Slashdot Mirror
Globalization
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.)
The only reasons we seem to be surprised at how much we're hated out there is that we don't take the time to learn what our country has done over there, what past attitudes have been, past policies, past responses. Everyone knows America isn't well-liked in certain areas of the world... but precious few man-on-the-street Joe Average Citizens can tell you -why-. That, in a nutshell, is what the problem is. If people knew -why- we were hated, if they took the time to learn about the past instead of repeating it, maybe we could find a way out of this that doesn't involve a billion dollars worth of explosions.
What type of government could possibly wrap itself around globalization? That is the major stumbling block that I see. The UN has bumbled its way around enough to know that it isn't the answer. Perhaps smaller regional governments (The EU, Pan-African Congress, OAS, etc) are the first answer to get around the poisonous ethnic problems that have caused the latest conflicts in the world. After that, let the global government figure itself out.
This thesis has also been bandied about by Thomas Friedman in The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
[Warning, liberal rant below]
I believe that the forces of integration are long-term stronger and more stable than the forces of disintegration. I believe that the reason that the fringes of cultures are radicalizing is because the centers of cultures are drawing together.
I am a giant proponent of the theory that ideas clash in a marketplace of public discourse and I believe that globalization is merely expanding that marketplace, and that the discourse that results will be beneficial. We're bound to have some bumps along the road. Heck, we're probably bound to go down some blind alleys, but in the end, increased communications and integration will help us all respect each other individually and discover what makes us all human.
[End of Liberal Rant]
Of course, I also believe that the free market is best in 90% of circumstances because it forces individuals to evolve and have goals. My biggest worry is that the concept of individual freedom will be found wanting in the global discussion.
IMHO. HAND.
It hasn't been shown to any degree of conclusiveness that the anthrax attacks were perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists or fundamentalists of any sort. For all we know so far, it could have been some disgruntled biotech industry worker.
JonKatz has an axe to grind; The Economist doesn't. JonKatz will certainly feed your paranoia that the big bad multinationals are out to get you, The Economist will provide a fairer, ballanced set of information.
Iraq - supported against Iran during the Iran v Iraq war, seen as an ally of the west and an aid in getting cheaper oil and controlled oil prices... invade Kuwait (dictatorial regime) and the west turn against Iraq (with "democratically" elected president) because of the risks to oil revenues.
Afghanistan, supported Taliban and Mujahadin against the Soviet Union when they invaded, pushed as "freedom fighters" and "liberators". Soviets leave, so does all of the assistance from the west. Saudi Arabian national accused of leading a group on terrorists in which several (all non-Afghans) commit dreadful attrocities. West decide to invade Afghanistan and attack not the terrorist leader but the previously supported Taliban movement. This of course is unrelated to the desire to have access to the Caspian Sea oil without having to pay Russian pipeline charges.
It might sound a harsh judgement but these are still the facts. Both of these now supposedly "evil" regimes were previously funded and supported by the very people now set against them... the opinions and views of the Taliban and Sadam Hussien have not changed. It is just now politically and economically sensible to take these views.
Having a recession..... start a war, increased employment, increased public spending (defence), flag-waving support to gloss over your lack of leadership.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Yes, as long as we retain our sovereignty and don't turn that over to a multi-national body. I think it would dangerous to allow a multi-national organization like the U.N. to have final say in matters of law and of military over the U.S. We have the longest running democracy of any nation, and it works. Thus, I think its dangerous for countries like Britain, with long-established laws, to turn over power to multi-national institutions like the EU. Let each country govern itself and come to agreements with other countries, but never turn over power or the right to have final say to these organizations. Doing so is a recipe for disaster; it places more power into the hands of fewer people, it makes it more likely for a despot to control more lands, and it takes away from people the ability to govern themselves. The right to self-govern is supreme in the U.S. and hopefully will remain so.
By doing so, we ensure our government responds to us as a people and has control of the military. As long as we have an elected government that controls the military, we don't have to worry too much about the power of other countries, and other multi-national organizations. But if we give up any power to multi-national organizations, we lose ability to govern ourselves, and we lose the freedoms we have worked for over 225 years to create and preserve.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Not quite.
Many anti-globalists are in fact in protest against the prospect of the Disney Planet, McEarth, and the Microsoft World. They are in protest of the potential economic, political, and social rape of the economies and resources of people around the world for the mere financial profit of a few corporations. They are against the corporate democracy where only they voices of the corporations count, and yours do not.
If you are fighting against Microsoft, you are to a certain degree fighting against globalization. This is a much bigger and more complex picture than so quickly sketched above.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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...
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You don't have to be a religious nut harbored by a goverment abroad to be a fundamentalist. In all this hype against Islamic terrorists there appears to have been a careful glossing over of the 2nd worst act of terrorism on US soil.
Why wasn't a war declared on the sort of organisations that McVeigh belonged to, and the sort of anti-goverment far right views that are regularly expressed on right wing talk shows ?
Right now I'd say the smart money is on the anthrax being produced in the US, not in another country. And on the US most wanted terrorists one of them was born in Indiana. If this is truly a war on terrorism then we can look forward to seeing the CIA, MI5, French Secret Service and several others all being labelled as such.
After all what would you call someone who bombed a Red Cross depot ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
So far when we speak/write about globalization, we're talking about the corporate side of things. But if you really look at it, globalization is little more, and nothing less than an ability to transcend national boundaries. This has historically meant travel, expensive travel, restricting it to the Rich and corporations. Hence that's where we focus our rants on globalizations.
But two things have happened. First, transportation has gotten cheaper, so it isn't the province of merely the Rich. Second, the Internet has given us Virtual Travel. These changes ease globalization for all, including bringing it into the price range of more people/groups.
So one can argue that globalized corporations are Evil, though others would contend against that.
Most would argue that globalized institutions like the Red Cross are Good.
Then how about other globalized groups like the Mafia and El Quaeda?
Globalization isn't just for corporatization, any more.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
The battle isn't changing - only the battleground is.
The real fight is the ongoing friction between ever-larger units of society - the individual, the tribe, the nation, and now global society. Individuals chafe against the constraints of their own culture. Then as representatives of their own culture, they struggle against the crush of nationalism. Beyond that, the nations are fighting the coming globalism. This is not a fight that will ever be clearly resolved.
I think by nature humans are individualist and tribalist. However, the lines of those tribes are becoming more and more fluid. I belong to several tribes - SF fandom, Open Source programming, Unitarian Universalism, etc - that overlap some, but are really separate groups, each with their own struggle. As an Open Source advocate, i'm fighting against globalist corporatism on one level. As a Unitarian, i'm fighting against it on another. And against my own tribes, i'm fighting to protect my own identity.
Our tribes give us our connection to society. That connection is what gives us meaning and purpose, beyond mere survival. Nationalism and globalism simplify the survival question by improving our standard of living, but they don't give us much to feed our spirit. And both nationalism and globalism work to crush our tribes, which get in the way of convenient homogeneity.
As for the Middle East, look at what they're getting. They see the worst of globalism - Coca-Cola and Britney Spears - while getting nothing of the best of it, like freedom of speech and a growing economy. And we're crushing the strong and beautiful tribe of Arab and Islamic culture. No wonder they are fighting back! However, i don't think the medievalists like bin Laden can win in the long run, either, because they don't offer anything BUT tribalism.
There's a key... globalist culture provides huge economic incentives to participation, but you pay with your soul. It's great to have a Starbuck's everywhere so you can always get good coffee, but it sucks that Starbuck's is putting the funky individualistic cafes out of business. T-shirts are wiping out tribal dress because they're cheaper (unless you're a geek like me, where the t-shirt and its logo IS your tribal dress. I'm wearing a Klingon Kultural Ekchange shirt under my business casual).
I could go on. Does any of this make sense?
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
You need to define your terms better - your article, as it stands is gibberish.
You confuse at least two types of "globalism":
little-g "globalization" could conceviably take place without Big-G "Globalization", I suppose, but because "globalization" currently comes along with US and Western Europe coporate entities (Ford, Microsoft, British Petroleum, Duetche Telecomm) and US-oriented Popular Culture (Coca Cola, blue jeans, Britney Spears, Hollywood movies), and "Globalization" derives its names and ruling class from US corporate entities, it's easy for some folks to confuse the two. Apparently, you (Jon Katz) haven't made this distinction too clearly.
The London School of Economics is giving a Free course called "The Globalisation Debate" at the onlineline University course clearinghouse "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.
The increase in religious fundamentalism is, in my opinion, the result of the spread of Western liberal culture through the Internet, television etc... The liberation of women from their historic roles, secularism and commercialism are anathema to many religious groups; including not least Christian fundamentalists in the United States.
Globalization is primarily a commercial function, and I don't believe it has a thing to do with the radicalization of opinions in the third world. Most people are happy to work for next to nothing for a rapacious Western conglomerate because their only other choice IS nothing.
Anti-American feelings in the Islamic world is primarily a response to U.S. support for Israel. Finland has some global corporations and you don't here people screaming "Death to Israel, death to Finland!".
Finding a way to reconcile Israel with her Arab neighbors would be a good start in reducing radicalism in the Islamic world. Religious fundamentalism is something we should not worry about, hell, maybe they're right.
Economic globalization is a fundamental choice that each nation is free to make, and again is none of our business.
...for people to come out and lambaste Katz, but it's unusual for me: I prefer to do my Karma Whoring in more meaningful ways, like occasionally posting useful information.
But not this time! Katz, you have clearly gotten in over your head. The non-sequitor upon which this essay is based is an utter disaster. How can you conclude there is ANY relationship at all between a cosmopolitan world-view and acceptance of free trade? I can think of several respected scholars (former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, for one) who firmly believe that the notion of national identities, particularly in business, are passe, but still support the use of tariff mechanisms by nations to protect their domestic social institutions. Read The Work of Nations sometime for insight into Reich's concept of "Strategic Trade."
I realize that the two columns you do here are only a small component of your journalistic work week, but it would behoove you to contemplate that before undertaking an essay on the interrelationship between societal openness and macroeconomics, when you obviously didn't have the opportunity to thoroughly research the macroeconomics piece. What eludes me is how the views of such prominent a figure as Reich could fly under your radar!?
MOO;IANAL.
There used to be a picture linked here.
You miss the point that even if we 'kill all the terrorists', more of them are created every day. You say they hate us because we're powerful, wealthy, intelligent etc. If that is the case, then there are only a few future paths for the U.S. 1) Continue business as usual, and be prepared to deal with the fact that we will always be hated, and will always be the target of violence. 2) Give up our power, wealth, education, etc and turn ourselves into a third world country. 3) Try to spread our wealth and success to the rest of the world.
Most of the brainwashed American masses think that option (1) is the patriotic option, despite the fact that it puts us in the losing situation of trying to fight the whole world and will probably end up in option (2) in the long run. A true patriot would realize that the only long-term path with any semblance of national security is (3). Note that (3) is not what most corporations think about when they are going overseas. They are most certainly not interested in exporting any of the things which make America a very livable place, such as environmental protections, labor laws, etc. Rather they are looking to avoid all of the pesky government 'intrusions' that try to make them act the least bit responsible or decent. They want the 'right' to pollute as much as they want, pay the lowest possible wages, and run like hell taking all of their capitol as soon as the next country looks like it will accept more pollution and even lower wages. Or as soon as they have extracted all the natural resources. Then people like you wonder why the masses in these countries aren't grateful that we gave them our pollution and paid them slave labor wages and strip mined their country.
That's why 'globalization' is such a hot topic. Corporations talk about a level playing field, but what they are really looking for is a way out of the basic regulations that keep America from being a 3rd world country. The Blame America First Club, as you like to call it, wants globalization to mean exporting our labor and environmental laws, our democratic government, as well as capital investment. Corporations are interested in maximizing profits by avoiding labor and environmental regulations. Usually this means avoiding any true democracy as well, since most people actually like things like being paid a decent wage and having clean water to drink and vote accordingly.
When
For those of you who can't stand being enlightened, avert your eyes. Here's some truth for you:
The fundamentalists hate Western culture and they want everyone who lives a life any different from theirs to die. They want Western culture destroyed and will willingly put themselves to death to further their cause.
Why? Because the want their culture to be the dominant one, that's why. It's as simple as that. When one Northern Alliance soldier was asked why he was fighting the Taliban, he said "Because they are not from my tribe." Tribes. That's all this is.
We, and by we I mean the whole of Western society, are a tribe. That's all we are in the eyes of those who want us dead. We are a tribe and the fundamentalists can never belong to our tribe because our way of life is incompatible with theirs. But the fundamentalists can't slow down the spread of our tribe because people the world over and absolutely dying to become part of our tribe. The fundamentalists have been passed over and left in the "has-been" section of the primitive world. And, because of fear, lack of understanding, desperation, whatever, the fundamentalists seek to tear apart the society to which they can not belong.
As I look around the room where I work, I see people who wouldn't assume that they are the same as me. We've got different color skin, different religious backgrounds. But to these terrorists, these religious extremists...we are the same. And we are not them. And thus, we must die.
I want to take a moment to address another couple of statements I read in this thread, without bothering to make multiple repies.
Yes, we've most likely killed more Afghan civilians than whoever is putting Anthrax in the mail has with their attacks. From all accounts, that still leaves more than 5,000 civilians on our side. If you want to draw parallels between agressive acts, you'd better include all of them.
Violence creates more violence. Indeed. But what choice do we have? It is obvious that there are people in the world who hate us so much, they would like nothing better than to kill our people. No political or humanitarian acts will ever stop this way of thinking. The very existence of our nation is a threat to the way of life for extermists such as the terrorists holed up in Afghanistan. Therefore, the only choice we have is to make an example of the Taliban. An example that illustrates a point to other governments: "If you don't keep it under control, you won't stay in power."
Back to globalization. Pay close attention to this, because it's 100% pure truth. We can't stop globilization of Western culture. Why? BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE WANT IT! The Japanese imported music, movies and baseball just to be more like us! Envy for our success and relatively secure life will drive other cultures to want to be like Western cultures. We don't have to be active in the globalization of Western culture...it'll happen without us.
My sigs always suck.
There is no difference.
The real greed is on their side. While we seek only money, the seek power and to take freedoms that others have as proof of their power.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
violence begets more violence - he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword
John, did you notice that a lot of people who don't live by the sword get killed by those with swords? I hate to suggest you might be a bit naive, because I suspect that perhaps you understand this truth but if all of us sheep were to disarm, you think the wolves would disarm too? Sorry, but I have to think not.
I am in agreement that we must understand the nature of the problem on a deeper level than most people seem interested in thinking about it. Only then can we address some of the issues that give the bin Laden's of the world a fertile ground to recruit terrorists from - the dispossessed, the downtrodden, the hopeless. I also agree that certain parts of this 'war on terrorism' could lead to a widening of the conflict... up to and including a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan.
But to suggest that we can allow 6000 murders to go unpunished or unprosecuted is equally reprehensible. I don't (frankly) care what excuse bin Laden has (or the hijackers) - 6000 murders is still 6000 people slaughtered with malice of forethought. The kind of individuals that could do this won't hesitate to do it again and they're far enough gone that attempts at "understanding" will only give them time to work more of their evil. Similarly, waiting for the UN to accomplish anything (ha ha, World Court, good joke...) is pretty utopian and also allows these villains to work their evils.
It boils down to this: If you are a human being, you have some right to life. Those who would abbrogate your right to life for whatever cause are probably evil. They need to be brought to account. Is that all that needs done? Not by half. Afghanistan and a few other places need rebuilt. They need rebuilt not to make them anti-Islamic or to make them capitalist, but rather to make them a place where the women are not oppressed and where reasonless fundamentalism doesn't reign and where terrorists are made unwelcome. That is why we must dismantle their government and their terrorist networks and seek to bag bin Laden.
Innocents will get killed. Some new bad feelings will be created. But appeasement or ignoring the problem because the solution might be costly (as we saw clearly in several historical periods) has lead to more death and destruction than a lot of forthright actions. The horror of war is a universal constant, but the horror of the Taliban and Al-Queda is greater.
And instead of focusing on the few civilian deaths (yes, they are rotten...), try to focus on this: This is probably one of the few wars in history where anyone has TRIED to distinguish between civilian and military targets. No firebombings of Hamburg/Mecca. No Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima/Kabul. There is a conscious effort NOT to hurt those already brutalized by war. Will some be hurt or killed? Probably. But not all that many and the Americans should be lauded (along with their allies) for at least making a firm attempt not to kill those who aren't involved. Ask the Taliban to stop parking military vehicles and HQ inside of civilian neighbourhoods if they value their people. And if they don't, this is further evidence they need removing. I notice Al-Queda and the hijackers don't distinguish between civilian and non-civilian targets. Bin Laden himself said all Americans (and by extension, the rest of us in the civilized capitalist democracies) are his enemies, whether we carry a gun or pay taxes.
I don't know about you... but when a man declares me his enemy without ever meeting me just based on his assumptions about me, and is willing to kill me for that, I'm more than willing to see him prevented (permanently) from doing harm to me or others like me. He is willing to assign my life and the lives of those he uses as pawns a value of zero or less... so I am forced to consider him a fundamentally broken mind and an evil the world can do without.
Thomas B. Canada
-- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
In Part Two: Have multinationals hijacked globalism? (Yes.)
Great! Glad you answered that one. Now I don't have to read the second of two parts.
JonKatz, here are some "Great Rules for Writing" from William Safire in the New York Times:
Do not put statements in the negative form.
And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
It is incumbent on one to avoid archaisms.
If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
De-accession euphemisms.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.
Last, but not least, avoid cliches like the plague.
[
Bin Laden actually doesn't care about the Palestinians or Iraq or any of that. He wants the world remade in his view--he points to the Taliban as the ultimate form of society. In an interview a few years ago, he said his ultimate goals were not to get the US out of the mideast, but to have a jihad in Egypt, a jihad in Israel, a jihad in Bosnia--basically a Jihad everywhere that will replace all governments with a fundamentalist Muslim one such as the Taliban. It's a different kind of globalization, really.
That's not globalization. He doesn't want to remake the world in his view, and he doesn't want to take over the world. He wants Muslims to retake the Muslim world, which he sees as having been colonized by the West. He really doesn't care what happens to us in the West, so long as we leave Muslims alone.
Again, no amount of understanding the root of the problem will make that go away. The only thing that these people (the terrorists) understand is having a bomb dropped on them so they can't do anything anymore.
But you're saying this on the basis of your own understanding of the problem. If that understanding was proven incorrect, then I presume you would revise it. So crack open a book, and maybe you'll learn that your CNN black-hats-white-hats view of the world doesn't stand up to critical scrutiny.
It's a sad commentary on humans, but its the truth--do you think enough understanding would have prevented Hitler from attempting world domination? I doubt it--ask Neville Chamberlain.
You're talking about "understanding" after the fact, but you're neglecting the understanding of bad situations before they turn into wars. A better understanding of Germany after WWI would have meant a less onerous Treaty of Versailles being imposed, preventing the perfect conditions for an extremist nationalist rising like the Nazis.
Similarly, better understanding of what a pile of shit the US has made of its foreign policy in the Muslim world will prevent future Bin Ladens from rising. It's called "fixing the roof while the sun is shining". No-one is asking you to understand the rain in your living room better, only to understand that if you had fixed the roof last week when the hole was pointed out to you, it wouldn't be there now.
Of course Bin Laden would still exist, even if we had understood the problem better. But he would not have had the army of supporters, both passive and active, that he now commands. Further use of your "bombs are the only language these people understand" analysis will lead to an unending stream of them, more than you and your gov't will ever be able to find, let alone bomb.
Globalism is not and has never been a political movement. It is no more than a social and political trend that began with the Industrial Revolution. Geography is less of a constraint than it was in past. Airline travel, the telephone, satelite TV and the Internet mean that you can live in one country and have the same communications access as if you lived in another country on a different continent.
Anti-globalism is a political movement of sorts. There is no real cohesion between the aims of the various factions however. In many cases the aims are completely opposed.
Bin Laden is not an anti-globalist in any meaningful sense, he is anti-US but his political aims are global. He wants to return the world to the middle ages one country at a time, starting with Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Palestein but continuing on to Andaloucia (Spain), Africa etc.
Some of the anti-globalists are anti-democratic tin pot nationalists who want to declare independence for their little fragment of a nation state so that they have a better chance of getting power themselves.
Other 'anti-globalists' are tin-pot union leaders looking for some form of protectionism that will discriminate against goods produced by foreign workers.
Most of the 'anti-globalists' are not protesting about the process of globalisation however but the limited form in which it is taking place. As they see it the West is busy exporting the working practices and political structures of the nineteenth century while trying to deter democratization that might threaten Western interests.
As a political critique it was far more accurate in the 1970s than today. The list of dictators supported by the West and in particular the US is very long. The US subverted democratic governments in Chile and the Congo and replaced them with mass murderers.
US administration policy since the cold war, and in particular since the Clinton administration has been to end support for most of the worst regimes. Marcos, Pinochet, Suharto and the rest have been consigned to the dustbin of history. It is therefore somewhat strange to start an unfocused 'the US can do no right' movement at this time. There are several areas where the US is standing on the wrong side of history, proping up the gulf dictatorships for example, however US foreign policy is much reformed.
The biggest problem of globalism is ex-patriate meddling in their former home countries, particularly in the second and third generations. Sean Connery's calls for an independent Scotland made from a Spanish golf course are ridiculous and harmless enough. The funding of the IRA by Irish Americans or the Sikh separatists in India by Bradford shopkeepers was not. The problem with ex-patriates is that they can believe all the propaganda they like, they can fund all the murder they like and live in perfect safety far from the consequences of their meddling.
The funding of Israeli settlements by US Jews and the funding of extreemist Madrasah schools in Pakistan by Saudis are just another example of a type of meddling from a long distance that is hated by the majority in the countries that are subjected to it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Jon, you can't have equitable spread of anything and a free-market economy unless you have a really strange definition of equitable (most dictionaries will not include 'I got mine' as a definition).
Economies are inevitably controlled in some fashion- one term for this is 'dirigiste' (sp?) which means 'directed'. One result of this is the evening out of the ungovernable boom and bust cycles of free-market capitalism. There is plenty of reason to think that a worldwide ungoverned boom and bust cycle would be a bad thing.
Globalization does not have to mean uncontrolled freemarket Chicago School capitalism- it is just a convenient label for this, as uncontrolled freemarket Chicago School capitalism pushes for a global boom (as was once, foolishly, written about in Wired, in the 'Long Boom' issue) without a moment of thought for the resulting global _bust_ that will follow.
Equitable spread of technology yes- but free market economy is the last way you're gonna get that.
Nothing we have done was in any way justified any part of the violence committed against us. Nor do the things that most enrage the terrorists fit into that group:
Then you can look at Vandana Shiva's talk about free-market's assault on India: everything from the destruction of indigenous jobs by heavy subsidizing of imported soya oil to companies patenting and attempting to forbid Indian farmers to grow crops that the Indian farmers themselves had developed! Basmati, Neem: natural products developed in India, but patents were taken out on these things by U.S. companies. Ever heard the name Monsanto? Unless you try and take a closer look at what people in India are saying, you won't: you're not going to hear about this from U.S. media- or 'globalized' media, for that matter. When was the last time you heard the name Bhopal? And yet more people died at Bhopal than in the WTC terrorist attack- by now, more than twice as many. Bhopal was caused by intentional negligence motivated by a desire to cut costs and economize, the better to compete in the global market... to this day, the reaction of Union Carbide has been to hush it up, even to the point of refusing to specify the poisons involved, which would help medical relief efforts that are _still_ relevant... but saying what was in the poison gas would be bad PR and possibly lead to some form of liability, so silence is still kept...
Yes- do please take a closer look at these things. The more you look, the more you see- and it matters.
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.
I suggest that you read Barbara Garson's book, reviewed here by Salon.
In it, she argues that no world government can regulate the financial industry. Every attempt leads to offshore loopholes. The financial industry actually regulates world governments. Every time a government votes to increase spending for health, education and other social services, the financial centers vote by sucking their money out of that country. Since capital is so concentrated these days thanks to mergers and consolidations, the effects are immediate and chilling.
Many times, people are living in wretched conditions because their governments promised to secure loans given to private corporations that end up failing. Indonesia, for example, closed 250,000 clinics, 6 million children dropped out of school, and the infant mortality rate has risen 30 percent, in order to raise taxes to pay back bad loans.
You can't help but think that that is going to have an effect on our ability to function as a civil society. People should have education and health care, it leads to technological breakthroughs and satisfying lives. Money should have a social cost associated with it. If that makes me a pinko commie, then so be it.
It seems to me that our foreign policy in the last half of the 20th century was to secure low wages for industry and keep democracies out of power in Central and South America, SouthEast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. It's only fair that what's good for American citizens should be fair for our global brethren.
Ghandi said, "There are many things I'd die for, but nothing I would kill for." The terrorists would act differently if they truly had social justice as an end and not chaos, but they'd have a lot less sympathy around the world if our monetary policy were different. I think there are other ways to solve imbalance than crashing a plane into a building. I just wish someone would point them out to me.
I'd also suggest reading Warren Wagar's Short History of the Future, in which he argues that a corporate global economy is eventually superceded by local government/ communal anarchy. Many of his decade-old predictions have already come true.
I tend to get sidetracked in these discussions.
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?
Stop the brainwash