Katherine Gordon
European History 151
January 31, 2005
Two Views on Globalization
Before one can begin to critique the two views on globalization it is crucial to begin to comprehend what it is that exactly constitutes globalization. The definition of globalization is “a history of increasing trade between nations based on stable institutions that allow individual and firms to exchange goods with minimal friction. The definition of globalization fails to acknowledge the wide spread implications of it. Globalization can be used to refer to a social pattern where a formation of a “global village” made of “world citizens” is developed. In the economics it is a term that is used to refer to the development of an economy that is dominated by the laissez-faire conception. This would be found in a world where free trade with minimal tariffs is possible among all nations.
Globalization is a concept that is constantly raising questions in the minds of citizens. It is a difficult situation to determine the proper balance between globalization and the preservation of a homogenous society. As article one discussed, it is the major advances in technology within the United States that has made it the power house that it is today. However, these technological advances such as cell phones computers, mass transportation and the internet are the very things that were used against us in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Perhaps the terrorist attacks have to be seen as symbolic as a means of lashing out against globalization. The World Trade Center exhibited many of the signs of globalization- from encouraging trade among nations, a blending of cultures, and large amounts of trans-border data flow. This is a pattern that has been seen through out all of history, the invention of roads allowed for transportation of trade between countries but also allowed for a route to be taken during times of war. Article one alludes to the point that the alongside globalization of economics there needs to be a globalization of morals. “The less hatred there is in the world, the more security we can have without sacrificing personal freedom.”
This is a statement that in my opinion is at the core of conflict resolution among nations; however, I strongly disagree with the opinion that America is the “natural leader of the moral revolution”. I find this statement to be completely controversial to the rest of the article which infers that we must address why it is that others have come to hate Americans and the need to have a more global perspective and walk in others shoes. The process of adapting the opinion of others would result in the realization that many nations, the Middle East and Europe alike have many tribulations with the way that America is dealing with its policies.
Article two addresses the unreliability of globalization. It has shown in times of War to lead to the destruction such as WWI which in hand with the crisis of the gold standard led to the end of the first era of globalization. On the other side of the spectrum, following WWII the world experienced a rapid growth politically and economically. The war in Iraq has the possibility of working out in an idealistic fashion, Iraqis gain their liberation, America is seen as the hero, and minimal casualties are occurred. Unfortunately there is the possibility of the other side of the spectrum occurring. The war could be brutal, detrimental to the global economy, disrupt the governing system and the organizations the mediate between the countries. The article acknowledges that the economy is best off when nations are at peace and investors can feel comfortable with making investments. The war in Iraq will lead to serious information regarding the global view on American involvement in foreign affairs. “Economic pressures draw nations together--and cultural and political differences pull them apart. Some technologies favor global commerce--and others abet terrorism. The logic for cohesion resists the power of fragmentation. The looming war may help determine which prevails”.