Posted on 10/01/2001 11:33:31 AM PDT by Paul Ross
Naval Institute: Globalization Is Tested, by Thomas P. M. Barnett
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
 |
|||
|
Upcoming Seminars & Expositions Nominate a Friend for Membership
|
 
Globalization has taken some serious hits in recent years. Now, with the terrorist strikes in New York and Washington, it is fair to say that globalization faces its greatest test yet. The extreme antiglobalization wing represented by terrorist Osama bin Laden is not interested in debating the pace of globalization; it wants it stopped dead in its tracks. For bin Laden, U.S.-led globalization represents the worst possible corruption of his ideal Muslim society. It is expressed politically in our support for Israel, culturally in our military presence in Saudi Arabia, and financially in our ability to isolate Iraq and Iran through sanctions. Bin Laden’s symbology of attack could not have been expressed more clearly:
How will the United States respond to the challenge? This question is not adequately answered by any immediate military response. Rather, it is answered by our willingness to forge a new international rule set, much as we did following World War II. Our goal then was preventing a reoccurrence of the economic nationalism that killed the first wave of globalization (1870-1929). Today, it is not so much economic nationalism that threatens globalization as cultural nationalism—the assumption that globalization equals forced Americanization. How does the United States combat that fear? Three steps move us in the right direction. First, we need to expand dramatically the dialogue between Wall Street and the Pentagon regarding how globalization changes our definitions of national security. Over the past several years, the Naval War College has collaborated with the broker-dealer firm Cantor Fitzgerald in conducting a series of Economic Security Exercises examining scenarios such as a terrorist strike against Wall Street, the Year 2000 Problem, and Asia’s future energy needs. These pioneering war games are the brainchild of retired Navy Admiral William J. Flanagan, Senior Managing Director of Cantor Fitzgerald, which until 11 September had its international headquarters in the uppermost floors of the World Trade Center. It is not hyperbole to call the September terrorist strike a new form of warfare. Cantor Fitzgerald’s catastrophic human loss (roughly two-thirds of the 1,000 employees headquartered in the World Trade Center) only underscored the paradigm shift. These individuals were killed not only to terrorize the American people, but also to disable U.S. financial markets and, by doing so, diminish global investor confidence in their long-term stability. Second, we need a better understanding of which countries are the real enemies of globalization—and thus the United States. Samuel Huntington, in Clash of Civilizations, mistakenly lumped Asia with Islam as “challenger civilizations.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Developing Asia desperately needs two things in the coming years: energy from the Middle East and capital from the West. If either of these two global markets breaks down, Asia cannot move forward and instability will ensue. Until September, the Bush administration clearly focused national security strategy on Asia in general and against China in particular. This was a huge mistake in the making, but the danger has not yet passed. As the United States pursues this war against international terrorism, we must be aware that the West and Asia can either come together or be driven apart by events in the Middle East. Remember this: as far as globalization is concerned, China is not the problem; it is the prize. Finally, both Washington and the American public need to come to grips with the inevitable reality that this war on terrorism only will cement our nation’s role as global policeman. There will be a rather scary blurring of the lines between external war fighting and internal policing roles—not only abroad but within the United States. Since the Cold War, the U.S. military has bifurcated progressively into a high-tech strike force designed for state-on-state war and a lower-tech mobile police-state force designed for military operations other than war. This war on terrorism only will exacerbate that emerging split and render it permanent, with much of the change coming under the guise of "homeland defense.' Dr. Barnett is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, serving as a senior strategic researcher in the Decision Strategies Department of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies.
|
||
 |
| [Home ] [Membership] [Proceedings] [Naval Institute Press] [Contests] [Seminars] [Naval History] [Naval Institute Foundation] [History/Reference/Preservation] |
|
| Privacy Statement All items on this page copyright 2001 U.S. Naval Institute, Annapolis, Md., unless otherwise indicated. Any technical problems or questions should be directed to Webmaster@usni.org. |
If pro-globalization forces think that they can spin these attacks as an argument for further globalization, I think they are in for a big surprise.
Up to a point, I wouldn't condemn Barnett -- it is hard to separate out effective defense from empire -- but here, I think he oversteps the boundary between the two.
I've never been so surprised to see (BARF Alert) attached to an article as I am here. What part of Barnett's argument is so despicable? Globalization isn't coming, it's here. The huge drop in markets around the world because of Sept. 11 should be an indication of that.
His only controversial statement, as far as I can tell, is our "inevitable" position as global policeman. He doesn't articulate how that may be manifested, so I don't see how you can hang him out to dry for that.
The article may be run-of-the-mill for you, but surely for some people this will come as a major surprise.
While fear and dislike of government may be excessive in some quarters, if the government doesn't in some sense "belong to" the "American people" and isn't "accountable to" them, great and deep distrust of government is justified, and may be the only sensible alternative.
What are we to make of GWB's talk of American unilateralism or sovereignty in the last election? Was that so much blarney? I suspect it was, and more to the point, the author of this piece says as much.
Those who might risk death for their country and its freedoms may take a much dimmer view of dying for globalization and the world market.
What would happen if this article received wider circulation? It might influence people's attitudes towards the regime.
But maybe you are right. Certainly, we'd have seen more of a response to this if people were really opposed to globalization or surprised that our government and public and private institutions are its prime promoters.
Until September, the Bush administration clearly focused national security strategy on Asia in general and against China in particular. This was a huge mistake in the making, but the danger has not yet passed. As the United States pursues this war against international terrorism, we must be aware that the West and Asia can either come together or be driven apart by events in the Middle East. Remember this: as far as globalization is concerned, China is not the problem; it is the prize.
China is unilaterally draining US capital as it becomes our defacto off-site manufacturing base. China wishes to become the principal super-power, and the ruling communist party leadership intends to supplant U.S.'hegemony'. To the extent there is 'globalist' enhancement of China's position it is potentially a serious challenge to our own nation's position, and a long-term security threat. Not to mention the short-term threat to our loyal and helpful ally, Taiwan. Or the continuing massive espionage operation by China, against our national security assets, our national science labs and the like...all extremely grave issues which don't even appear on this guy's radar.
The Chinese are even now, STILL aiding and abetting terrorist regimes with arms sales (i.e., Iraq), and nuclear proliferation (Pakistan). This guy mischaracterizes the Chinese 'prize'. Hence, I assume he is either a panda-hugger, or a formerly Soviet mole. And any such, in OUR Naval War College needs firing. Turn-coats and enemies of the U.S. Constitution need not apply to be in the U.S. Navy, and definitely should not be on OUR payroll.
E.g., such rabble and nut-jobs as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, Paul Revere, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Ronald Reagan, eh?
if the government doesn't in some sense "belong to" the "American people" and isn't "accountable to" them, great and deep distrust of government is justified, and may be the only sensible alternative.
Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address put it best describing the whole relationship of government and people in America's experiment in Self-Governance, when he said that "Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, should not perish from the earth." I don't dispute your point, just that it in fact seems to be rather half-hearted and equivocal. "May be the only sensible alternative."??? How about domestic revolt (instead of mere 'distrust'), if compelled by tyranny? Tyrants whose sole opposition is composed of 'distrust' among their slaves have nothing to fear. Citizens who defend liberty, and Constitutionally-limited government (so crafted as to restrain government intrusions on said liberty) are what tyrants would fear. Lately, tyrant Hitlery has been equating american dissent to her train of illegalities and governmental abuses as being like Osama Bin Laden. This pox on humanity will be in the Senate 6 more years. What a travesty.
Like Quigley, this innocent lays out the agenda in all its denominational splendor.
"First, we need to expand dramatically the dialogue between Wall Street and the Pentagon regarding how globalization changes our definitions of national security. Over the past several years, the Naval War College has collaborated with the broker-dealer firm Cantor Fitzgerald in conducting a series of Economic Security Exercises examining scenarios such as a terrorist strike against Wall Street, the Year 2000 Problem, and Asia?s future energy needs."
The Military-Industrial Complex surely cannot protect even its own. Those who do not abide their oaths to preserve and protect the Constitution, and the citizens of the United States, first and foremost, are traitors. Our first line of defense must be to de-weed them from positions of influence.
Admiral Crowe, and his brethren, were and are socialist. They intentionally socially engineered intelligence into dysfunction. They cynically sell-out to the highest bidder; money doesn't talk, it screams.
That has been "expanding" for many years now. Ike knew it. What's this yahoo want, a Joint Office Bldg.? Maybe it could be shaped like a 'pentagram'.
I'm actually glad to see this kind of thinking from such a source getting a small public airing, as it will point out to some few individuals that the "paranoia" about the NWO has more basis in fact than they previously supposed.
fyi
As Usual, I ignor new-fangled thangs. The Old Comma works just Fine, best I can tell.
At least your flag to me worked on Self Search :-)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Clearly, President Bush didn't mean it.
Winding up a speech Thursday, Bush said America will be tough and resolute to defeat terrorists so future generations can live in peace. "And there is no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail," the president said.
His audience at the Labor Department did not react. Bush, known to make occasional verbal mistakes, continued on in a positive vein: "Failure is not a part of our vocabulary. This great nation will lead the world and we will be successful."
AP-ES-10-04-01 1719EDT
Go figure.
I fail to see why.
A regime that receives kudos for "informing consciences" (and quote Scripture on TV!!) as it announces federal funding to perpetuate ESCR can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants as long as folks feel free to strike a blow for liberty by further crushing themselves with personal debt.
That is what is so unreal about him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
