Globalization is Westernization, no really.
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."
Further:
"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 — like a new Pearl Harbor".[6] 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 concepts”.[7] 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 — 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 Iran’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 “in view of recent geopolitical developments” (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.
“The 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,” (p.41-42
, “ 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,” (p.39).
“Levels 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 America’s claim to be a model for a universal civilization,” (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.
Comments
I read most of your blog entry, but the part that most caught my attention was the part about Christmas and Hollister. I agree Americans are buying into the globalization trend.
Posted by: Dain Haukos | September 27, 2006 08:54 PM
I'm sure you'll be wondering why we try to build military bases in certain locations when Iran tries to take Israel off the map and North Korea finally gets fed up with South Korea. You might have to get off your idealistic horse and realize that these things have to be done in really, really ugly ways, non-democratic ways, ways that make you sqirm when you think about them. Yeah, I've seen "Why We Fight", I've read the literature on PNAC, I understand the Military Industrial Complex. It is so entrenched now that there is little you can do. Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent in office....doesn't matter. We are hooked on cheap oil; we love it--if we could--we would eat it. We love McDonalds. We love to pay outrageous sums for designer clothes that were made for five cents in Honduras. We love it all. You know whats really desturbing? There is no stopping us. Think Rome is a precednet? Rome didn't have the Internet and TV. Think about it. It will blow you're mind.
Posted by: The Red Horse of the Apocalypse | September 30, 2006 11:45 AM
wow, "red horse of the apocalypse", you're so edgy and realistic. So, what you're saying is, I ought to keep to myself and try not to educate others on what is going on so someday it might change? that i ought to stop trying ("get off my idealistic horse") because "we're so entrenched" that that somehow makes it ok? and that i ought to just accept that the United States has to do things in " really, really ugly ways"? It's actually intersting, the part about Iran and Israel you mentioned, a lot of that has to do with the U.S. putting it's hand in and screwing things up. Oh, wait, and so does North and South Korea.
So no, I'm not going to pipe down while the country i live in excersises it's power immorally. i don't see the point in being quiet, and no, i don't think it's naive to speak my mind about it. So please, don't act like you're talking down to me, showing me how "things really are".
but wow, you so blew my mind.
Posted by: John Luckovich | September 30, 2006 08:41 PM
You know, I appreciate the fact that your mind was blown. You took the leaps of imagination to inturpret what I "was saying". I just threw it out there cause I love the way we screw things up. It's kinda our M.O. Its how we do things. Israel is our fault? I need a history lesson. Korea? You sure can pipe up and try and do something, but I rather like being an empire. Needless to say, sooner or later we will fall from the top and be driven into the ground the same way we imposed ourselves to others. Who said God didn't have a sense of humor. That's a ways down the road--it took a lot to get up here, we won't come down easy. Least not while I'm on to things. I've got a date with Dick Cheney, so I gotta roll. You stay classy.
Posted by: The Black Horse of the Apocalypse | October 1, 2006 01:46 PM
Dear Color-Of-The-Day Horse of the Apocalypse,
As mentioned in the entry above, the CIA and MI6's coup d'etat has a significant hand in why Iran would ever "try to take Israel off the map". The United States also had a hand in Korea splitting, hence the Korean War.
And man, I have to start thinking of clever little quips like yours to sound smug at the end of my replies.
Posted by: The Laughing Man | October 2, 2006 11:44 AM
I'm going on a hunch and saying The Laughing Man is the guy who wrote the post in the first place...just a hunch. As for your very vauge definitions of the hand that western powers had in both the questioned instances, I would love to be enlightened with more detail. I am aware of the sha problem, however. I just want to know exactly what was wrong with their actions in light of the brewing situation with Iraq. As for your post in general, I am simply in need of a very specific reason why PNAC is wrong in its mission to maintain the security of the United States. Your post makes very strong statements and a good argument, but given the historical stance of the United States in the Middle East, our economic interest, the protection of Israel and the rise of terrorism (I really don't care if we started it, its all about what we do now), what other options remain to the United States other than its unilateral projection of power into the Middle East?
Posted by: The Pale Horse of the Apocalypse | October 3, 2006 08:47 PM
yep, the Laughing Man is a J.D. Salinger story.
For the U.S. involvment with the tensions between Israel and Iran, see
below, as for our relationship to Korea, when Japan was surrendering after
World War 2, The U.S. and Soviet Union divided Korea into North and South.
Each established governments in their halves with eachother's political
ideology.the U.S. ran elections replacing an pre-existing, left-wing
government that had formed in June 1945, before the end of the war, with
one led by anti-Communist Syngman Rhee and he southern part's left-wing
parties boycotted the elections. The Soviet Union, then, approved and
encouraged the rise of a Communist government led by Kim Il-Sung in the
northern part. The Allies said that Korea would be a unified, independent
country under an elected government but failed to specify the details.
now couldn't you have looked that up yourself?
"I am aware of the sha[h] problem, however. I just want to know exactly
what was wrong with their actions in light of the brewing situation with
Iraq. "
I don't think you are aware of the problem. To address both this and the
quote aboue i'll explain to you our history with Iran. This was in my post:
" the 1970's when MI6 and the CIA became uncomfortable with the
relationship of Iran’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."
One can infer that a fundamentalist muslim anti-american shah is going to
be anti-israel as well because of all the fun they're having with
palestine. I don't see how I can spell out the wrongdoings of the United
States in regard to Iraq and Iran any more without repeating myself and
giving you information you should already know to be engadging in such an
argument.
"As for your post in general, I am simply in need of a very specific reason
why PNAC is wrong in its mission to maintain the security of the United
States."
I'm wondering if you actually read my post and wondering if you know
anything about the PNAC and how it's playing out in our world today. Look
at anything having remotely to do with Iraq and the middle east crisis
going on. it's imperialism under the guise of "protection". It's gone far
beyond and kind of "protection".
"given the historical stance of the United States in the Middle East, our
economic interest, the protection of Israel and the rise of terrorism (I
really don't care if we started it, its all about what we do now), what
other options remain to the United States other than its unilateral
projection of power into the Middle East? "
See, that's tricky, because unilateral projection of power into the middle
east is what started this whole mess in the first place. We haven't been
working with the middle east, we've been working "at" them, in a way. You
can go off on "oh, they had elections blah blah blah" but the point is
we're tampering with the cultural evolution, we're forcing "freedom" (which
is a contradiction in itself) and imposing our values, something that
really can't be done to another culture who doesn't have the same
perspective as we do (not saying ours is superior). While I can't provide a
clear answer, I can tell you that better than just going on full speed
ahead as usual, what should have been done was a cooperative planning of
how to fix iraq and reestablish a government in the hands of the will
people, all while keeping their, not our, best interests in mind. That
wasn't and still isn't being done, this war is purely for self-gain, no one
gave a crap about the Iraqi people and still don't.
what happens when you run out of horses?
Posted by: John Luckovich | October 8, 2006 05:03 PM
Smth interesting,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]
Posted by: biagra | July 29, 2007 02:38 AM