Help: Can you edit this paragraph for me?

[Mohammed Abu Risha]

Dear Colleagues

What you see below in English is my translation from an Arab text.

Can I ask you kindly to have a look at my English? Does it seem OK, or does it need amednments to look more English?

Regards
Mar



As a universal order, new liberalism is in its reality a war which aims to take over new areas. This certainly means that the Third World War, or the so called cold war has not come to an end. It also means that the world has not come over with the dual polarity and that it has not restored stability under the victorious. For while we know that the loser of the cold war was the socialist camp, it is still difficult to decide who won: is it the United States, the European Union (in commerce), Japan or the three together. Thanks to the computer and monetary markets, new liberalism is imposing all over the globe new rules and principles that are compatible with its wills and whims. Globalisation therefore is no more than a totalitarian outreach covering all facets of life. The United States which was once the dominant force over world economy has now become remotely governed by the supreme dynamism of monetary power: free trade. This approach of liberalism made use of the permeation property resulting from the proliferation of communication, thus taking over all areas of social activities. And the aftermath was: a fully fledged war.

The culture of the 50s and 60s, a phase in the history of the Third World which proponents of globalisation desire to undervalue and assassinate, is of two types: the culture of domineering imperialism, and that of national liberation. Those who are influenced by the ideology of globalisation want to set forth the dichotomy in accordance with their ideology as: the culture of openness and renewability versus that of recession and stagnation.

[Anglika]

Originally Posted by Mohammed Abu Risha

Dear Colleagues

What you see below in English is my translation from an Arab text.

Can I ask you kindly to have a look at my English? Does it seem OK, or does it need amednments to look more English?

Regards
Mar



As a universal order, new liberalism is in its reality a war which aims to take over new areas. This certainly means that the Third World War, or the so called cold war, has not come to an end. It also means that the world has not come over with the dual polarity and that it has not restored stability under the victorious. [I find this a confusing sentence. What is the "dual polarity"? "the world has not come over - what"? Can you make it clearer?] For while we know that the loser of the cold war was the socialist camp, it is still difficult to decide who won: is it the United States, the European Union (in commerce), Japan or the three together ["all three"]. Thanks to the computer and monetary markets, new liberalism is imposing all over the globe new rules and principles that are compatible with its wills ["aims"] and whims. Globalisation therefore is no more than a totalitarian outreach covering all facets of life. The United States, which was once the dominant force over world economy, has now become remotely governed by the supreme dynamism of monetary power: free trade. This approach of liberalism made use of the permeation property ["the permeating property" (property being what?)] resulting from the proliferation of communication, thus taking over all areas of social activities. And the aftermath was: ["is"/"has been"] a fully fledged war.

The culture of the '50s and '60s, a phase in the history of the Third World which proponents of globalisation desire to undervalue and assassinate,[This specifically means to kill someone of importance. You need to find an alternative term - maybe "eliminate"] is of two types: the culture of domineering imperialism, and that of national liberation. Those who are influenced by the ideology of globalisation want to set forth the dichotomy in accordance with their ideology as the culture of openness and renewability versus that of recession and stagnation.

It's needing a little cleaning up, but not a great deal.

[Mohammed Abu Risha]

Thank you Anglika for your feedback.

Your remarks are right.

As for "dual polarity", here is an explanation of what the author of the original text says:

The past was dominated by two poles: Imperialism vs. Communism. He then alluded to the fact that this "dual polarity" vanished after the collapse of the communist camp. However, he says that a new order has been created by imperialism. The writer seems to think that since imperialism has introduced a new order (which he did not explain) to the world, it follows that the world has not actually overcome the dual polarity mentioned earlier and that a conflict is still going on.

Frankly, this idea in the Arabic text is confusing.

[Anglika]

Normally one contrasts Capitalism and Communism. Do you think the writer meant this, rather than "Imperialism"?

I think I have a possible alternative for the obscure sentence:
It also means that the world has not come over with the dual polarity and that it has not restored stability under the victorious.

It also means that the world has not overcome the dual polarity of Imperialism [Capitalism] and Communism, and that there is still an instability within the capitalist victory.