Globalization 874
In fact, as British political scientist Anthony Giddens writes in his eerily prescient book Runaway World: How Globalism is Reshaping Our Lives, the conflict now underway between the United States and some extremist fundamentalists was inevitable. Cosmopolitans welcome technology and cultural diversity, while fundamentalists find it disturbing and dangerous.
In a globalizing world -- one of its cornerstones being the Net -- technology, information, culture, money, business and imagery are routinely transmitted across the world. Boundaries mean different things now, including the inescapable fact that they are highly porous. This enrages political, social and religious fundamentalists, as we are hurriedly learning. They turn to religion, ethnic identity and nationalism to build "purer" traditions -- and a few turn to violence.
So despite the fact that there's no consensus on exactly what globalism is (my dictionary defines it as the process by which social institutions become adopted on a worldwide scale), the questions torment us: is globalism a force to ease poverty and inequality, by bringing higher standards of living and new technologies to poor and distant regions? Or merely an unprecedented vehicle for promoting the greed, conformity, environmental destruction and profit-at-all-cost ethos of multinational corporations? Perhaps it's both.
Giddens' predictions are coming true before our eyes. The conflict is here, and we seem to be unwilling and unknowing combatants. We, along with our leaders, are astonished at just how much we seem to be hated out there. We see our popular and technological culture despised in much of the world. Fundamentalist extremists have declared a holy war against it, one that may continue for years with bloody and uncertain consequences.
It's not an oversimplification to say that technology is the prime battleground. Technologies from movie cameras to TV sets to the Net are the means by which culture and wealth travel from one part of the world to the other. Fundamentalists have declared war on technology as much as on anything. And from anthrax to passenger jets as missiles, they've shown a sophisticated grasp of how technology can be used to devastating effect against its creators, who revel in making it but not thinking much about it.
In this conflict what Giddens calls "the cosmopolitan approach" is the choice of the people who are reading this column and working in the tech universe. We value free speech, religious freedom, scientific exploration, open communications, cultural choice and diversity. Such tolerance is closely conected to democracy.
Yet democracy and fundamentalism are both spreading world-wide, two seemingly irreconcilable ideologies colliding head-on. As Giddens points out, globalism creates a paradox: democratic cultures are its most enthusiastic proponents, yet globalism doesn't seem to promote democracy so much as corporate profits and practices. In fact, you could argue that globalism seems to expose the limits of democratic structures: Can governments preserve the environment, keep work secure and equitable, ensure fair wages, control capitalism, distribute new technologies equitably, respect diverse cultural values, contain greed and restrict the imagery that Americans love but that frightens and offends large segments of the world population?
In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)
Bad side of globalization (Score:4, Informative)
It was discovered that one of the great causes of discontent and unrest in Central America in the 60's was unintentional, where Peace Corps workers left out magazines, loaded with american advertisements, where locals saw them. The indiginous people, uninitiated to the ways of Madison Avenue, would see what american had, what their country and culture lacked and it erroded their faith in their own noble cultures. They had to have cars, they had to have women with come hither looks, they had to drink Tanqueray, they had to have a Timex! Discontent breeds revolution, revolution creates upheaval and all the ills (hunger, disease, orphans, maimed bodies, etc.) Enter the "fundamentalist", whether it's Daniel Ortega spouting the promises of Marxism and reclaiming the land in the name of the people, or some Mullah in Afghanistan preaching a glorious afterlife littered with nubile virgins to people desperately poor, the appeal is the same: Anything is better than what we have now.
The bitterness of people in the middle east has been a long time simmering. From european colonialism to corporate colonialism to the shameful double standard of Israel vs. Arabs (and yet these people come from the same blood, but tell them that.)
Now the West loses billions of dollars in upset commerce, tourism, etc., and it's the poorest people on earth the US is pitted against in a war which consumes even more billions of dollars. (With hopes from some that war will stimulate the economy(!))
Jimmy Buffett had it right, if you ever have listened to the Feeding Frenzy CD. Drop a bunch of money on these people, then drop a bunch of catalogs, for the cost of one B-1 bomber we could have full employment, they could have all kinds of toys and we'd have peace. Well, peace if that bully in Israel would stop the acts of war against the palestinians.
My $0.02 anyway...
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Contrast: The Economist (Score:4, Informative)
Free London School of Economics Course (Score:4, Informative)
The London School of Economics is giving a Free course called "The Globalisation Debate" at the onlineline University course clearinghouse "Fathom.com [fathom.com]. Their system doesn't permit direct linking, so you will need to search on Globalisation, or the school. Here's the course description:
Globalisation is a fervidly contested and often misunderstood concept. It has occupied and divided economists, sociologists and anti-capitalists alike. Anti-globalisation protestors have regularly and successfully picketed World Trade Organisation summits as part of their stand against the might of globalisation. Yet, many economists tout the benefits of increased trade, sophisticated telecommunications networks and cross-border investment to developing countries, pointing to the gains workers and unions throughout the world stand to make from closer integration.
Most people seem to know whether they are for or against globalisation, without pausing to consider what exactly it is and where its effects can be seen. Globalisation might be a term too slippery to be closely defined, but it is a vibrant debate worth engaging in.
In this seminar two major sociologists put forward their versions of globalisation. For Anthony Giddens, it is a phenomenon characterised by fundamental changes in the world economy, the communications revolution and trade between nation-states in physical commodities, information and currency. For Leslie Sklair, globalisation should be seen as a new phase of capitalism, one that transcends the unit of the nation-state. In an interview, he introduces the globalisation debate and stakes out his position within it. Sklair builds on these arguments through a flash image gallery, which explores how the idea of globalisation is used by transnational corporations.
The course is taught by Leslie Sklair is a reader in sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and is responsible for the doctoral programme in the sociology department. He has been a visiting professor at New York University, San Diego State University and Hong Kong University, and has lectured on globalisation all over the world. His Sociology of the Global System (1995) has been translated into Japanese, Portuguese, Persian, Chinese and Spanish. He has conducted fieldwork on transnational corporations in Mexico, China, Hong Kong, Egypt and Australia, and in Europe and North America.
Re:Globalisation for Greed (Score:3, Informative)
Errr no it isn't. This is exactly what happend
Last year $43m [progress.org] was sent...
also from CNN Last paragraph [cnn.com] Lots of the Taliban are ex-members of "freedom fighters" including their leader.
It isn't the same as supporting Poland as there you are supporting a country, integral in itself. Here we are talking about various nutters with guns who we happen to like. Lets not kid ourselves that the currently popular "Northern Alliance" are not a bunch of murdering thugs as well.
Fund murderous thugs and eventually you get your reward. Previously they had a common enemy (the USSR), then they had each other, then they had their previous paymasters. Same situation as Iraq.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
The US gives over $5 billion a year to Israel in aid. Together with the $2 billion given to Egypt for signing the camp David accords that is over half the US aid budget.
This largess is given to a country whose idea opf promoting peace is to take land from the Palestinians to build 'settlements' that are intended to make their occupation permanent and whose thanks to the US is for their Prime Minister to cal President Bush 'an appeaser'.
aparently bin laden NEVER spoke of the palestinean/israeli conflict before september 11th
The statement is untrue. The declaration of war against the US issued by Bin Laden many years ago mentions Israel. Zawhiri, the man somewhat inaccurately refered to as Bin Laden's 'number 2' is actually the head of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad who murdered Saddat for signing the camp David agreement. Israel has been the primary cause for Islamic Jihad for 20 years. Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad have essentially been the same organization since Bin Laden was expelled from Sudan.
There is only one response that Sharon should be making at this time 'How can we help'. Instead Sharon ordered an invasion of the West Bank on the 12th September and the assasination of 20 odd Palestinians - causing the deths of another 40 civilians who were killed by the bombs planted to kill the terrorists. The fact that Sharon has gone out of his way to incite more violence during the time of America's need is absolutely dispicable.
Sharon is not a friend of the US.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
There was a good bit on it at newsday.com, but they pulled it. Here's google's cache of it [google.com].
This one's a bit extreme:
In a civilized world, Mr. Negroponte would not be a candidate for high public office; he would be on trial for crimes against humanity. As U.S. ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985, he oversaw the supply mission for U.S.-trained "Contra" terrorists, based in Honduras, who waged war against the people and government of Nicaragua. Part of that campaign involved ensuring that the regime in Honduras received hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military and economic aid, despite its dismal human-rights record. Thus, when Battalion 316, a CIA-trained body of the Honduran army, slaughtered hundreds of alleged dissidents and kidnapped and tortured hundreds of others, Mr. Negroponte turned a blind eye. In reports to his government, he consistently claimed that the Honduran regime bore no responsibility for the wave of atrocities unleashed in that country. This week, Mr. Negroponte, an architect of terror and the illegal violation of state sovereignty, will be confirmed as the U.S. representative to a forum - the United Nations - whose Charter is based on respect for the sovereignty of all countries, whether rich or poor, and which claims to safeguard the rights of all human beings, whether powerful or powerless.
Hell, it's not even a complete sentence, but it gets the point across.
Re:Actually... (Score:1, Informative)
You just have to be intelligent and knowledgeable!
Anyway... don't get mixed up if you are a patriot. The US as it presents itself in no way reflects the entire country. I'm sure some Americans hate the US!
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
You miss out one important step. The violence started the day that Sharon forced his way into the Mosque on the temple mount.
Sharon's behaviour was a deliberate attempt to incite a violent reaction which he calculated would be to his personal political advantage.
Sharon's strategy worked, he became Prime Minister before Netanyahu managed to complete his political comeback from the corruption allegations that had caused him to loose office.
As for the settlements, I don't believe that they are being extended, nor is any land being taken to make room for them (certainly not now),
According to Haaretz the number of settlements has doubled since the Oslo accords were signed. Confiscations of land to build settlements have taken place without any pause since the Sharon government came to power.
The US has repeatedly demanded that Israel stop building settlements and withdraw from those built since Oslo. As always these demands have been ignored, the Israeli right being confident that they can get the Congress to vote them whatever subsidies Israel demands.
but it's not particularly more right to suggest the Israelis living there should be kicked out than anybody else at this point.
So if you come and take my house the fact you have taken it from me means that I have no rights whatsoever to demand its return?
The Israelis occupying the West Bank and Gaza know that they are living on stolen land, in many cases they stole the land themselves at the point of a gun. What possible objection can there be to demanding that the land be returned to the people it was stolen from? Why should the US subsidize the settlers occupation? In Bosnia the settler's type of behavior was called 'ethnic cleansing'.
The Barak peace plan was never a possibility, you only need to look at a map to see why. Israel would keep practically all the settlements and control all the borders of the Palestinian state.
Nobel Laureate Speaks Out, and other thoughts... (Score:2, Informative)
But what does Stiglitz have to say? Well, feel free to read the whole article (linked below), but here's a quote from it:
More than ever, given the current context, the United States should focus on fiscal policies and aim government spending at combating the effects of the terrorist attacks. The recovery of the economy, which could take a long time, depends on effective stimuli from the government, he said.
Globalization, in its fully implemented form, would take government out of having any role whatsoever in controlling such things. Thus, the money-bearing entities would truly control the world. In essense, we would also be dissolving ourselves of an active role in our own government, as well, as we would be placing power in corporations (which are not democratically controlled by us) rather than the government we purport to democratically elect. Erazim Kohak has some interesting words to think over, as well (from Voices of Democracy, see below):
"The demands of the privileged on the finite resources of individual societies as well as of the globe as a whole have accelerated the pauperization of the underprivileged... In the days when populations appeared finite and resources infinite, the affluent north and west of the globe dismissed the problem with the consolation that increasing prosperity of the prosperous would marginally generate prosperity for the deprived. Popularly this came to be known as the 'trickle-down' theory which John Kenneth Galbraith is said to have described as feeding the bird by giving oats to the horse. Unfortunately, that theory has worked only to assuage the consciences of the privileged, not to alleviate the lot of the deprived. In the past fifty years, the gap between the haves and the have-nots has increased precipitously. The global south today is desparately poor and getting poorer, the affluent north is opulently affluent and becoming more so... We can't run a world polarized between incredible wealth and desperate poverty."
I would encourage people to look at the other criticisms that have been proposed, both of globalization raping the already destitute nations to further enrich the rich and of its effects on a true sense of democracy for any nation, including the United States. Some recommended reading:
Re: Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Pull out of the UN. Create a new world-organization that does not include nations who support terrorism. All member-states have to have a minimum standard of identifying citizens who want to cross borders, and serious laws against money laundering that are strictly enforced. Security is what people want. Security is the best way to ensure peace, and prosperity.
What makes you think the rest of the world will follow and dismantle the UN? The rest of the world wants oil, and has other connections with arab nations.
Pull out of Saudi Arabia. Pull out of Israel (since the Israeli government clearly is not interested in peace).
The Israeli government, including Nobel peace prize holder Shimon Peres, is clearly interested in peace. Albeit being under fire, Peres negotiated terms to cease fire. Those terms were all violated, mostly by the Palestinian side, that refused to constrain the terrorists. Seeing those attempts failed, the Israeli government cannot negotitate under fire any longer.
Develop alternative energy sources to power the Western economies of the 21st century.
Easier said than done. On the bright side, oil seems to will have run out in a couple of decades.
Stop all foreign aid and erect trade interdiction to all non-member states.
Let the Arabs starve. Let them know that it's their extremists and their pandering to the extremists that got them into this position, the only way to ensure their own survival and prosperity is to become democratic nations,
Arabs, in Arab countries, are already starving. The living conditions in most Arab countries are horrible. This does NOT generate Democracy. Democracies do NOT arise from such conditions. On the contrary, experience teaches that almost all totalitarian regimes initiated with starvation.
and join the coalition, and find and eliminate their extremists, and stop sponsoring their propaganda in their schools.
What makes you think they (The people) conclude that their regime, Propoganda, or extremists are responsible for this? The people are receptors of propoganda. Leaders control this propoganda.
If they want to farm dust, and play in their oil, and lead mideval lives, they're free to do so. But we should completely cease all contact with those societies, and prevent those people from entering Western society so they can no longer terrorize us.
This is a broad generalization. What will you do about the arabs already in Western countries? How will you prevent the enterance of Arabs into Western civilization through third-party countries, such as "neutral" European countries (France, for instance)?
And Israel's problems should be Israel's alone. I, for one, am sick of taking it in the nuts for them. If they want peace, then they have to get rid of their own extremists.
Makes me wonder what you possibly mean by "get rid of". Israel has constantly been the compromising side in the conflict. And the Palestinian side has constantly been the major source of violence. Yes, it is wrong to let settlers form new settlement, and give rough time to the arabs around, but its far more wrong to allow militant organizations roam the area freely, striking civilians with guns and bombs.
Note that all this recent Palestinian violence started when Ariel Sharon came to power.
As someone else pointed out, this is a blatant lie, as Sharon was elected after the recent violence was initiated, which happened after the Palestinians refused a huge compromise of the Israeli side with no compromise of their own.
He and his extremist regime are just as nasty as the Jerry Falwells and the Mulluh Omars of the world.
Especially the extremist Nobel Peace prize holders, who keep pressing towards a non-violent solution?
If OBL wants to create a "pure islamist state" and use oil as a weapon to topple the West, I say, let him try, and let him fail on his own.
OBL's state is not the primary issue. The deaths of more thousands he might bring is.
The muslims of the world will soon find out that 90% of them don't want a pure islamist state, and when the west finds alternative energy sources, then they'll be crying like the oil industry did in the 80's - remember? OPEC cut back on supply, and demand dropped, and they went hungry.
Hopefully the influence of arab countries will drop as oil runs out. However, this is not sure to bring down the politic power of arab countries, as they still pose the most major threat of instability, that the rest of the world fears so badly.
In the end, what we'll have is a bunch of counter-revolutions in the middle east, Arabs who will overthrow these religious regimes, and they'll be much more strongly committed to democracy, because they had to fight to get it, instead of having "the man" impose it on them "against allah's will".
This is one of the most rediculous claims I've heard. The worse you make these people's lives, the more totalitarian their regimes will look like. Its a fact of history. Nobody will try to implement Democracy where hardly anybody appriciates, or even knows what Democracy is. If you hope of an objective understanding from the "Arab People", you will be highly disappointed.
And the world will be a better place, not only because of the better political climate in the mideast,
How will all of your restrictions, separations, starvations, and other means will make the political climate any better?
but because the western economies will be using less oil, and the environment may actually allow human life to exist on this planet.
This, assuming your new source of energy doesn't contaminate the Earth far worse.
I'd say you should re-think through your ideas.
Hypocrisy from the bourgeoise (Score:4, Informative)
In Osama Bin Laden's message to the American people, which the White House asked newspapers and television to not show, he said the primary reason this happened is because the US military has been occupying his homeland, Saudi Arabia, for a decade. This is usually breezed over in American media, if mentioned at all, but it's what set him against the US to begin with. This is a quite rational, political reason, in fact he got kicked out of Saudi Arabia by the US-friendly monarch of Saudi Arabia for advocating American withdrawal. This makes a lot more sense than the loopy reasons being thrown about here and elsewhere. The people who talk like that have counterparts in the Muslim world, who say we're "evil crusaders bombing Afghanistan because we hate Islam, and no matter what anyone does, the US will always hate Islam and arabs". Someone made a reply here in which they cynically said that OBL never mentioned the Palestinians before 9/11. They have a decent point, this may be so, and many leaders in Islamic countries have used the nexus of Israel and the Palestinians to try to rally broader support from the Muslim world.
Regarding Katz's statement - first, I'm set back by his arrogant view that America is the torch-bearer of cosmopolitan enlightenment, and the world is blessed by the spread of our enlightenment. This is the same kind of manifest destiny, imperialistic, colonial idea that America and the European powers held in centuries past - what results from this type of colonialism? South Africa. The Vietnam War. The antagonisms between Hindus and Muslims on the Indian subcontinent that the British antagonized.
Katz's view on the benevolence of multi-national corporations, capitalism and technology are repulsive to me as a working class American, who knows what reaction a third world nation, who's corrupt bourgeoise politicians borrow from the US and Europeans in the name of the country, only to have the WTO turn around and demand that the country pay up for the money the corrupt bourgeoise of the country stole. What do you think the money borrowed by Pakistan and other countries went towards, building roads in poor, rural areas? Ha! Then the WTO comes in, and has the government privatize all the public utilities (which means that they all become owned by foreign corporations), do away with social welfare programs and so forth.
That's to say nothing of the laundry list of things multinational corporations have done in third world countries, I wouldn't even know where to begin. Perhaps Dow Chemical Union Carbide's gas spill in Bhopal, India which killed thousands and injured hundreds of thousands. I can't educate people as to what the US media has not been educating it's citizens of US involvement around the world in in a short post. You'll have to check out the role of Shell in Nigeria, Nike in Indonesia, Phillip Morris in Thailand (making the US use GATT to sell it's deadly tobacco drugs - and without warning labels, and too children, just like it did decades ago in the US). It's a laugh that the US is sending $1 billion to Colombia to fight drugs - how come we're not spending $1 billion on other drug-producing countries? Hell, the head of the US army "anti-drug" force was caught red-hand trafficking drugs into the US. The US began by stealing the Panama canal a century ago, funded the Colombian military for prior decades because it was "fighting Soviet communist proxies". The Soviet Union folds, but the same money and military support keeps flowing, but now the US military's PR department has changed the reason to "fighting drugs". I could go on and on forever.
It's funny how the US is going to rid the world of fundamentalism when polls show that the US is the most religously fundamentalized country in the industrial world. If the federal government lifted church/state restrictions, the South and the West would put back creationist science, prayer in school and so forth quicker than you'd believe.
A Christian nation like the US should know the bible verse Matthew 7:1-5
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
When it's too late (Score:3, Informative)
You are right in one respect, but wrong in another.
Had the treaty after WW1 been softer, WW2 would probably not have happened. Germany underwent a lot of hardship after WW1, and that was the breeding ground we provided for Hitler. Germans felt unfairly treated.
So, in a way, Chamberlain was doing the right thing - he was being understanding, for Hitler had reason to be outraged.
Today, bin Laden arguably has reason to be outraged, too.
The problem is that in both cases, the mistakes had been made and the process was beyond the point of no return. America can learn from this, and should immediately. Right now, you are upsetting the world, and the world probably will come knocking again and again until you learn your lesson.
If you're gonna be a world leader, think and act globally. Stop your president from saying outragous, silly things like "wanted, dead or alive" and "either your with us, or you're with the terrorists". Granted, he's learning, but I only think he's learning how to restrain himself. Oh - and that's your misconception to correct if I'm wrong.
When you occasionally travel abroad, bother to learn a few phrases in the local language - "thank you", "please", "hello", "yes", "no" and "do you speak english?" for starters.
The list goes on and on. Your nation has an attitude problem almost as big as mine. Maybe it's about time you started doing things right?