of the debate
Groping in the Dark with the “Non-Places” BRICS: Geopolitics of the Emergence of an Empire or States Racing to the Bottom?
Theorization of regionalism is yet to resolve the question of the appropriateness of amalgamation versus pluralism jurisdiction. The formation of the BRICs in 2009, and the inclusion of South Africa in the 2011 BRICS in complete disregard of the Goldman Sachs’ foundational conceptual modelling and forecasting of the original acronym (Brazil, Russia, India and China), has tacitly reinvented the philosophical and conceptual questioning of globalism and regionalism. The BRICS does not fit notions of amalgamation or pluralism regionalism, thereby accentuating the cracks of the explanatory power in analytical concepts of market integrationism in global geopolitics and international relations. Whereas China and Russia are not perfect fit for the concept of emerging economies, the business, financial and economic framing of the set is grounded in an oxymoron of the calibre of development, globalization and regionalism. The latter two have appeared to provide convenient flags under which all ships could sail; hence, the emergence of the BRICs, BRICS, Nafta, Mercosur, Next-11, BRICSAM and IBSA. Given historical matrices of coloniality in global geopolitics and international relations, Russia and, perhaps, China could be harbouring self-interests relating to cultural, historical and ideological assimilation within the set. To this extent, the BRICS set’s regionalism should construed as another oxymoron wherein member states joined “non-places” that are “groping in the dark” within global geopolitics and international relations. Nuance notions of “empires” provide useful insights to understanding the motives underlying the BRICS set. This article aims to determine if the BRICS set signifies the emergence of contemporary empires with “civilizing” missions or if it is a manifestation of states racing to the bottom. The article concludes that the BRICS is a deeply complex and conflicted set that involves attempts at both externally-driven and inward-oriented management of international geopolitics through “civilizing” missions and/or “non-places” regionalism of states racing to the bottom. DOI: 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n25p187
Stereoselective interaction between the R enantiomer of warfarin and cimetidine.
The stereoselectivity of the pharmacokinetic interaction between warfarin and cimetidine was investigated in eight healthy volunteers. The warfarin enantiomers were given separately as single doses (15 mg) alone and during chronic administration of cimetidine (1 g day-1). Cimetidine did not interact with S warfarin but there was an interaction with the R enantiomer of warfarin. Cimetidine caused a significant increase in the mean plasma half-life of R warfarin (from 47.8 h to 57.8 h) and a significant decrease in its mean plasma clearance (from 2.3 to 1.7 ml h-1 kg-1) (P less than 0.02). Administration of a pharmacological dose of vitamin K1 together with the enantiomers of warfarin was necessary clinically and resulted in elevation of vitamin K1 2,3-epoxide concentrations, which were similar in each case.