NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
A REACTION PAPER ON MAJOR IDEOLOGICAL CLAIMS OF GLOBALIZATION BY Manfred B. Steger Steger maintains that globalization requires a global war on terror. This combines the idea of economic globalization with militaristic and nationalistic ideas associated with the American War on Terrorism. This paper looks into this last one as terrorism continues to become a major political issue, It seems that this claim would be more relevant as days progress to see how people deal with this issue. Steger maintains that this celebration of globalization in American nationalist terminology invites the kind of conceptual contradiction that may eventually prove to be fatal to globalism.
This paper looks at Steger's ideological claims of globalization and relates this to the present, most pressing issue of globalization which is the war on terror. As one looks at this issue, one encounters the issue on how peaceful global interdependence can be advanced, given the persistent cultural and political differences that divide the world? World leaders are at war against each other, all feverishly building an arsenal of weaponry against each other. North Korea boasts of its nuclear weaponry.
Other countries join in the mix. The tragedy of the September 11, 2001 stunned the world and revealed in bloody horror that globalization is a two-edged sword. Bitter arguments exist as to whether or not globalization has spurred the growth of terrorism. Millions in the world are convinced that terrorism, like trade, extends beyond national borders. More than that, terrorism is a sad by-product of the growing globalization. Since the Sept. 11 tragedy, anti-Americanism has become an integral part of world politics.
The debate over war in Iraq and then the war itself, invoked even more anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as in other parts of the world. This is significant because now, geopolitics and security concerns have once again become the central issue reshaping our thinking about global politics. Globalization is essentially a measure of the ease with which labor, ideas, capital, technology and profits can move across borders with minimal governmental interference. The great sense of insecurity that terrorism now inspires in the US economy and the government, the two most important forces behind globalization, has resulted in a reassertion of sovereignty by the US and other nations. There is a fear created by globalization because it facilitates the mobility of terrorists, their finances and their ideas, as well as pummeling states towards reconstructing the boundaries and the borders that globalization was subverting. The efforts to prevent terrorists from moving their resources are leading to the setting up of new measures that will slow down the flow of capital.
The fear that porous borders allow terrorists to enter target countries is leading to new rules about border patrol and monitoring of foreign travelers. The terrorist network today uses the technological tools of globalization, and they ignore (or attempt to transcend) the normal definitions of the nation-state. Governments are increasing international cooperation to monitor the flow of information, people and money across borders. These heightened measures are a result of the change in priorities because terrorism is one of the results of globalization. It is ironic that global terrorism, the phenomenon of terrorists operating in and against several nations simultaneously, was facilitated by globalization and now it has become the biggest challenge to globalization. Global terrorism depends on the success of globalization.
In fact, one may very well conceive of global terrorism as a facet of the global culture resulting from globalization. Thus, if interdependence is irreversible, and if globalization facilitates global terrorism, then it may mean that we have no choice but to live with global terrorism? Moreover, bitter arguments exist as to whether or not globalization has on balance improved the lot of people of the world economically. Yet millions in the world are convinced that it is a cultural and political disaster. As a result, there is now no question but that terrorism, like trade, extends beyond national borders. Sadly, since the Sept. 11 tragedy, anti-Americanism has become an integral part of world politics.
The debate over war in Iraq and then the war itself, invoked even more anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim world, as well as in other parts of the world. This is significant because now, geopolitics and security concerns have once again become the central issue and the old language and institutions of the cold war reshaping out thinking about global politics. The world was rapidly moving to realizing the idea of a global village as commonalities in terms of economic aspirations and technological progress were emphasized by politicians and opinion makers, over differences such as religion, culture and ethnicity. Globalization of the world was the ultimate celebration of the political, economic and social homogenization of the global populations. On political front, there is a consensus that democracy was not only the best but also the only legitimate way of organizing modern polities. On the economic front, the global 8 zation of the economy was a foregone conclusion as nations scrambled to liberalize their economies in order to live up to the new standards set by the World Trade Organization.
In the social arena, lifestyle and tastes shaped by multinational consumer corporations such as Nike, Levis, Coke, MTV, were well on the way to Americanizing the global popular culture. Globalization as a process was facilitated by the liberalization of transformer transactions by the dilution sovereignty. Globalization is essentially a measure of the ease with which labor, ideas, capital, technology and profits can move across borders with minimal governmental interference. This measure of liberalization is also a surrogate measure for security.
The great sense of insecurity that terrorism now inspires in the US economy and the government, the two most important forces behind globalization, has resulted in a reassertion of sovereignty by the US and other nations. The fear that liberal standards created by globalization facilitate the mobility of terrorists, their finances and their ideas, is pummeling states towards reconstructing the boundaries and the borders that globalization was subverting. Ariel Sharon's security fence, under construction to keep security inside and terrorists outside, symbolizes this anti-globalist trend more than anything else. The efforts to prevent terrorists from moving their resources is leading to greater scrutiny of banks and setting up of new measures that will slow down the flow of capital.
The fear that porous borders allow terrorists to enter target countries is leading to new rules about border patrol, VISA regulations, and monitoring of foreign travelers. New security measures at airports have already raised the costs of travel and are affecting the profitability of the airline industry. The terrorist network at work today uses the technological tools of globalization, and they ignore (or attempt to transcend) the normal definitions of the nation-state. Furthermore, the extreme Muslim fundamentalists worry that unbridled globalization can exploit workers and replace ancient cultures with McDonalds and Mickey Mouse.
Governments are increasing international cooperation to monitor the flow of information, people and money across borders. These heightened measures are a result of the change in priorities. Cost is now second to security and therefore in pursuit of safety, profits are being sacrificed. If this state of affairs persists, globalization will be retarded and the very instruments that facilitate and accelerate globalization will be blunted (Steger, 2002).
It is ironic that global terrorism, the phenomenon of terrorists operating in and against several nations simultaneously, was facilitated by globalization and now it has become the biggest challenge to globalization. Global terrorism depends on the success of globalization. In fact, one may very well conceive of global terrorism as a facet of the global culture resulting from globalization. In the 1980 s, as international theorists realized the growing power of economic interdependence they began to theorize what would happen to the anarchic nature of global politics with the increased economic cooperation between nations. Liberals argued that international institutions created to facilitate global cooperation and manage interdependence would eliminate anarchy.
The realists however, maintained that economic cooperation was not a guarantor of security and therefore we would live in a world that was economically orderly but politically anarchic. Neoliberals and neo realists agreed to describe this condition as a state of cooperation under anarchy. In all these, one glaring effect of globalization is the rising anti-American sentiments. American Democrats say that President Bush's policies have squandered Americas attractiveness.
Republicans reply that America is bound to be resented because of its size and its association with globalization. Anti-Americanism, they say, will persist because some people see America as a cultural threat (Reuven, 2004). Contrary to conventional wisdom, globalization is not homogenizing and Americanizing the cultures of the world. Although the United States is at the forefront of the current information revolution, which is creating many similarities in social and cultural habits (such as television viewing or internet use) that are attributed to Americanization, correlation is not causation. To see why, imagine a country that introduced computers and communications at a rapid rate in a world in which America did not exist. One would still expect major social and cultural changes from such modernization.
Of course, because the US exists and is at the forefront of the information revolution, there is a degree of Americanization, but that is likely to diminish over the course of the twenty-first century as technology spreads and local cultures modernize in their own ways. Historical proof that globalization does not necessarily mean homogenization can be seen in Japan, a country that deliberately isolated itself from earlier waves of globalization. In the middle of the 19 th century, Japan became the first Asian country to embrace globalization, and to borrow successfully from the world without losing its uniqueness. In the political realm, Meiji reformers in Japan were well aware of Anglo-American ideas and institutions, but deliberately turned to German models because they were deemed more suitable to a country with an emperor.
The lesson that Japan teaches the rest of the world is not simply that an Asian country can compete, but that after century and an half of globalization, it is possible to adapt while preserving a unique culture (Brodie, 2000). More fundamentally, the image of a homogenizing America reflects a mistakenly static view of culture. Efforts to portray local cultures as unchanging often reflect reactionary political strategies rather than descriptions of reality. Vibrant cultures are constantly changing and borrowing from other cultures -- and that borrowing is not always from the US.
For example, many more countries turned to Canada than America as an example for framing constitutions in the aftermath of the Cold War. Globalization is also a two-edge sword. In some areas, there is not only a backlash against American cultural imports, but an effort to change American culture itself. Capital punishment may now be supported by a majority of Americans, but the death penalty is regarded as an egregious violation of human rights across Europe indeed, across much of the world. American environmental attitudes toward climate changes or genetic modification of food bring similar criticism. More subtly, Americas openness to immigration enriches and changes American culture (Ajami, 2003).
Finally, globalization and the information revolution may reinforce rather than reduce cultural diversity. Some French commentators express fear that in a world of Internet global marketing, there will no longer be room for a culture that cherishes hundreds of different types of cheese. But on the contrary, the Internet allows dispersed customers to come together in a way that encourages niche markets, including hundreds of websites dedicated only to cheese. These are just examples, but they just point to the simple fact that as globalization spreads technical capabilities, and information technology allows broader participation in global communications, Americana economic and cultural preponderance may diminish. A little less dominance may mean a little less anxiety about Americanization, fewer complaints about American arrogance, and less intensity in the anti- American backlash.
The US may have less control in the future, but it may fin itself living in a world somewhat more congenial to its basic values of democracy, free markets, individual liberties and human rights. Yet Steger cites that the US must demonstrate that it is not only the most powerful military power on the planet, but also the foremost market economy in the world, capable of leading a greater number of developing nations to a more prosperous and stable future. (McFarlane & Bleyzer as q in Steger). Meanwhile, relating this to anti-Americanism in the Muslim countries is a more serious matter. The leading element of anti- Americanism in contemporary world politics is the radical Islamist one, which, since the 1990 s has viewed the United States as its strongest and principal enemy. This perception, especially after the American occupation of Iraq, is often accompanied by demonization of the United States in an apocalyptic sense within a concept of war that heralds the end of the world. As long as there is a need for an enemy and for revenge, anti-Americanism will remain part of Islamist religious and cultural doctrines, and will go on fueling the Islamist Jihad, either its violence and terrorism, or its political element.
A change away from this approach can only come from within the Muslim world, through social and cultural developments. What is the more concrete solution? There is a need to spur democratic governments and equitable economic globalization in such nations as Pakistan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia among others. Unless we drain the swamps in which terrorism breeds, we can never achieve the victory to which we and our leaders aspire. To do all these things will require not only great patience but possibly great economic sacrifice over a generation, as well as great political skill and a large measure of luck.
WORKS CITED Ajami, 2003 Ajami, Fouad, 2003. The Falseness of Anti-Americanism. Accessed 4 March 2006 at: < web > Brodie, Bernard: Great Warrior Leaders/Thinkers. 2000. Mcfarlane R.
and M. Bleyzer, Taking Iraq private, The Wall Street Journal (March 27, 2003). Reuven, Paz. 2004, Islamists & Anti-Americanism. Accessed 4 March 2006 at: < web > Steger, Manfred.
Ideologies of globalization. Accessed 4 March 2006 at: web World Trade Organization (2003). Understanding the WTO (3 rd ed. ). Accessed 4 March 2006 at: web understanding. pdf
Free research essays on topics related to: economic globalization, economic cooperation, anti americanism, border patrol, global terrorism
Research essay sample on Anti Americanism Global Terrorism
