Globalization Destabilization
May 28, 2007, 2:33 pm |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
By RA Sprinkle
Globalization: A Catalyst for Terrorism and Global Destabilization?
The object here is not to lay blame on globalization for the hostilities to it, nor to excuse hostile or malevolent reactions. It is, however, worthy of understanding, not only the sources of global instability today, but the catalyst setting these forces into an aggressive-defensive mode. It is for this purpose I propose the question: Is the increase of terrorism and the radicalization of Islam over the past few decades an effect of globalization? Furthermore, are many of the tensions between nations today related to the transition from self-dependent, sovereign states into a world of nations which are becoming increasingly interdependent, while looking to establish global security and world order through international consensus in a multi-polar, global society?
Regarding Islam, I do not say that globalization is the cause of Islamic radicalization; an inherent nature in certain tenets of Islam has supported violence and suppression from inception, notwithstanding, globalization has served as a catalyst to activate these radical elements. This is in part evidenced by the upsurge in terrorism and increased radicalization of Islam over the past few decades which corresponds with the global trend towards world socialization.
The fear factor
As nations immerse themselves in modern technologies, global communications, and international commerce, the world transcends into a global society, however, for all cultures this creates conflicts within as well as without. Societies fear change, not only for the upheaval in daily life it may cause, but cultures tend to fear other cultures that are spreading. This is particularly true of collective societies vis a vis free societies where there is great suspicion and conflict caused by ideologies that in some instances diametrically oppose each other.
The current system of nation-states based upon the preservation of national sovereignty, distinct cultures, and various ideologies and beliefs has served to diffuse conflicting civilizations by allowing each his own; as global synthesis takes place, cultures and ideologies clash resulting in one of two basic reactions:
The first reaction is common in western democracies, which is to accept diversity, even embrace and promote it. This has resulted in the concept of multiculturalism where different ideologies, cultures, orientations, and nationalities are granted “equal” status, even if it is felt that special favor and additional advantages need be given to these minority groups to make them “equal.” At the same time, actions are also taken to sacrifice anything that might inconvenience or offend them, including changing law, culture, principles and values.
The other common reaction to globalization is typical in closed societies where freedoms are restricted. These societies now feel threatened with a loss of power; for while international commerce increases wealth and prosperity, at the same time, dictators, oligarchies, totalitarian regimes, and political religionists fear modernization and free markets to the extent it may effect their ability to control by breaking their monopolies and the dependency of their subjects upon them.
There is therefore, a love-hate relationship with globalization in these societies; for instance, the Saudis are economically dependent upon the global oil trade, but at the same time they spend vast amounts of their profits to promote Wahabbism, which seems paradoxical.
This conflict arises as the result of a clash between interests and ideology, of which, they will surrender neither. They find themselves therefore, fighting to retain both; for their ideology is embedded and it is profitable as well as it is absolutely necessary to participate in an evolving globalized world system which they cannot stop.
For if globalization is inevitable, totalitarians have no intention of melting into one multicultural global society as westerns elitists do, but rather, seek to establish themselves and dominate in order to preserve their cultures and power. Their reaction may be summed up in the words, conquer or be conquered; for while Islamic teachings express global ambitions, globalization, by spreading modern cultural influences and western ideas has created a formidable adversary and thus provoked a defensive-aggressive response.
But Islam is not alone in the global struggle for power; all nations are aware of the trend to a global society and to various degrees feel threatened by it, however, because they feel powerless to stop it, they seek to be the controlling force behind it in an attempt to mold it to their liking. This is true not only of Islamic nations, for the US, UK, EU, Russia, China, and everyone else who has any influence or power are all in the struggle for the highest position of power they can obtain in a globalized world. It was the ability to compete globally that spawned the creation of the European Union, the modern US UK alliance, as well as formations of other alliances in the East which now reach even unto South America. Fear and uncertainty created by globalization are a driving force in the struggle for global domination, and fear underlies world tensions today. For even as nations come together, they are fiercely competing one with another.
HEROES OF IRAQ CARD DECK
Multi-polarity and stability
In a 1983 essay on “multi-polarity and stability” nuclear strategist Herman Kahn hypothesized that there would come seven economic giants — the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, China, Germany, France and Brazil — and that they would eventually work out rules for a world system of order. Although Kahn recognized an inherent stability in the current system of unilateral nation-states where the consequences of nuclear war were so great discipline was the only sane option, he also believed a multi-polar system could also be stable, if you could ever safely get there.
The problem was the transition. The moment of maximum danger, Kahn warned, would occur during the movement of nations from unilateralism to a multi-polar world.
We are now in that transition, and as Kahn predicted, there are growing tensions and volatilities.
For while East and West have both expressed interest in a world order, they are divided by ideological differences, the West, insisting on a universal set of values and human rights as a prerequisite for a global society, but the Russians holding that common interests form a sufficient basis upon which to establish a system of international order.
The transition
On the other hand, you do have parties who desire no part at all in a world order unless it is based upon absolute submission to their ideology — enter Islamic extremists.
Globalization has threatened the destruction of Islamic culture and beliefs through modernization. Westernization being viewed as a direct attack upon their civilization has created panic and served as an incendiary to incite many adherents of Islam into action, not only to defend their lands, but to become the dominant power of any coming world order.
As high-minded as this may seem, Islam is not alone in its determination for world supremacy; there could also be an even greater clash of civilizations between those whose ideologies have Marxists underpinnings and those who hold inalienable rights of individuals higher than a an arbitrary ruling authority.
For as the cultural conflict between the West and Islam intensifies, there is another struggle taking place for the control of resources and the global economy. It was for this purpose the European Union was created to be a competitor; however, “former” communist countries have joined the fray having been empowered by the US dollar, global markets, and a growing control of energy supplies.
And while Russia, China, Venezuela, and others are opened to global markets and profits, they are recoiling internally in an attempt to balance free markets with controlled societies, hoping to achieve both. I would argue that you cannot have both but for the short term, for in the long term the two are incompatible. The only reason closed societies prosper is that they were built by and thrive off of the enterprise of free open societies, but this is temporal.
On the other hand, the most powerful nation involved in the establishment of a new world order has been the United States. No nation has done more to bring it into being, nor has it been done without design or manipulation, for it has been contemplated and worked towards for decades. Unfortunately, the ideology driving the establishment of free trade with totalitarian nations was built upon the misconception that globalization and free trade would eventually break down barriers and bring global democracy. The fallacy of this concept was discussed in the previous article A World off Axis where it is explained the reverse is more likely and the eventual product is the spread of socialism, a loss of freedoms, and eventually global tyranny.
A Global hive of “killer bees”
For decades elitists drones have realized the power and wealth that could be created through globalization and have set about to establish international controls to make it feasible. In so doing, however, they have discounted the freedom of individuals and moral principles essential to the foundation and stability of any governmental system — And though you can have stability also in a system absent this foundation, it requires tyranny. Stability should not be the principle end goal of government, for that is the road to totalitarianism.
The United States has been the source of wealth which opened the door to prosperity for other nations whose values are contrary. These nations, many of them totalitarian, are now becoming powerful enough, if not alone then confederate one with another, to challenge the US on many fronts. The US has become a global prostitute who has agreed to “put out” now for payment later.
If the US should reject many aspects of a global system proposed by the other parties it has empowered, US dependency is so great it faces catastrophic isolation; if however, the US capitulates and agrees to a system that is based upon common interests rather than values, as these nations gain enough leverage they will be able to manipulate the US diplomatically, or collapse the US economically — This is already occurring as is evident in the capitulation of US foreign policy.
If America, as Abraham Lincoln stated, is the “best hope last hope of mankind” it will only be so by the underlying principles which made America. Forsaking or compromising those principles in order to create a multicultural global society for the “common good” will produce a corrupt global hive indeed. For the eventual result of a world order built on shared interests alone will be the loss of liberty, global conflict, and eventually, total chaos — For interests and loyalties shift, sound principles do not.
Now consider a parable: In 1956 Brazilian scientists were attempting to create a new hybrid bee in the hopes of creating improved honey production when African bees were accidentally introduced into the wild in South and North America and began to dominate the domestic honey bee. This new hybrid, known as the “Africanized” or “killer bee,” took many years to establish colonies, as it did, it began to radicalize and take over the hives of domestic bees. The bee is extremely defensive-aggressive, easily agitated by anything deemed foreign, and it produces little honey; thus, it has become unprofitable for the Keeper and a threat to all others.
Related: War Against Islamo-fascism, Economy, Philosophy / Ideology, Technology
June 1st, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Globalization is not a catalyst for Islamic radicalization, which is the the central thesis of Randy Sprinkle’s essay as can be taken from the following introductory comment:
The Koran, written in the 7th and 8th centuries enjoins Muslims to spread Islam. Muslims did so throughout the known world until it ran headlong into Christianity, not from the area of Israel, but European Christianity. In that confrontation, Middle Eastern Muslims came to recognize the world was a larger place then was first known to them. While the size of the world changed for the Muslim Middle East, the Koranic injunction to spread Islam, to bring dar el Harb into dar el Islam and for dar el Islam to dominate those lands and peoples within dar el Harb, did not change.
As the technology shrunk the world in a manner of speaking and globalization naturally developed as nations interacted politically and commercially, globalization became part of the changing circumstance that the Muslim world found itself becoming increasingly connected to the infidel world as the infidel world was connected to it. Since the latter 19th and certainly by the beginning of the 20th century, that interconnection between the infidel West and Muslim world has been by virtue of oil, which the Arabs had and the West greatly needed.
Coupled with the Koranic injunction for Muslims to dominate the infidels and their lands, was a growing sense of what has come to be called a centuries old culture of victimhood. As the Middle Eastern Muslim world came to increasingly know the world was a much larger place and was forced to interact with the infidel West, that culture of victimhood, suspicion, resentment and humiliation grew as it was the infidels from those other places who were dominating the Muslims. This was not the way things were supposed to be according to the tenets of Islam.
Even with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, the Muslim world had gained power and leverage with the West and that empowerment came largely though oil and what the West saw as a vast market for Western goods.
With that, the victorious West did not choose to invade, occupy and dominate the Muslim Middle East but rather, thinking to reduce the power of Islam as an enemy of the West as the Islamic Ottoman empire was in WWI, the West divided that empire into various smaller states and allowed them to remain Muslim states.
By the early 20th century, while the Middle Eastern Muslim world retained their general antipathy towards the West and Christian world, it was the influx into what was perceived as Muslim lands and success of the most reviled Jews that the more radical aspects of Islam began in the form of rising Jew hatred.
With the West enabling the Jews to have their own state, that Jew hatred burned out of control as the Arabs waged their genocidal wars to rid what they believed to be Muslim lands of the hated Jews.
With the West giving even limited support to Israel to aid it in surviving the Arab onslaught, Muslim Jew hating passions became increasingly specific towards the Western Christian world as well.
Fueled by implacable and burning Jew hatred and increasing infidel hatreds along with the culture of Muslim victimhood looked to with increasing anger as the only reason and excuse for Muslim failures, many Muslims found solace and hope in the views of radical Islam. Adding fuel to that fire of hatred was the fact that the West was rich, successful and seen to be profiting from the Islamic world.
Radical Islamic beliefs accordingly grew and became increasingly violent as radical Islam has sought to bring about the destruction of Israel and to make the West pay with their blood for their evil, including enabling Israel to come into and remain existence as radical Islamists saw it. One of the other important goals of radical Islam has been to force non-Muslims out of the Muslim Middle East for to the radical Islamic mind, their very presence defiles dar el Islam. These are some of the motivations that Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri and other al Qaeda spokespersons have made no secret of.
If one wishes to identify a catalyst for the rise of Islamic radicalism, one need look no further then to the return of Jews to join those Jews who remained these past two millennia in the Holy land, which return culminated with the State of Israel coming into being, albeit probably because in large measure, the West wanted to assuage their guilt over the Holocaust and engage in an act of expiation for their sin in that regard.
Regardless of the righteous, just and moral reasons for the West to support the State of Israel coming into being, that has been an outrage and devastating to a very great many in the Muslim Middle Eastern world who believed, as an article of Islamic faith that the region was and would always be dar el Islam.
In conclusion therefore, globalization is not the catalyst for Islamic radicalism. Rather it is only the mileu that Islamic radicalism has developed within, just as Western nations have found themselves having to exist, and adapt to overcome the increasingly complex challenges of the ever changing global environment.
Cross posted - Israpundit
June 2nd, 2007 at 7:26 am
I believe that globalization is part of the catalyst, even though Islamists are contradictory in their belief system. For example, they see Western media products, e.g., TV shows and commercials with sexual content, as corrupt and contrary to Sharia, therefore they react, believing that they are protecting Islam from such influences.
Yet they use violence and modern tools such as the Internet to “fight” against Westernization. This is an absolute contradiction.
I don’t think Randy is justifying their reaction to globalization as a rightful justification for jihad, rather he is explaining how it fits into the crazy Islamist belief system.