Discussions of the benefits and costs of globalization tend to focus on the most parochial. Politicians pander to the fears of anxious voters and promise to stop exporting jobs overseas and protect domestic markets from the dangers of lower priced imports. They do not tend to offer any details about how they will accomplish such legerdemain, but when pressed either step back from the brink or set forward policies that, if enacted, would likely lead to the 1930s redux.
There are much broader risks and benefits of globalization that get left out of these domestic political debates. In his article yesterday, Tom Barnett points out some of the unmistakable benefits of globalization:
Globalizations means fewer wars, less death
Two new reports about our world reiterate the overwhelmingly positive impact of globalization upon our planet, making it more peaceful and more just.
The "Human Security Brief 2007," compiled by Canada's Simon Fraser University, details the continuing overall decline in global conflict that began with globalization's rapid expansion around the planet in recent years, to include the complete absence of classic state-on-state war since 2003.
As a result, total deaths from conflicts are now lower than the world has ever seen. For anyone looking for a "new world order" after the Cold War, this is it: far fewer wars and much less death from them.
Better yet, when Iraq's bloody civil war is factored out of the equation, deaths from terrorism have declined globally since 9/11 by roughly 40 percent.
Hold Bush-Cheney accountable for botching the occupation and unleashing that violence, but make no mistake, while the sectarian strife briefly fueled al Qaeda's "cause celebre," toppling Saddam did not trigger an upsurge in global terrorism. That long war hasn't made the world more dangerous in the long run.
...
But all of these positive trends constitute mere ripples before the tsunami of structural change globalization now fosters in the emergence of a "world middle class" of unprecedented size and proportion. Most estimates of today's global middle class peg it at a bit more than one-quarter of the world's population. But as investment firm Goldman Sachs argues in a paper entitled, "The Expanding Middle," globalization should add two billion new consumers to that category over the next two decades, essentially doubling the global share.
This is the essential link: regional conflicts had to be progressively eradicated to allow for globalization to expand and take deep root. The cause-and-effect dynamic that we begin to recognize on a global scale mirrors the Bush administration's success in Iraq with the improved counterinsurgency approach.
Tom Barnett is extremely optimistic that facilitating globalization will continue to lead inexorably to a safer, more secure world.
Yet the essential paradox is that globalization weakens the state system upon which the current international stability rests, and as states weaken, and weaker states fail, the risk of a spectacular event, or countervailing trends, derailing globalization increases.
An additional concern is that the newly globalizing commons will default to the lowest common denominator, a devolution that does not favor liberal democracy and the freedoms which we take for granted.
The most obvious problem is terrorism, which has been significantly reduced by our efforts since 9/11 but which could see a recrudescence should Iran obtain a nuclear capacity. However, there are less obvious, but equally significant, threats to an enlarging liberal world order that need to be considered.
Yesterday morning, Galrahn at Information Dissemination, described one such threat:
The World Food Programme still can't find anyone to escort their food shipment ships. Nobody, and lets be crystal clear, nobody at all cares about Somalia. The WFP is sounding as many alarms as possible, if someone doesn't step up soon it will trigger a famine in Somalia. This is exactly where a company like Blackwater, working under a UN contract, has a role in the maritime domain.
With all of the piracy that targets ships from the Middle East to Europe, one would think this would be something the European Navies would take upon themselves and do, at a minimum to use it as an opportunity to develop better intelligence on pirate activity. Not so, did you look at our latest Order of Battle?
We are not sure what it means, but unless we are missing something we are unable to find any ships from Europe in the entire Middle Eastern seas except those from the Royal Navy. In other words, The US, Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand have the only forward deployed naval forces to the region. We can't help but think that should increase insurance rates for maritime traffic to and from Europe, particularly now that most of the US Navy is supporting the war efforts, and no where near the Horn of Africa. There is nothing to stop the pirates from running wild, and Europe has left the Canadians to patrol millions of square miles almost entirely by themselves.
Piracy is a major problem in the gap and if there is no will or ability for old core (Europe) or new core (China) to take over security operations ensuring the viability of international shipping lanes, globalization will slow if only because of the increased costs of insuring cargo.
A second, more insidious, danger was suggested by the recent conference sponsored by the Saudi King that took place in Spain. The World Conference on Dialogue was billed as a breakthrough meeting designed to sponsor a dialogue between the world's major faiths. News reports on the conference focused on the most positive aspects (Yahoo news):
Saudi inter-faith conference urges global anti-terrorism pact
MADRID (AFP) - Islamic, Christian and Jewish leaders Friday called for an international agreement to combat terrorism, at the end of a landmark Saudi-organised conference.
The representatives of the world's great monotheistic religions also appealed for a special session of the UN General Assembly to promote dialogue and prevent "a clash of civilizations."
"Terrorism is a universal phenomenon that requires unified international efforts to combat it in a serious, responsible and just way," participants at the three-day World Conference on Dialogue said in a final communique.
"This demands an international agreement on defining terrorism, addressing its root causes and achieving justice and stability in the world."
They called for more "ways of enhancing understanding and cooperation among people despite differences in their origins, colours and languages," and a "rejection of extremism and terrorism."
...
He noted some prior resistance to the event among conservative Jewish elements in the US, "who are suspicious about Muslims and feel this is a PR thing... But I think it was a bold and important step. It was King Adbullah's 'Perestroika' moment," he told AFP.
One leading Muslim participant reported a "very good feeling" during the three days of talks.
"Nowadays, you have news about war everywhere, but there is no news about peace. At this conference, we sat down and had very good relations," the secretary general of the Kuwait-based World Organisation of Pan-Islamic Jurisprudence, Al Seyed AbolGhasem Al Dibaji, told AFP.
Only in the last two paragraphs does Yahoo include an implied caveat:
The conference however provoked some debate in Spain about the decision to stage it in Madrid rather than in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia remains the only Arab Muslim country to ban all non-Islamic religious practices on its soil, even though it has a large community of expatriates professing other faiths.
It is hard to believe the Saudis are serious about inter-faith civility and equality when their laws are so discriminatory, however that was not the major problem with the conference. In The Madrid Declaration, the attendees set forth their principles and goals; my emphasis added:
Principles:
1. Unity of humankind in the original creation and the equality among human beings irrespective of their colors, ethnic backgrounds and cultures.
2. Purity of the nature of humans; as they were created liking good and disliking evil, inclining to justice and avoiding injustice. Such pure nature leads humans to show mercy and to seek certainty and belief.
3. Diversity of cultures and civilizations among people is a sign of God and a cause for human advancement and prosperity.
4. The heavenly messages aim at realizing the obedience of people to their Creator and achieving happiness, justice, security and peace for humankind. These messages seek to enhance ways of understanding and cooperation among people despite differences in their origins, colors and languages. They also call for spreading virtue through wisdom and politeness, and rejecting extremism and terrorism.
5. Respecting heavenly religions, preserving their high status, condemning any insult to their symbols, and combating the exploitation of religion in the instigation of racial discrimination.
6. Observing peace, honoring agreements and respecting unique traditions of peoples and their right to security, freedom and self-determination are the basis for building good relations among all people. Achieving this is a major objective of all religions and prominent cultures.
7. The significance of religion and moral values and the need for humans to revert to their Creator in their fight against crime, corruption, drugs, and terrorism, and in preserving the institution of the family and protecting societies from deviant behaviors.
8. The family is the basic unit of society and its nucleus. Protecting it from disintegration is a cornerstone for any secure and stable society.
9. Dialogue is one of the essentials of life. It is also one of the most important means for knowing each other, cooperation, exchange of interests and realizing the truth, which contributes to the happiness of humankind.
10. The preservation of the environment and its protection from pollution and other dangers are considered a major objective of all religions and cultures.Recommendations:
danger of campaigns seeking to deepen conflicts and destabilize peace and security.
• To enhance common human values, to cooperate in their dissemination within societies and to solve the problems that hinder their achievement.
• To disseminate the culture of tolerance and understanding through dialogue so as to be a framework for international relations through holding conferences and symposia, as well as developing relevant cultural, educational and media programs.
• To agree on international guidelines for dialogue among the followers of religions and cultures through which moral values and ethical principles, which are common denominators among such followers, so as to strengthen stability and achieve prosperity for all humans.
• To work on urging governmental and non-governmental organizations to issue a document that stipulates respect for religions and their symbols, the prohibition of their denigration and the repudiation of those who commit such acts.
To no one's surprise, the participants want to work through the UN to achieve their goals. For those who imagine this is a benign exercise in tolerance, Islam on-line explains the significance of the meeting:
Spain Meet For Criminalizing Blasphemy
A groundbreaking Saudi-sponsored interfaith dialogue on Friday, July 18, called for criminalizing blasphemy and for drafting an international agreement to combat terrorism.
"(The conference) calls for international organizations to work to issue a document stating respect of faiths and religious symbols and criminalizing those insulting them," said the conference in a final communiqué.
There is only one religion whose adherents continue to criminalize blasphemy today. It is also a religion whose adherents consistently define terrorism to exclude attacks on non-Muslims.
A dialogue designed to avoid a clash of civilizations must be a two way dialogue; the alternative is referred to as surrender.
All three points, the possibility of a major terror attack that destabilizes the globalization schema, the persistence and spread of failed states, enlarging lacuna in the international order, and the refusal of a major player to accept minimal rule sets have the potential to derail globalization.
These issues tend to strengthen non-state actors and enlarge the gap; a devolution of power from the state system to more localized players that is a part of enlarging the core and empowering communities means that more communities will have the chance to influence the direction and pace of globalization for good or ill in the next few years.
Recent Comments