Question for Discussion: What are the connections
between globalization, political instability, environmental
destruction, and terrorism?
Readings: Berry, A Citizen's response to the National Security Strategy;
Friedman, "Infosys vs. Al Quaeda"; "Introduction to President Bush's
2002 National Security Strategy
Video:Moyers on the 911 Report (35:00) ; CIA Secret Warriors -- on CIA support
for Bin Laden (2:00)
Assignment: Drawing on the class readings and videos for Aug. 24, write a
short essay-- no more than 2 pages--arguing for or against the proposition
that "We live in an age of Truthiness and the death of Facts."
(30 points, due on Friday, Sept. 4)
1. Major Problems in the 21st Century
Democratic Globalization: Globalization from Below
2. Corporate Globalization--Globalization from Above
3. Debating the Larger Problems with Globalization
- Globalization Era 1992-2008:
Globalization was based on free-markets, free-trade, deregulation,
the belief that the Market could efficiently rule itself, and the
belief that this interconnected global economy benefitted everyone.
- Debating Globalization: Friedman vs. Korten
- World Economic Forum
- Davos 2014: The Reshaping of the World: Consequences for Society, Politics and Business
- Schwab, We must come together to reshape the world (2014)
"Many inside the meetings understood that as the world was becoming more tightly interconnected as it accelerated into the 21st century, it was also becoming more inequitable and volatile. Few were united about what to do."
From conflict in the Middle East, the U.S. Federal Reserve's tapering program, and tension in the South China Sea, to the 75 million unemployed young people around the world, we face a situation where the number of potential flashpoints are many and are likely to grow.
I believe this situation is the result of a collective failure to manage and mitigate the consequences of globalization at the international level. In essence, the turn-of-the-century anti-globalization protesters had a clear message that was right: Global governance was not fit to manage the implications the emerging change.
It remains unfit, and the challenges the world faces today are compounded in complexity.
We cannot afford to allow the next era of globalization to create as many risks and inequities as it does opportunities. The reshaping of the world demands collective insights and collaborative action.
- 10 Greatest Threats Facing the World in 2014
- World Economic Forum: Global Risks 2014 report
- Rich Chinese want to leave China
- That Used to Be Us: How America Fell Behind in the World
It Invented and How We Can Come Back (2011)
by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum
- White, The Ecology of Work (in-class)
- Stiglitz, The Costs of 9-11 (Money)
- The Costs of the Iraq War (Statistics)
- Does the Us spend too much on Homeland Security?
- The National Security Strategy United States of America (2002)
- Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia
- National Security Strategy of the United States (Wikipedia Summary)
- Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century (Apr 5, 2005)
- The World Is Flat - Wikipedia (2005)
- Friedman, Infosys vs. Al Qaeda (in-class)
- Clarke: Bin Laden To Influence U.S. Election: Did Osama influence the 2004 election?
- Where is Bin Laden?
- Weakened Al Qaeda still a Threat (2009)
- Where is Osama Bin Laden (2009)
- Bin Laden is Dead, Obama Says
- Generation 9/11 (2009)
- Who is Wendell Berry?
- Wendell Berry - Wikipedia
- Wendell E. Berry Biography | National Endowment for the Humanities
- Berry, Thoughts in the Presence of Fear (in-class)
- Berry, The Idea of a Local Economy (in-class)
- Berry, A Citizen's Response to the National Security Strategy 2003
4. Globalization and Global Terrorism
5. Globalization and the Global Military Spending
6. Globalization and the Global Environmental Trends
7. Globalization and the Global Economic Growth
Friedman, "InfoSys vs. Al Qaeda"
"AI-Qaeda has learned to use many of the same instruments for global collaboration that Infosys uses, but instead of producing products and profits with them, it has produced mayhem and murder. This is a particularly difficult problem. In fact, it may be the most vexing geopolitical problem for flat-world countries that want to focus on the future. The fiat world-unfortunately--is a friend of both Infosys and al-Qaeda. The Dell Theory will not work at all against these informal Islarno-Leninist terror networks, because they are not a state with a population that will hold its leaders accountable or with a domestic business lobby that might restrain them. These mutant global supply chains are formed for the purpose of destruction, not profit. They don 't need investors, only recruits."
"The flat world makes it much easier for terrorists to transmit their terror. With the Internet they don't even have to go through Western or Arab news organizations but can broadcast right into your computer. It takes much less dynamite to transmit so much more anxiety. Just as the U.S. Army had embedded journalists, so the
suicide supply chain has embedded terrorists, in their own way, to tell us their side of the story. How many times have I gotten up in the morning, fired up the Internet, and been confronted by the video image of some masked gunman threatening to behead an American-all brought to me courtesy of AOL's home page? The Internet is an enormously useful tool for the dissemination of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and plain old untruths, because it combines a huge reach with a patina of technology that makes anything on the Internet somehow more believable. "
."A recent six-year-long study shows that terrorist organizations and their supporters have been using all of the tools that the Internet offers to recruit supporters, raise funds, and launch a worldwide campaign of fear. It is also clear that to combat terrorism effectively, mere suppression of their lnternet tools is not enough. Our scan of the Internet in 2003-04 revealed the existence of hundreds of websites serving terrorists in different, albeit sometimes overlapping, ways ...There are countless examples of how terrorists] use this uncensored medium to spread disinformation, to deliver threats intended to instill fear and helplessness, and to disseminate horrific images of recent actions. "
"In addition to soliciting financial aid online, terrorists recruit converts by using the full panoply of website technologies (audio, digital video, etc.) to enhance the presentation of their message. And like commercial sites that track visitors to develop consumer profiles, terrorist organizations capture information about the users who browse their websites. Visitors who seem most interested in the organization's cause or well suited to carrying out its work are then contacted. Recruiters may also use more interactive Internet technology to roam online chat rooms and cyber cafes, looking for receptive members of the public, particularly young people. "
"Bin Laden, by contrast, can't show his face, but he can reach every household in the world, thanks to the Internet." Bin Laden cannot capture any territory but he can capture the imagination of millions of people. And he has, broadcasting right into American living rooms on the eve of the 2004 presidential election.
Hell hath no fury like a terrorist with a satellite dish and an interactive Web site."
Berry, "Thoughts in the Presence of Fear"
"The dominant politicians, corporate officers, and investors who believed this proposition did not acknowledge that the prosperity was limited to a tiny percent of the world's people, and to an ever smaller number of people even in the United States; that it was founded upon the oppressive labor of poor people all over the world; and that its ecological costs increasingly threatened all life, including the lives of the supposedly prosperous."
"We now have a clear, inescapable choice that we must make. We can continue to promote a global economic system of unlimited "free trade" among corporations, held together by long and highly vulnerable lines of communication and supply, but now recognizing that such a system will have to be protected by a hugely expensive police force that will be worldwide....Or we can promote a decentralized world economy which would have the aim of assuring to every nation and region a local self-sufficiency in life-supporting goods. This would not eliminate international trade, but it would tend toward a trade in surpluses after local needs had been met."
"And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money.....The key to peaceableness is continuous practice. It is wrong to suppose that we can exploit and impoverish the poorer countries, while arming them and instructing them in the newest means of war, and then reasonably expect them to be peaceable."
"We have got to learn to save and conserve. We do need a "new economy," but one that is founded on thrift and care, on saving and conserving, not on excess and waste. An economy based on waste is inherently and hopelessly violent, and war is its inevitable by-product. We need a peaceable economy."
Berry, "The Idea of a Local Economy"
"[T] hen their inevitable first discovery is that the "environmental crisis" is no such thing; it is not a crisis of our environs or surroundings; it is a crisis of our lives as individuals, as family members, as community members, and as citizens. We have an "environmental crisis" because we have consented to an economy in which by eating, drinking, working, resting, traveling, and enjoying ourselves we are destroying the natural, the god-given world."
"A corporation, essentially, is a pile of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral allegiance. The "right" of a corporation to exercise its economic power without restraint is construed, by the partisans of the "free market," as a form of freedom, a political liberty implied presumably by the right of individual citizens to own and use property. But the "free market" idea introduces into government a sanction of an inequality
that is not implicit in any idea of democratic liberty: namely that the "free market" is freest to those who have the most money, and is not free at all to those with little or no money. "
"A total economy, operating internationally, necessarily shrinks the powers of state and national governments, not only because those governments have signed over significant powers to an international bureaucracy or because political leaders become the paid hacks of the corporations but also because political processes - and especially democratic processes - are too slow to react to unrestrained economic and technological development on a global scale..... A total economy is an unrestrained taking of profits from the disintegration of nations, communities, households, landscapes, and ecosystems. It licenses symbolic or artificial wealth to "grow" by means of the destruction of the real wealth of all the world."
"These means are justified by the government's obligation to protect the lives, livelihoods, and freedoms of its citizens. There is, then, no necessity or inevitability requiring our government to sacrifice the livelihoods of our small farmers, small business people, and workers, along with our domestic economic independence to the global "free market." But now all of these means are either weakened or in disuse. The global economy is intended as a means of subverting them."
"A total economy for all practical purposes is a total government. The "free trade" which from the standpoint of the corporate economy brings "unprecedented economic growth," from the standpoint of the land and its local populations, and ultimately from the standpoint of the cities, is destruction and slavery. Without prosperous local economies, the people have no power and the land no voice."
Berry, "A Citizen's Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America" (2003)
"The idea of a government acting alone in preemptive war is inherently undemocratic, for it does not require or even permit the president to obtain the consent of the governed. As a policy, this new strategy depends on the acquiescence of a public kept fearful and ignorant, subject to manipulation by the executive power, and on the compliance of an intimidated and office dependent legislature. To the extent that a government is secret, it cannot be democratic or its people free. "
"MUCH OF THE OBSCURITY of our effort so far against terrorism originates in this now official idea that the enemy is evil and that we are (therefore) good, which is the precise mirror image of the official idea of the terrorists. [President Bush said:] "But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil." A government, committing its nation to rid the world of evil, is assuming necessarily that it and its nation are good."
"[I] t is cynical to invoke the ideas of cooperation, community, peace, freedom, justice, dignity, and the rule of law (as this document repeatedly does), and then proceed to assert one's intention to act alone in making war. One cannot reduce terror by holding over the world the threat of what it most fears."
"[M] any governments have recognized that peace is not just a desirable condition, as was thought before, but a practical necessity. But we have not yet learned to think of peace apart from war. We wait, still, until we face terrifying dangers and the necessity to choose among bad alternatives, and then we think again of peace, and again we fight a war to secure it." (Berry)
"We can no longer afford to confuse peaceability with passivity. Authentic peace is no more passive than war. Like war, it calls for discipline and intelligence and strength of character, though it calls also for higher principles and aims. If we are serious about peace, then we must work for it as ardently, seriously, continuously, carefully, and bravely as we now prepare for war."
White,The Idols of Environmentalism
ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION proceeds apace in spite of all the warnings, the good science, the 501(c)3 organizations with their memberships in the millions, the poll results, and the martyrs perched high in the branches of sequoias or shot dead in the Amazon. This is so not because of a power, a strength out there that we must resist. It is because we are weak and fearful. Only a weak and fearful society could invest so much desperate energy in protecting activities that are the equivalent of suicide.
The problem for even the best-intentioned environmental activism is that it imagines that it can confront a problem external to itself. Confront the bulldozers. Confront the chainsaws. Confront Monsanto. Fight the power. What the environmental movement is not very good at is acknowledging that something in the very fabric of our daily life is deeply anti-nature as well as anti-human. It inhabits not just bad-guy CEOs at Monsanto and Weyerhaeuser but nearly every working American, environmentalists included.
The idea of fallen idols always suggests tragic disillusionment, but this is in fact a good thing. If they don't fall, there is no hope for discovering the real problems and the best and truest response to them. All environmentalists understand that the global crisis we are experiencing requires urgent action, but not everyone understands that if our activism is driven by idols we can exhaust ourselves with effort while having very little effect on the crisis. Most frighteningly, it is even possible that our efforts can sustain the crisis. The question the environmental tribe must ask is, do our mistaken assumptions actually cause us to conspire against our own interests?
Environmentalism has made a Faustian pact with quantitative reasoning; science has given it power but it cannot provide deliverance. If environmentalism truly wishes, as it claims, to want to “save” something—the planet, a species, itself—it needs to rediscover a common language of Care.
THE LESSONS OF OUR IDOLS come to this: you cannot defeat something that you imagine to be an external threat to you when it is in fact internal to you, when its life is your life. And even if it were external to you, you cannot defeat an enemy by thinking in the terms it chooses, and by doing only those things that not only don't harm it but with which it is perfectly comfortable. The truth is, our idols are actually a great convenience to us. It is convenient that we can imagine a power beyond us because that means we don't have to spend much time examining our own lives. And it is very convenient that we can hand the hard work of resistance over to scientists, our designated national problem solvers.
We can, however, look at ourselves and see all of the ways that we conspire against what we imagine to be our own most urgent interests. Perhaps the most powerful way in which we conspire against ourselves is the simple fact that we have jobs. We are willingly part of a world designed for the convenience of what Shakespeare called “the visible God”: money. When I say we have jobs, I mean that we find in them our home, our sense of being grounded in the world, grounded in a vast social and economic order. It is a spectacularly complex, even breathtaking, order, and it has two enormous and related problems. First, it seems to be largely responsible for the destruction of the natural world. Second, it has the strong tendency to reduce the human beings inhabiting it to two functions, working and consuming. It tends to hollow us out. It creates a hole in our sense of ourselves and of this country, and it leaves us with few alternatives but to try to fill that hole with money and the things money buys.
Needless to say, many people with environmental sympathies will easily agree with what I've just said and imagine that in fact they do what they can to resist work and consumption, to resist the world as arranged for the convenience of money. But here again I suspect we are kidding ourselves. Rather than taking the risk of challenging the roles money and work play in all of our lives by actually taking the responsibility for reordering our lives, the most prominent strategy of environmentalists seems to be to “give back” to nature through the bequests, the annuities, the Working Assets credit cards and long distance telephone schemes, and the socially responsible mutual funds advertised in Sierra and proliferating across the environmental movement. Such giving may make us feel better, but it will never be enough.
Even when we are trying to aid the environment, we are not willing as individuals to leave the system that we know in our heart of hearts is the cause of our problems. We are even further from knowing how to take the collective risk of leaving this system entirely and ordering our societies differently. We are not ready. Not yet, at least.