Globalization Destabilization

Skarbutts ^ | 09-26-2007 | RA Sprinkle

[inpajamas]

Globalization: A Catalyst for Terrorism and Global Destabilization?

The object here is not to lay blame on globalization for the hostilities to it, nor to excuse hostile or malevolent reactions.

It is, however, worthy of understanding, not only sources of global instability today, but the catalyst setting off these forces into an aggressive-defensive mode.

For this purpose I propose the question -- Is the increase of terrorism and the radicalization of Islam over the past few decades an effect of globalization? Furthermore, are many of the tensions between nations today related to the transition of nations from self dependent sovereign states, to a world of nations which are becoming increasingly interdependent while looking to establish global security and world order through international consensus in a multipolar global society?

Regarding Islam, I do not say that globalization is the cause of Islamic radicalization; an inherent nature in certain tenants of Islam has supported violence and suppression from inception, notwithstanding, globalization has served as a catalyst to activate these radical elements. This is in part evidenced by the upsurge in terrorism and increased radicalization of Islam over the past few decades, which corresponds with the global trend towards world socialization.

The fear factor

As nations immerse themselves in modern technologies, global communications, and international commerce, the world transcends into a global society, however, for all cultures this creates conflicts within as well as without. Societies fear change, not only for the upheaval in daily life it may cause, but cultures tend to fear other cultures that are spreading. This is particularly true of collective societies vis a vis free societies where there is great suspicion and conflict cause by ideologies that in some instances diametrically oppose each other.

The current system of nation-states based upon the preservation of national sovereignty, distinct cultures, and various ideologies and beliefs has served to diffuse conflicting civilizations by allowing each his own; however, as global synthesis takes place, cultures and ideologies clash resulting in one of two basic reactions:

A common reaction in western democracies is to accept diversity, even embrace and promote it; this has resulted in the concept of muliticulturalism where different ideologies, cultures, orientations, and nationalities are granted “equal” status, even if it is felt that special favor and additional advantages need be given to these minority groups to make them “equal.” At the same time, actions are also taken to sacrifice anything that might inconvenience or offend them, including changing laws, culture, principles and values.

The other common reaction to globalization is typical of that in closed societies where freedoms are restricted, which now feel threatened with a loss of power. For while international commerce increases wealth and prosperity, at the same time, dictators, oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, and political religionists fear modernization and free markets to the extent it may effect their ability to control by breaking their monopoly and the dependency of their subjects upon them.

This creates a love-hate relationship with globalization in these societies, for instance, take Saudi Arabia; the Saudis are economically dependent upon the global oil trade, but at the same time, they spend vast amounts of their profits to promote Wahabbism, which seems paradoxical.

There is a conflict between interests and ideology, and they will surrender neither. This leaves them fighting for their ideology while finding it both profitable and absolutely necessary to participate in an evolving globalized world system which they cannot stop.

For if globalization is inevitable, totalitarians have no intention of melting into one multicultural global society as westerns elitists do, but rather, seek to establish themselves and dominate in order to preserve their cultures and power. Their reaction may be summed up in the words, conquer or be conquered; for while Islamic teachings express global ambitions, globalization, by spreading modern cultural influences and western ideas has created a formidable adversary and thus provoked a defensive-aggressive response.

But Islam is not alone in the global struggle for power; all nations are aware of the trend to a global society and to various degrees feel threatened by it, however, because they feel powerless to stop it, they seek to be the controlling force behind it in an attempt to mold it to their liking. This is true not only of Islamic nations, for the US, UK, EU, Russia, China, and everyone else who has any influence or power are all in the struggle for the highest position of power they can obtain in a globalized world. It was the ability to compete globally that spawned the creation of the European Union, the modern US UK alliance, as well as formations of other alliances in the East which now reach even unto South America. Fear and uncertainty created by globalization are a driving force in the struggle for global domination, and fear underlies world tensions today. For even as nations come together, they are fiercely competing one with another.

Multipolarity and stability

In a 1983 essay on "multipolarity and stability" nuclear strategist Herman Kahn hypothesized that there would come seven economic giants -- the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil -- and that they would eventually work out rules for a world system of order. Although Kahn recognized an inherent stability in the current system of unilateral nation-states where the consequences of nuclear war were so great discipline was the only sane option, he also believed a multipolar system could also be stable, if you could ever safely get there.

The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn warned, would occur during the movement of nations from unilateralism to a multipolar world.

We are now in that transition, and as Kahn predicted, there are growing tensions and volatilities.

For while East and West have both expressed interest in a world order, they are divided by ideological differences, the West, insisting on a universal set of values and human rights as a prerequisite for a global society, but the Russians holding that common interests form a sufficient basis upon which to establish a system of international order.

The transition

On the other hand, you do have parties who desire no part at all in a world order unless it is based upon absolute submission to their ideology -- Enter Islamic extremists.

Globalization has threatened the destruction of Islamic culture and beliefs through modernization. Westernization being viewed as a direct attack upon their civilization has created panic and served as an incendiary to incite many adherents of Islam into action, not only to defend their lands, but to become the dominant power of any coming world order.

As high-minded as this may seem, Islam is not alone in its determination for world supremacy; there could also be an even greater clash of civilizations between those whose ideologies have Marxists underpinnings and those who hold inalienable rights of individuals higher than a an arbitrary ruling authority.

For as the cultural conflict between the West and Islam intensifies, there is another struggle taking place for the control of resources and the global economy. It was for this purpose the European Union was created to be a competitor; however, “former” communist countries have joined the fray having been empowered by the US dollar, global markets, and a growing control of energy supplies.

And while Russia, China, Venezuela, and others are opened to global markets and profits, they are recoiling internally in an attempt to balance free markets with controlled societies, hoping to achieve both. I would argue that you cannot have both but for the short term, for in the long term the two are incompatible. The only reason closed societies prosper is that they were built by and thrive off of the enterprise of free open societies, but this is temporal.

On the other hand, the most powerful nation involved in the establishment of a new world order has been the United States. No nation has done more to bring it into being, nor has it been done without design or manipulation, for it has been contemplated and worked towards for decades. Unfortunately, the ideology driving the establishment of free trade with totalitarian nations was built upon the misconception that globalization and free trade would eventually break down barriers and bring global democracy. The fallacy of this concept was discussed in the previous article A World off Axis where it is explained the reverse is more likely and the eventual product is the spread of socialism, a loss of freedoms, and eventually global tyranny.

A Global hive of "killer bees"

For decades elitists drones have realized the power and wealth that could be created through globalization and have set about to establish international controls to make it feasible. In so doing, however, they have discounted the freedom of individuals and moral principles essential to the foundation and stability of any governmental system -- And though you can have stability also in a system absent this foundation, it requires tyranny. Stability should not be the principle end goal of government, for that is the road to totalitarianism.

The United States has been the source of wealth which opened the door to prosperity for other nations whose values are contrary. These nations, many of them totalitarian, are now becoming powerful enough, if not alone then confederate one with another, to challenge the US on many fronts. The US has become a global prostitute who has agreed to “put out” now for payment later.

If the US should reject many aspects of a global system proposed by the other parties it has empowered, US dependency is so great it faces catastrophic isolation; if however, the US capitulates and agrees to a system that is based upon common interests rather than values, as these nations gain enough leverage they will be able to manipulate the US diplomatically, or collapse the US economically -- This is already occurring as is evident in the capitulation of US foreign policy.

If America, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is the “best hope last hope of mankind” it will only be so by the underlying principles which made America. Forsaking or compromising those principles in order to create a multicultural global society for the “common good” will produce a corrupt global hive indeed. For the eventual result of a world order built on shared interests alone will be the loss of liberty, global conflict, and eventually, total chaos -- For interests and loyalties, shift, sound principles do not.

Now consider a parable: In 1956 Brazilian scientists were attempting to create a new hybrid bee in the hopes of creating improved honey production when African bees were accidentally introduced into the wild in South and North America and began to dominate the domestic honey bee. This new hybrid, known as the “Africanized” or “killer bee,” took many years to establish colonies, as it did, it began to radicalize and take over the hives of domestic bees. The bee is extremely defensive-aggressive, easily agitated by anything deemed foreign, and it produces little honey; thus, it has become unprofitable for the Keeper and a threat to all others.

RA Sprinkle