Many of the pro-globalization articles contend that Globalization isn't Westernization, but based on the driving forces behind American Foriegn policy, that isn't true. In 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the United States became the world's only Superpower, Dick Cheney, the then Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld, who had known eachother from previous administrations including Nixon, began to worry about nuclear proliferation and sustaining America as the world's sole superpower. Together with other neo-conservatives, they formed the think tank (a research institute or informal group providing advice and ideas on any aspect of future planning and strategy - for example issues of policy, commerce, and military interest - and are often associated with military laboratories, corporations, academia, or other institutions [thank you dictionary.com!] ) the Project for the New American Century (www.newamerican century.org) in 1997 of which "Scooter" Libby, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz are also a part of. The PNAC's fundamental propositions are to establish military and economic dominace throughout the world and "such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle".
The PNAC also advocates "a policy of military strength and moral clarity" which includes:
-A significant increase of US military spending.
-Strengthening ties with US allies and challenging regimes hostile to US interests and values.
-Promoting the cause of political and economic freedom outside the US.
-Preserving and extending an international order friendly to US security, prosperity and principles
and proposes to control the new "international commons" of space and "cyberspace" to pave the way for the creation of the U.S. Space Forces (This sounds so made-up, but go to their website and look it up for yourself)
The PNAC operates "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces."
Essentially, the PNAC wants to establish "American Style Free Markets" across the world as well as strengthen our military precence by setting up numberous military bases all over the world. This has already been happening as evidenced by the War in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. The PNAC specifies the Middle East, specifically Iraq and Iran, as places to establish these markets.
According to Wikipedia: "The PNAC recommends the forward redeployment of US forces at new strategically placed permanent military bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia. Permanent bases ease the strain on US forces, allowing readiness to be maintained and the carrier fleet to be reduced. Furthermore the military should be enlarged, equipped and restructured for the "constabulary" roles associated with shaping the security in critical regions of the world."
"A line frequently quoted by critics from [the PNAC report] Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event â€” like a new Pearl Harbor". This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational conceptsâ€?. The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event â€” like a new Pearl Harbor.""
On Janurary 29th 1998, the PNAC sent a latter to Bill Clinton "...turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk."
Think Tanks, the military, the weapons industry, and congress come together to form what was coined by Eisenhower as "The Military Industrial Complex" , which together play a pivitol, if the major source, for the direction of our American Foriegn Policy. None of this is made up or conspiracy theroy-ish. All one has to do is visit the PNAC's website and do some digging.
So essentially, the driving force behind our foriegn policy. And, by definition, a Global Free Market would not leave room for American supremacy, yet our own foreign policy is being guided by an agenda that seeks to tighten the U.S.'s grip on the world and fend off Asia. This directly ties into the "McWorld vs Jihad" idea that in reaction to the big, impersonal, money-driven, identitylessness of Americanism, there is an equal reaction by those who fall into the "Jihad" category of responding to it by trying desperatly to retain their own seperate identity and not be consumed in American culture and American products (I assume those cultures don't want their heroes to be used in the way that some Americans venerate our culture's heroes, the way a car salesman puts on a beard and top hat and has some kind of sale on Lincoln's birthday). To assume that another culture would not be "commercialized" is an uninformed one. Look at how we treat Christmas. I am by no means defending anything Jihadis do, but I got the distinct impression that most people in class missed one of the major points of the article, namely that "McWorld and Jihad" are equally evil, whereas Jihad's is much more upfront and violent, McWorld's is more subtle but more consuming. I'm considering going into the unacknowledged evils of our lack of self (lack of identity, which is hugely important and constantly discussed in philosophy) and the culture we live in completely perpetuated by money (that reduces people to walking around with a big "Hollister" across their chests, I mean in that case you've become a billboard for a company for the sake of buying an image), but I'll save that, I think because I'm pushing my bedtime limits here. An example of the interplay of "Jihad" and "McWorld" goes back to the 1970's when MI6 and the CIA became uncomfortable with the relationship of Iranâ€™s prime minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh and Communist Tudeh Party when Iran decided to nationalize it's oil. What resulted was Operation Ajax in which the CIA and MI6 sponcered a C'oup D'etat and put in a new Shah, (Imam) Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomein, who turned out to be extremely anti-American. This new Iran began aggressive militarization, and in responce the U.S. capitalized on American ally Saddam Huessien's discomfort with their militarized neighbor and desire to gain Iran's oil rich lands. That began the bloody Iran-Iraq War, and that's when the U.S. gave Saddam all those weapons we later claimed he had (but the shelf life of them all had already expired about 8 years prior to the latest invasion). During the war, Saddam became threatening to the U.S. because he was unsuccessful in gaining oil in Iran, so he began to invade Kuwait, causing the Gulf War. In responce, the U.S. established a permanent military base in Saudi Arabia, the very action that lead Osama Bin Laden to sponcer terrorism (clash of civilizations/mcworld vs jihad dynamic). The Americanization process continues when on October 9th, 2001 U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin meets with the Pakistani oil minister Usman Aminduddin to discuss a gas pipeline project from Turkmenistan, across Afghanistan to Pakistan is revived â€śin view of recent geopolitical developmentsâ€? (9/11). December 27, 2002, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan agree to building the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, a $3.2 billion dollar project that would require an indefinite foreign military presence in Afghanistan.
I strayed big time, but the point is, now you can see how despite the claims that Globalization isn't Westernization, it really is according to our current foreign policy.
â€śThe West, in effect is using international institutions, military power, and economic resources to run the world in ways that will maintain Western predominance, protect Western interest, and promote Western political and economic values,â€? (p.41-42
, â€ś Most important, the efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and liberalism as universal values, to maintain its military predominance and to advance its economic interests engendered countering responses from other civilizations,â€? (p.39).
â€śLevels of inequality in the U.S. resemble those of Latin American countries more than those of any European society. Yet such direct consequences of the free market have not weakened support for it. It remains the sacred cow of American politics and has become identified with Americaâ€™s claim to be a model for a universal civilization,â€? (p.23)
my teacher was saying that in america/ we look to our reason/law for spirituality, confidence/definition of who we are as westerners, and in russia they look to beauty and art. they revere poets and writers and give them the idealogical power that we give to politics/etc. i thought youd like that as well.