Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?

[selil]

The accrediting agencies for my university program at the program, state, and regional levels all require me to teach globalization. My curriculum must reflect the principles of globalization. At a recent academic conference I asked one of the architects of this requirement, "What is globalization?" His response was a pedantic, "You don't know?" Leaving me breathless and struggling to keep my inner Marine at peace I said, "No, I want to know if you do?"

To whit, globalization is when my students have to compete for jobs with any student anywhere else on the planet for a job. This is true, and they do, quite well. Globalization is the effect on the local market when cheap Turkish steel is dumped in America and results in 30K steel workers getting laid off. That then turns into a political incident and causes perturbations in domestic politics. Globalization is the fact that over the last thirty years the number of American born professors in STEM higher education has radically dwindled towards a minority. A trend followed by declining STEM education for American students and simply circular. Globalization is the perturbation in the corn market caused when a harvest half a world away fails and my local farmers in Indiana get a little fatter pay-check. Globalization is the fact a flood in Brazil results in an increase sales return on computer equipment designed in Texas, built in China, and delivered by Korean shipping through a Chillean company.

A mild mistake made by the Barnetts of the world and most arm-chair strategists is laying globalization at the foot of the Internet and basing everything on communications. Those are symptoms of globalizations. From the view of an Indiana farmer globalization isn't about networks it is about peering. Instead of hierarchical relationships or even networked relationships it is about peering relationships. The farmer sells directly to the consumer half a world away. We see this system breaking down in the music industry as artists sell directly to the consumer. iTunes from Apple is an example of the retailer removing the distributor, but now we have the distributor being yanked out of the picture too. NetFlix, iTunes, and even Amazon are retailers who are direct to market. Now technologies are allowing them to be lept and producer to consumer is possible. That should scare most governments because in the seams of the previous nationalized systems is where regulation and taxation fit. Now those seams are closing.

If you apply these concepts to the military an entire new venue of conflicts arise and become possible. The simple assumptions of state power become limited when it is falsely assumed the state has "power". Similarly there are issues with assumption that the "corporation" has power too. When the market place shifts from provider/user to produce/consumer an entire new set of paradigms rise. This is both unprecedented and continues economic models that have long existed in non-monetary systems. Assuming that the nation-state with what are now entirely minuscule armies (in comparison to population densities) are going to pacify large swaths of the population is simplistic. When the need for the state as primacy of control is replaced by localized relationships there simply will be break downs. Corporations realized this changing venue of power matrixes a long time ago and companies like WalMart grew from not just being "providers" but convenience providers and relationship builders.

Most military members are missing other elements of globalization even as they use it to their advantage. The soldier in Afghanistan web-cam chatting with his spouse and children in America is engaged in a peering relationship. So, are the fifth graders talking with the Imam in Iran while sitting in Colorado. Same for the college sophomores who are working on a project with Chinese college on a project. Projections of nationalism to those domestic populations are eroded by the consistent peering relationships. Domestic attempts by political forces of the nation state are buffered by personal contacts with foreign nationals. This leads to a disconnection of populace support for foreign aggression and in a democracy leadership challenges. The attempt by politicians and military members to say "This is true" is met with a sigh and "not from my experience". The adage that the military went to war and American went to the mall is a truism. Fed in part by the disconnection of the Military and political process from the populace and the rapidly escalation of a growing divide caused by globalization.

Less than 1 percent of the United States population serves in the United States military and it costs more than the next five militaries on the planet combined. The money spent effects relatively few Americans in a very small swath of cities and regions (and dwindling with base closures). Consider the civil/military relationship and then consider the globalization relationships. Would we expect a government or military that doesn't understand the former to have any clue about the latter?

[Cliff]

If you apply these concepts to the military an entire new venue of conflicts arise and become possible. The simple assumptions of state power become limited when it is falsely assumed the state has "power". Similarly there are issues with assumption that the "corporation" has power too. When the market place shifts from provider/user to produce/consumer an entire new set of paradigms rise. This is both unprecedented and continues economic models that have long existed in non-monetary systems. Assuming that the nation-state with what are now entirely minuscule armies (in comparison to population densities) are going to pacify large swaths of the population is simplistic. When the need for the state as primacy of control is replaced by localized relationships there simply will be break downs. Corporations realized this changing venue of power matrixes a long time ago and companies like WalMart grew from not just being "providers" but convenience providers and relationship builders.

Most military members are missing other elements of globalization even as they use it to their advantage. The soldier in Afghanistan web-cam chatting with his spouse and children in America is engaged in a peering relationship. So, are the fifth graders talking with the Imam in Iran while sitting in Colorado. Same for the college sophomores who are working on a project with Chinese college on a project. Projections of nationalism to those domestic populations are eroded by the consistent peering relationships. Domestic attempts by political forces of the nation state are buffered by personal contacts with foreign nationals. This leads to a disconnection of populace support for foreign aggression and in a democracy leadership challenges. The attempt by politicians and military members to say "This is true" is met with a sigh and "not from my experience". The adage that the military went to war and American went to the mall is a truism. Fed in part by the disconnection of the Military and political process from the populace and the rapidly escalation of a growing divide caused by globalization.

Less than 1 percent of the United States population serves in the United States military and it costs more than the next five militaries on the planet combined. The money spent effects relatively few Americans in a very small swath of cities and regions (and dwindling with base closures). Consider the civil/military relationship and then consider the globalization relationships. Would we expect a government or military that doesn't understand the former to have any clue about the latter?

Selil-

I think that Barnett's point mirrors yours- by "connectivity" he doesn't mean the internet, he means the ability of folks in one place to do business/interact with others. The internet is obviously the biggest enabler of that, but it is an enabler - not the effect. This is why I think the economic factor is becoming more important- it results in the "peering" process as you call it. It's tough to get someone to go to war with somebody they work with every day - and even tougher to convince them that that person is the "enemy". One reason you see so much hatred in places like Pakistan is that disconnectedness.

One of my big concerns though is the strength of military might. You mention it, and several others have alluded to it. Certainly even our military has a hard time "pacifying large swaths of the population"... but this is because we choose to follow the Western norms for warfare. Raw, naked force still has the ability to subjugate, and it could disrupt globalization and cause regression. It would take a massive amount of force, true- but the lesson of WWI and WWII is that at some point even the most fanatical organizations/governments will surrender if they are faced with annihilation- and afterwards, there are significant psychological and social consequences. I'm not arguing that this is a good idea, or right in any way- but if an actor with sufficient power chooses to use it in this way... well, it would probably work. We need to make sure we don't assume that the rules we use will always apply to everyone else.

V/R,

Cliff