Thread: The Collapse of Globalism

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 84,00.html
The end of the world as we know it?
Martin Jacques
Saturday July 23, 2005
The Guardian

The Collapse of Globalism
by John Ralston Saul
309pp, Atlantic, £16.99

There have been countless books describing the rise of globalisation, but its decline, though hardly new, is much less familiar territory. This is the nub of John Ralston Saul's book. He dates the rise of globalisation from 1971 and argues that its central tenet is that "civilisation should be seen through economics, and economics alone". He depicts the rise of the ideology of free trade from the mid-19th century as a similarly mono-dimensional and economically fundamentalist phenomenon. There is much to commend his exposition of globalisation, or rather the ideology of globalisation, which he terms "globalism": it is informative, engaging and, above all, bitingly critical.

Saul sees the heyday of globalisation as the mid-90s. By this time, tariffs had fallen considerably, hundreds of trade agreements were in place, tax rates for the wealthy had fallen, global markets reigned supreme, and privatisation and deregulation were sweeping the world. Even the old communist citadel had succumbed. The year 1995, which Saul regards as the high point of globalisation, saw the establishment of the WTO, the body that would preside over the new global economic order. Yet, within five short years, the movement had begun to falter. The Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 underlined the inherent instability of the new system. To the consternation and fury of the international financial community, Malaysia imposed capital controls and was proved right in the process. In 1999, the WTO conference at Seattle was the occasion of huge demonstrations against globalisation. And a year earlier, the talks on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) had fallen apart.

It is worth reminding ourselves what was at issue with the MAI. The key paragraph guaranteed that foreign investors would receive "treatment no less favourable than the treatment [a country] accords its own investors and their investments with respect to the establishment, acquisition, use, enjoyment and sale or other disposition of investments". This was globalisation with a swagger, an extraordinary example of neo-colonialism (as it - correctly - used to be called) in action: it also proved to be a case of hubristic imperial overreach. The developing world successfully resisted the proposal and it died a death.

Since then, the WTO process has been paralysed, the developing world has found new voice and confidence, personified by the ad hoc alliance between China, India, Brazil and South Africa. Meanwhile the conflict between Brazil and South Africa and the western drug companies - with their absurdly high prices and their insistence on intellectual property rights (which Saul quite rightly describes as an outrageous form of coupon-clipping) - has brought what were previously seen as rather esoteric issues to the attention of an increasingly outraged global public.

Saul believes globalisation is now in retreat. He is probably right. He likens the present era - or interregnum - to that of the 70s when the old Keynesian system was in growing disarray but the neo-liberal era that was to replace it was neither strong enough nor coherent enough to supplant it. As a consequence, he believes we are now living in something of a vacuum. He underestimates, however, just how much of the old system remains in place and the extent to which neo-liberal logic remains dominant.

Saul strangely fails to consider what might happen to the present global system. He rightly argues that it is presently characterised by stasis. But could it actually go into reverse, as happened to the last great era of globalisation between 1870 and 1914? The key is almost certainly the United States, which has been the prime architect of the present system. It is by no means impossible that at some point it might decide that globalisation is no longer sufficiently in its interests and, at the same time, too much in the interests of others, notably East Asia, which in this case is shorthand for China. We have already witnessed a markedly nationalistic turn in American foreign policy, and in principle there is no reason why this should not find expression in economic policy also. One of the weaknesses of the book, in fact, is the absence of any real discussion of the neo-conservative shift in US politics.

Nor does Saul give anything like sufficient importance to the rise of India and China. It is not that he is guilty - like so many western writers - of failing to give due consideration to the developing world; he understands the central significance of their emergence as independent countries, the importance of the nation-state, the pervasive legacy of colonialism, and the imperial ambitions of the developed world. But in looking to the future, one gets no sense of how the world is being - and will be - reshaped by the rise of China and India, what this might mean for the global order, and what its repercussions might be for western polities.

This is an eminently readable book. The brunt of his argument is surely right and the fact that the material is relatively familiar is no bad thing: after years of being forced to read text after text, speech after speech, article after article from the same neo-liberal globalisation hymn sheet, it is a breath of fresh air to read the unauthorised version. But as he turns his attention to the future, the book becomes shapeless and inchoate. Perhaps the reason is that this is essentially a work of commentary, albeit insightful, informative and entertaining. Saul may be broadly right about the last quarter-century, but it feels as if he is stumbling around in the dark when it comes to the next.

· Martin Jacques is a visiting professor at the International Centre for Chinese Studies, Aichi University, Japan. To order The Collapse of Globalism for £15.99 with free UK p&p call Guardian book service on 0870 836 0875.

Well, I don't know enough about globalism to write a book on the subject but it seems to me that it has reached new heights with the Bush administration and our congress. They passed CAFTA, they have no desire to secure our borders, and we are in the midst of a grisly unnecessary occupation of Iraq with the purpose of installing a new oil friendly regime.

I don't see the benefits of any of it but then I'm not a rich corporate CEO. To me it looks like the end of the world, or at least the beginning of the end.

The announcement of the death of Globalism is no doubt a little premature. It's like we're in a race, with our adversaries working to destroy the mechanisms of democracy before public opinion is able to arise strongly enough to stop it.

I'm sure the fact that Iraq has the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world has something to do with why we're there. Last year, I heard that the Bush administration appointed Chalabi as Iraq's interior minister, which may have something to do with the oil. If Bush wants to give the Iraqis back their country, then why are we deciding who their interior ministers are?

Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia - September 2004

At the end of our meeting, I asked Mahmud what would happen if the plant was sold despite the workers' objections. "... There are two choices," he said, looking me in the eye and smiling kindly... "Either we will set the factory on fire and let the flames devour it to the ground, or we will blow ourselves up inside of it... But it will not be privatized."

The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war’s ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis.........
........ In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no ownership restrictions.

If these policies sound familiar, it’s because they are the same ones multinationals around the world lobby for from national governments and in international trade agreements. But while these reforms are only ever enacted in part, or in fits and starts, Bremer delivered them all,all at once. Overnight, Iraq went from being the most isolated country in the world to being, on paper, its widest-open market.

With unemployment as high as 67 percent, the imported products and foreign workers flooding across the borders have become a source of tremendous resentment in Iraq and yet another open tap fueling the insurgency.

[quote]But while the Iraqi resistance has managed to scare off the first wave of corporate raiders, there’s little doubt that they will return. Whatever form the next Iraqi government takesâ€â€

Globalism is growing. CAFTA passed and Bush wants to pass the FTAA by Dec 31 of this year, so we can become one giant North American Community as described in the CFR plan.


“I am concerned for the security of our great nation, not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.�
â€â€

Bush is a monster.

He is a Monster and we have even seen the worst of him yet.

With regard to article by Saul...globalism was always a joke...always there but could never really happen world wide for one reason, the presence of the American People in a land called the United States of America.

We studied New World Order, One World Government in college 30 years ago. Oh sure...all NUTS have some dream of ruling the world through some crazy scheme to manipulate and control the masses. They made a fortune off James Bond movies on the topic.

What made it economic folk lore; a tall tale of study; and something that could never become reality was because of one country and one people...the United States and the Americans.

Well...here we sit dealing with the unthinkable, the utterly preposterous, the total collapse of our government as it was designed to work.

We no longer control our government which means we no longer control anything. We've been outnumbered by 5 US Supreme Court Justices; 6 US Senators; 3 members of the House of Representatives; 10 Cabinet Members; and 1 President.

A small group really when you think about it. Only 25 TRAITORS it took to end the United States and take out the Americans, the only real hurdle to New World Order, One World Government and GLOBALISM, which of course is just a new name for Lenin Marxist Socialism or as WE AMERICANS would put it, A BUNCH OF COMMIES RULING THE WORLD!!

IMHO...the deal with China has already been struck. All this "whimpering" about "getting tough on China" is a facade. The deal includes China, because how could it not? China is a GLOBALIST'S BEST FRIEND.