Few issues in our current day and age cause as much controversy as globalization. However, any movement that affects an entire world and its population can be expected to come with a fair amount of debate. While some may agree with the “flattening of the world,” as it has been described by Thomas Friedman, and others do not, it is very difficult to argue that globalization will not come to make a great impact upon the world as we know it. In fact, perhaps the greater question that must be asked when considering globalization is not whether or not the process should be continued, but how countries such as the United States are going to adapt and deal with the changes brought on by a virtually flat world. One need only look at many of the developing controversies and policies currently displayed in the current media to realize that globalization requires great changes in policy in order for a country to succeed and prosper. Although the United States is partially prepared to deal and interact in a global market, a large amount of changes must be made in the economic, military, social, and political policies of America if a proper integration is to be made.
In many of the countries where globalization has been fully implemented, it become apparent that definite changes have been made to the core foreign policies of the country. Nations such as Argentina, which have fully embraced the global market, have had many positive and negative effects on the various aspects of their country. In fact, if one does take Argentina, a nation whose economy and social structure was virtually destroyed by globalization efforts, much can be learned as to the proper methods and ways that globalization can safely by integrated into a country. In his book, “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy”, author Greg Palast describes what he calls the “key steps” to globalization. Namely, the government must be cut, privatization must be increased, national budgets lowered, currency deregulated and banks must be freed to speculate in current and capitol markets (Palast 23).
However, considering the great significance that globalization is about to play in shaping some of the worlds major events for example, the recent controversy over American sea ports being contracted to the United Arab Emirates, it seems only appropriate to understand that there are both positive and negative effects regarding the movement, and also that many changes must be made in the American governmental system in order to compensate for the rise of globalization. “If we grant the existence of such connections, how are we to conceive of them? Can we grasp a common process that generates and organizes them? Is it possible to envision a common dynamic and yet maintain a sense of it’s distinctive unfolding in time and space?” (Collins ix). Indeed global competition and communication appears to be connecting the world at a sometimes-alarming pace. Although the debate over whether or not globalization actually hurts or helps a country has yet to be decided, there can be no doubt that many changes must be made regarding the United States and their current reactionary system to Globalization.
In terms of the economy, the United States has fallen significantly behind other major world countries in dealing with Globalization. “By the end of the nineties, the treatises that we had hailed so proudly were seen as unbalanced, trade liberalization as a new way in which the rich and powerful could exploit the weak and the poor” (Stiglitz 205). Indeed, perhaps no better proof can be found that the United States really has fallen behind in dealing with the global economy than the fact that United States business schools have seen a roughly 24% decrease in foreign attendance (Gross). European universities have simply improved their own schools and businesses to a level beyond what those in the United States can currently offer (Gross). While globalization has definitely made an impact on the economic policies and situations of the United States, the real challenge becomes seeing how the country must adapt to these changes. Many have said that policies such as health care and government-regulated programs need to be kept in mind during the entire globalization process (Danaher). “With each year the trade imbalance grows as the outflow of viable jobs” (Hall). The main probably with the United States economy in terms of a global market, however, is not whether or not one can mark the successes of major corporations, “the reality is that many people are already losing jobs, while others are under-earning and losing the benefits their families need desperately” (Sweatshop Free America).
Indeed, perhaps the widespread corruption that can be found within the American economic system of globalization is the biggest overall downfall for the system. “…While others may have suffered from the mismanagement of globalization, and while in the long run this mismanagement will be costly for the United States – especially as all of the problems of the Clinton Administration become multiplied and magnified by the succeeding Bush Administration – in the short run America benefited, showing once again that what is…good for the United States is not good for the rest of the world” (Stiglitz 203). Some may also point out the constantly degrading moral state of the United States in business ventures. “There has been a great effect to the moral economics and ‘rhetorical frames’ as the labor market has globalized” (Collins 13). However, even more alarming than the shattered moral scale of globalization are the many examples of how Globalization has caused widespread economic damage within the United States as a whole. Some have even gone so far as to say that, “Our bubble economy has sowed the seeds of its own destruction” (Stiglitz 203). Another excellent example of globalization negatively affecting the economy can be seen with the energy crisis in California. Power outages in San Francisco and California are a direct effect of globalization deregulation” (Palast 144). In order for America to truly benefit from the global market, many changes must be made to the countries policies in dealing with the economy.
Quite simply, globalization is something that must be controlled, especially when dealing with matters related to the economy. For much of the world, globalization is synonymous with Americanization–McDonald’s arches and Mickey Mouse ears everywhere. Some nations will try to resist globalization because they can’t separate it from Americanization. For the many people who continue to be harmed by globalization, America and Americans are the easiest targets for blame” (Porter). Many also feel that economic globalization is “something that should be ‘tamed’ or ‘managed'” (Gordon). In fact, the United States, to compete with a globalized economic market needs to greatly adapt its policies away from benefiting large corporations and consider the worker into the equation. The technical means exists for feeding, housing and educating all the people on earth: it’s mainly a matter of developing the political will to build a sustainable and equitable world economy” (Danaher). Some have suggested, “a backlash is both inevitable and healthy” (Porter). Also, in order to properly deal with globalization and provide a suitable national environment for it, the labor market in the United States must be regulated. There is a widespread “fear that labor markets left to their own devices will thoroughly deplete workers and destroy the social basis through which labor is reproduced” (Collins 15). Whatever methods are taken to correct the widespread problems of globalization in the United States, they must be taken soon. “Policies which the United States has pushed contributed in no small measure to the global financial crisis of 1997-1998, which led in turn to the lower commodity price” (Stiglitz 204). However, a far greater crisis with globalization can be found when one considers the military implications of the movement.
“The military might of the US and its allies is the most important factor that underpins ‘globalization’. Today in spite of the end of the Cold War, US military forces are more spread out internationally, employ more sophisticated weaponry, brazenly threaten sovereign countries, and unilaterally wages wars of aggression under various pretexts. This deployment is linked definitely to ‘globalization’ – to the opening of markets and the protection of American and other investments over seas” (Pascual). In today’s world, America all too often “enforces” globalization through military actions. Globalization should be a process that gradually comes to a country. It should never be a choice that is enforced on a populace through military power. Also, the military power of a country should not be used as a threat to force countries to adapt policies that support globalization.
“US relations between China and the United States must improve if globalization is to become viable” (Hall). At the core of US military strategy in the post cold war era is the projection of its military might. This is achieved through basing agreements with other countries, security agreements that even without bases allow for American access to foreign territories (e.g. VFA) and the forcible deployment of military forces in regions of the world (e.g. Kosovo). This is made clear in the case of Iraq where US forces still control the airspace of Iraq and gained basing rights in Saudi Arabia and in Kosovo where NATO forces remain and intervene in the affairs of the Balkan states even after the avowed military objectives have been achieved. In Afghanistan, US forces are already on the ground setting the stage for the long-term intervention in Central Asia” (Pascual). Of course, while it does seem necessary for any viable global country to have a certain degree of military presence, for the United States to have a successful and accepted role in the global community, the US often relies far too heavily of military power to make its point. However, the excessive use of military force in the global dealings of the United States is not only ineffective, it is also dangerous. “As America sets this perverse example for the rest of the world, the dangers to society multiply exponentially” (Sweatshop Free America). Simply put, the United States cannot continue its methods of military dominance over the global world. Definite and immediate changes must be made to the overactive military presence that the US demonstrates over the rest of the world.
Although the United States does face problems with both its military and economic policies in dealing with globalization, perhaps the greatest changes must be made regarding the social policies and decisions that are made by the country. Globalization can pose a strong threat to a countries national identity, as well as the basic culture of a country (Gordon). It seems that the simplest method to correcting the many social problems created by globalization and its accompanying policies would simply be to limit the scope and power that major corporations seem to exhibit over the global market. “The global reach of large corporations has disconnected them from national dreams and desires” (Danaher). In fact, one common thought in dealing with globalization is the idea that traditions cannot exist in the modern globalized world. “A battle that must take place between tradition and modernization will be the “hallmark” for the era of globalization” (Porter). If the United States continues to simply ignore the rights and demands of the common people and the citizens of smaller nations, then the country as a whole will never see the true benefits of a globalized world. And, while some say that “it would be hard, however, for a culture with a strong identity to be crushed by globalization and American Icons”, it also seems apparent that a country needs to retain certain facets of its independence (Gordon). Full domination over a country, whether it is economic, militarily or socially, should never be accepted in the modern world.
If one reasonably looks at those who have benefited most from globalization, at least within the United States, a disturbing trend can be noticed. Namely, it is rarely the smaller entity, or common person, which draws any benefit from it. “The world is becoming more globalized, there is no doubt about that. While that sounds promising, the current form of globalization, neoliberalism, free trade and open markets are coming under much criticism. The interests of powerful nations and corporations are shaping the terms of world trade. In democratic countries, they are shaping and affecting the ability of elected leaders to make decisions in the interests of their people. Elsewhere they are promoting narrow political discourse and even supporting dictatorships and the ‘satiability’ that it brings for their interests. This is to the detriment of most people in the world, while increasingly fewer people in proportion are prospering” (Shah). Indeed, even though countries may make a great amount of economic progress through globalization, often the citizens of those countries are left behind, both economically and socially. “…We also know that jobs are being lost to global competition. We know that the global environment is being threatened on a number of fronts, from global warming and he deterioration of the ozone layer to the exterminate of species and the poisoning of the world’s water supply” (Danaher). It does not seem appropriate that globalization should require such a large amount of sacrifice on the behalf of a countries citizens in order that large corporations and politicians can benefit.
Therein lies another flawed aspect of globalization in America, being the countries political approach to developing the philosophy. Basically, the political policies which the United States has developed with regards to globalization can be deemed partially one sided, and are often viewed as being controversial. “Many saw America as hypocritical after some of the country’s policies and agreements passed over globalization” (Stiglitz 211). “If governments lose control over certain aspects that activities that occur within their borders – either because capital is mobile, the activities are transnational in scope, or the activities are regulated by international government agencies – the lines between domestic policy issues (which states control) and transnational processes with significant domestic effects (which states cannot control) become blurred” (Kollmeyer). Perhaps the greatest problem in dealing with globalization politically lies in the sheer scope of globalization itself. Art Critic and Essayist John Berger wrote, “We are too aware of what is continually traversing the storyline laterally. That is to say, instead of being aware of a point as an infinitely small part of a straight edge, we are aware of it as in infinitely small part of an infinite number of lines at the center of a star of lines” (Collins 5).
Some have even argued that point that globalization, if left uncontrolled, has the potential to undermine democracy and government control in a country. “Much of the debate centers on the degree to which transnational networks of capitalist production and exchange undermine the sovereignty of the nation-state, especially as it relates to the ability [of] countries to democratically implement economic regulations and social welfare policies” (Kollmeyer). With regard to the United States, globalization must not be allowed to dominate the policies and political decisions of the government. Globalization possesses far too great a hold in on most of the policies within the country, whether they are domestic or foreign. A line must be drawn between globalization and government. Without that division, it will eventually become impossible to separate the what is good for the citizens of a country and what is good for that same countries major corporations.
As Thomas Friedman wrote in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, “Balancing a Lexus with an olive tree is something every society has to work on every day. It is also what America, at its best, is all about. America at its best takes the needs of markets, individuals and communities all utterly seriously. And that’s why America, at its best, is not just a country. It’s a spiritual value and role model. It’s a nation that is not afraid to go to the moon, but also still loves to come home for Little League. It is the nation that invented both cyberspace and the backyard barbecue, the Internet and the social safety net, the SEC and the ACLU. Theses dialectics are at the heart of America, and they should never be resolved in favor of one over the other” (Friedman 378). As one of the most controversial issues yet to face the entire global environment globalization stands as one of the dividing points for our current world. As suggested before, it may be possible that globalization and tradition cannot co-exist.
However one may feel about globalization and the role it currently plays in shaping the global environment, few can argue that changes do not need to be made to the current methods with the United States deals with globalization. If America does not come to control globalization, or at least tame the rate at which it is spreading, than it is very likely that the country will stand to lose a great amount of control and power in the world. Globalization cannot simply be allowed to run rampant. The rights of citizens and the common workers and people of the world must be considered. Interestingly enough, it seems that but a few changes in America’s economic, military, and social policies would go a long way towards fixing many of the problems would go a long way towards fixing many of the problems that are currently encountered. Globalization is not inherently a negative idea, however, if changes are not made to the way that it is represented to the world or controlled, than it will perhaps become a nightmarish entity in the future. Perhaps the words of Kofi Annan, seventh Secretary General of the United Nations, described the situation best when he said, “We must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared values and practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the world’s people share the benefits of globalization.
