March 16, 2008

America and Globalization: Strategy for a New Century - Part 2

".... Here’s a question; is it realistic to believe that consensus between nations can maintain order through a system in which states voluntarily abide by rules? History alone would dictate a negative response. States cooperate because there is an in-balance of power between them not the reverse...."

It was not the intention to post a follow up piece to the initial, March 5 article; however, reader consensus, as noted in comments received, compelled me otherwise. But before we continue allow me to make a point, the article did not seek to advocate the merits or otherwise of Globalization, more exactly, it highlighted what I see as a growing need for America to gain control of its growth for the very reasons highlighted in your comments. The original piece can be read here.

Some of the concerns raised are noteworthy and understandable. Said Tapline, “That it compromises sovereignty and nation status” and analogies with the EU. Of being akin to balkanization, and evaporation of national entities, said Aurora from The Midnight Sun. “Weakening our strong and Constitutional principle as a free Republic,” and surrendering of national status thus weakening the nation, added Ken Taylor from The Liberal Lie the Conservative truth, whilst Heidianne at Big Girl Pants added, “The more we globalize, the more we are turning over to those who do not honor, respect or even WANT our way of life”. And finally mk’s views noted, “ the ones set to grow and hence dictate what will happen in the coming decades don't necessarily like us in the west and don't think like us.” I will not quibble with any of this, they are, all of them, sound pointers and it pleases me that such concerns were expressed here.

The challenge remains, Globalization is, for better or worse, a happening phenomenon that is set to expand, therefore, there is little, or nothing we can do about it. In light of this, and hence, this forms the core of my argument, I call on U.S. policymakers to expand the currently narrowly focused grand plan to something far broader like, securing the future in accordance with America’s Interests by taking control of the process through a “recalibration of interaction through positive leadership”.

Understandably, it has raised some alarm bells with many questioning whether the principle drivers of international affairs are no longer nation states but rather, some sort of evolving worldly system. The problem here is that it assumes a global system that somehow manages itself, when in reality, the enforcement of political and economic needs must always be underpinned by rules in order to resolve differences and conflicts; only powerful nation states have the resources and authorities to manage/enforce agreements, to deal with international threats and inter-state rivalries.

Here’s a question; is it realistic to believe that consensus between nations can maintain order through a system in which states voluntarily abide by rules? History alone would dictate a negative response. States cooperate because there is an in-balance of power between them not the reverse. The U.S is well placed to continue being the dominant nation, the military power, the economic powerhouse, the exemplary state that, through its ideology and territorial immunity sustains international order. I call on America to remain that nation, that body if you will, that remains the force behind Globalization, the force that guarantees the rest of us that others will not pursue interests related to prosperity and security that threatens other states and current international order.

Globalization is sometimes referred to as, Americanization; this is good but improperly managed or worse still, not managed at all, will impact on U.S. hegemony. Charles Krauthammer wrote in Time:

"America is no mere international citizen. It is the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome. Accordingly, America is in a position to re-shape norms, alter expectations and create new realities".

Like Ken Taylor says, “We (America) can still lead the world in most every aspect without releasing our sovereignty…. lead but not conform.”

What do you think

23 comments:

Tapline said...

Otto, Your post continue to amaze me. I shudder at the thought of Globalization. I will be long gone by the time this becomes a reality. I believe it was George Washington who warned against such entanglment with other nations, Of course he was only the father of our country, and no he did not chop down a cherry tree. But he was our first president. I have read however this is inevitable, in order to remain competative with the rest of the world. I look at the European Union and see The once Proud British Isles where the sun never sets and I get teary eyed.. i ramble.....stay well....

Jeff said...

Otto, I assume your familiar with the works of Niall Ferguson. In his book "Colossus" he makes a very similiar argument. Excellent book if you have time.

Aurora said...

Otto, your suggestions are excellent and if I were sure America would retain its power as the world globalized, I wouldn't be too concerned about globalization, but the forces of anti Americanism are very powerful out there on the European continent and in the Middle East. I look at your sidebar and read 'America must remain strong' and I think many Americans have the heart for that, but will the politicians do the backpedaling of destructive policies and building of new structures necessary to maintain that strength? And is it possible? I'm not sure.
Personally, I think the days of the nation, any nation, are numbered and we are going to see huge regions, all managed by a network of tiny local governments over each little bloc and all under the control of large, regional governments. This could be wrong. I hope so.

American Interests.blog said...

Tapline: Certainly, there are risks, thanks for weighing in...

Jeff: I am familiar with Niall's writings but have not read Collossus...will check it out, thanx..

American Interests.blog said...

Aurora: I too hope you are wrong but its a plausible argument...anti Americanism is indeed powerful and showing no signs of abating...we continue to fight...

The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth said...

Excellent post once again Otto. In response to the thought of Global anti- Americanism and our position as the Global leader.

Though there is a strong anti US position in the World with many countries having that additude almost as policy, where to they turn when disaster, hardship, war, calamity, national discord within their country etc....the list is endless where do they turn in all bad situations ?

They , even nations that consider us the enemy like Iran, they turn to the US for help support and especially financial and military aid. They may stab us in the back after the fact but when trouble strikes everyone looks to the US for leadership and assistance.

Many may claim to hate us but they also realize that they NEED us!

American Interests.blog said...

Liberal lie the Conservative Truth:

It's most nearly always the case isn't it..."but when trouble strikes everyone looks to the US for leadership and assistance".

Did you cathch my Sept 2007 post...
http://americasinterests.blogspot.com/2007/09/like-it-or-not-we-still-need-america.html

GrEaT sAtAn'S gIrLfRiEnD said...

Hi Otto - I agree with your conclusions and points. Also, the g word could be considered code to remake the world into democratic societies.

Free markets, enrichment of people and nations, tolerance, egalitarianism - all the trappings of transparent periodic elections, free, uncensored media, independent judiciaries under elected government oversight, civilian control of militaries.

Globalizing may be the carrot part of the carrot and stick packages.

Layla said...

Hi Otto! What a great piece you have written here. It is wonderful to realize that not all will want to conform to a one world or new world order. It will never work. Thanks for your great piece here damning the notion of globalization. It is ridiculous to believe that such a thing would work, and if it did, it would be short lived.

Like I always say, people better wake up because we are not living in Nirvana!

Bravo Otto!

MK said...

What i have observed in my short life is that even though there is a lot of anti-Americanism in the world, a lot of it is actually quite silly and even childish. At any of our work places you'll probably hear people make the odd anti-American statement. A pro-American statement would be rare, however the people who say such things could not do without the McDonalds, coke, music and movies from America, not to mention the security that an America provides.

I remember a long time ago reading about a Muslim fellow railing against America but he admitted that his children like Levis and coke. America is good at exporting the cheeseburger and MTV, but it's not good at exporting its free spirit, its culture of personal responsibility and the maturity amongst its people.

Some people resent American power and success but they cannot do without it. Bit like a teenager who wants to come and go as he pleases but wants mom & dad to cloth and feed him. Take America out of the world and the rest of us will be forced to make deals with ideologies that are completely opposed to our way of life. I'll take American globalization over the other lot any day.

Verlin Martin said...

Globalization will not do to the U.S. what it's own politicians can and will do to it.

The threat to our great nation is not from without, it is from within and that within is in Congress :)

Great post Otto.

WomanHonorThyself said...

hiya Otto!.. America is in a position to re-shape norms, alter expectations and create new realities".
..aha..as MK observes the hatred and venom toward the US is so indulgent and immature...brilliant piece as always my friend!

Debbie said...

You make the point that globalization is happening, it's a fact. Things are not going to turn around and go backwards, they will continue to go forward. There is no escape from globalization.

Great Satan's Girlfriend makes a great point.

For these reasons stated in your post and by your readers, America MUST stay strong, free, the leader in world economy, military, etc.

Great article my friend.

Debbie Hamilton
Right Truth

American Interests.blog said...

GSGirl: Now that would be using Globalizaton wisely. "The carrot part of the carrot and stick packages", interesting and ideal solution but not likely in practice however...

Layla: No, unquestionably NOT, residing in Nirvana, thanks for coming by…

American Interests.blog said...

mk: Correct mk, for all the potential pitfalls of the G thing we can see the benefits.
Particularly “at a time where countries as China, India, Russia and Iran are vying for regional predominance, where competition between liberalism and absolutism has re-ignited, where and nations are once again, gradually lining up along ideological lines, where the rift between tradition and modernity (Islamic fundamentalism verses modern secularism) is widening, and finally when anti-Americanism is so pronounced”… Excerpt from an earlier post…

Verlin Martin:
http://lordnazh.com/default.aspx
Welcome to AI.
"The threat to our great nation is not from without, it is from within and that within is in Congress"... Well that's another story is it not, and a big oone at that ... Thanx for expressing your thoughts here ... have blogrolled your site...

American Interests.blog said...

angel: Immature it is, but they take themselves so seriously, it must be countered, don’t you think…. In this regard, I am an enthusiastic partaker …

debbie: great to see you here, keep up the great work at Right Truth...

Verlin Martin said...

AI: it's not really another story in that everyone seems to be worried about globalization and they shouldn't be.

The one constant in the world is that we (the US) will continue on no matter what the world thinks/does unless our own people bring us down :)

American Interests.blog said...

Verlin Martin: Thanks Merlin, I believe some concern about Globalization is warranted, but you are quite correct about the internal threat…unquestionably so…

Goat said...

Good post as always Otto, globalization is here whether we like it or not but it is not the threat many seem to think. Creeping socialism and islamo-fascism is a much greater threat than world trade ever will be. Plus I don't believe anti-Americanism is as rampant as our left wing MSM would have us believe.

American Interests.blog said...

Goat: You have highlighted two other notable threats, "Creeping socialism and islamo-fascism".

Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...

I think Aurora has a point, that nation-states are in the process of being supplanted by another form of political organization.

That isn't to say that there won't be nations, centuries from now, if this change happens. After all, there are still three city-states around: Monaco, Singapore, and the Vatican.

The most recent analog in history to our time is, I think, the period in western history when the feudal holdings of Europe were re-establishing contact with the rest of the world.

New ideas, new technologies, and new cultures brought about the end of civilization as they knew it. Considering that some of my ancestors were conducting human sacrifices at the time, I'm not sorry that their way of life changed.

The nation-state that we're familiar with started around that period. (That's an over-generalization, I know.)

It's possible that the period in which nation-states are the dominant political structure may be ending. Change happens.

I could (and have) argued that the process has started: and that the United States of America is not a "nation," but something new.

A "nation" is often defined as a group of people who see themselves as distinct and unified because they share a culture, language, history, and ethnicity.

America has a common language, and a (fairly) common culture. But it's been a very long time since there's been an ethnic group that's "American."

I think we may have something new here.

Sorry: I ran on a bit with this.

Thanks for the post!

Brian, aka Nanoc, aka Norski said...

One more thing: Your Q and A, "is it realistic to believe that consensus between nations can maintain order through a system in which states voluntarily abide by rules? History alone would dictate a negative response."

I know you were serious, but that struck me as funny. My youthful enthusiasm for the United Nations faded, when I started watching the interminable squabbling: except, it seemed, when something could be blamed on Israel and/or America.

Your "History alone would dictate a negative response" is spot-on, I think.

American Interests.blog said...

Thanks Brian, indeed my enthusiasm for the U.N. lasted longer than it should have...