Syria, Lebanon and the road to Globalization

[Stvn]

No offense guys, i was hoping for less of a discussion on Thomas Freidman and more on how you all see the current Syria-US issue and how it relates to the overall issue of globalization.

But since I just kinda lobbed one in without any real pretext I suppose its my fault.

So here goes:

The middle-east roadmap that the Bush Administration is planning to unveil will no doubt be pointed at globalization. The issue of Syria, and other less than democratic countries in the region will no doubt be addresses however directly or indirectly in that roadmap.

Here is the closest thing i have found to the text of that possible roadmap.

The following text has been placed in the House of Commons library by the Foreign Office. This is a draft, which officials say will be "topped and tailed" - but not substanially altered - within the next two weeks.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2904.htm

My questions to the group are:

Should America/UN/NATO/someone do something about Syria? Or let the natural course of events unfold, hoping that a surge of democracy in the region will make things "right"?

Is America forcing its will and its ways upon the world? Or is America acting in the best interest of the people (not nessecarily the leaders) of the region in pushing for Democracy?

Are American corporations poised like vultures on the edge of a globalized economy waiting to take advantage of the cheap labor of the 3rd world? Or are they acting in the best interests of the peoples of that 3rd world by bringing capitalism (and therefore jobs and money)?

Is globalization bad? or is it good? (in your opinion of course)


-stvn

 

[MrsSkywalker]

Thanks for the link. I have heard a lot about it, but I hadn't actually seen the "Road Map" before.

Ok, having read it, here goes.

1. First, as far as Syria goes, they have been on the US list of terrorist nations/nations who knowingly harbor/support terrorists for a long time. They are a hot spot, and I really feel they need to be dealt with. I think it would be a big mistake to assume that the natural course of events would lead to a path of democracy, especially with what, 52 of the 55 most wanted suspected war criminals from Iraq still at large (unaccounted for). It makes me really nervous that the good that has been done in the area may swiftly take a 180 and we'll face a united Iraqi-Syrian um, "axis of evil" (sorry...couldn't think of another way to put it!). I understand this is a long shot, but we half assed the first Gulf War, and look how bad things got for the people after that. Does this mean I want to rush into war with Syria? Hell no! I think that would be a monumentally bad idea right now. I think that the UN/US/UK needs to make it absolutely clear that they WILL be next if need be. Keep up the heat, get in their heads and let them know we mean business, that the area will be made safe. We have to harp on them every single day. They have already stated that they are closing their borders to Saddam followers...I don't think it'll take much.

2. I think that America has the best interest of people in mind, but on the same note, I think that America fully believes that is our way. I disagree that all the world should be like the US, but I a rock solid believer in democracy. In that sense, and entirely democratic world would be more like the US than it is now. That said, it is really nice to see that we are not trying to change anything in Iraq but the government. We are respecting their customs, and even before the war was "over", we were encouraging religious leaders to conduct the long oppressed services of their faith (can't find the link to the story, but in one of the major towns we took, the Marines gave a shi'ite Iotollah a bull horn so that his prayers could be heard by the masses).

3. I think ALL coroporations in capalistic nations are poised, waiting to see what is going to be done in Iraq. However, Iraq is a poor climate for a lot of big industries...I for one would never set up a processor plant in a country full of sand and wind Kind of hard to keep it clean! On the other hand, I think that there are American companies that would benefit Iraq greatly if introduced. An automotive plant, for instance. I don't think cheap labor will be available there, at least not for a long time. Iraq is currently being watched by the entire world, and the US involvement is being watched even more closely. Any company that would go over there for cheap labor would be making an enormous financial mistake. Besides, when the people start getting money from their own oil, they are going to have the capability to quickly move from 3rd world status.

4. I think total globalization is an impossibility...just a fantasy in sci-fi movies. It could never work in real life. The diffferences in cultures, ways of thinking, etc. make it impossible for one government to rule the entire world in any capable manner, even if every single country was represented. I wouldn't want that, even if it could "work". I am a huge supporter of local rule. I feel that politicians in the area of those being governed best know the people, the land, their beliefs and customs. I feel that globalization would be catastrophic for many countries and should not be a goal for the world. Having said that, I feel that there are great possibilities if the world can come together more than we do now. The UN is a joke as it stands right now. There's a whole lot of politics going on that really has nothing to do with the people. I think the UN should have elected representatives. Make the UN a democracy (b/c, as it is right now, it simply is not) and pull the world together like that. Also, continental mini "UNs" might not be a bad idea (ok, so let's put Australia in with Asia just b/c of the regional closeness).

Oh! And on the road map thing...it scares me how ambiguous they were about Jerusalem. That needs to be concrete and solidified, a firm decision about it's future. It is a city that is important to billions of people, and a major sore spot in the Israeli/Palestinian debate. Other than that, I think this plan just may work, as long as the people of the area are made fully aware of it and it's benefits...the war lies with the people in a situation like this. Getting the governments to agree is the easy part...gettting the people to forgive and forget decades of injustices is what the real aim should be.

 

[pax]

I think the diffs tween authoritarian regimes and totalitarian ones are more than the dictionary's. Levels of repression are usually quite mild in authoritarianism. Most corporations are examples of authoritarianism.

In response to sven. I think we should let Syria evolve slowly but surely to a more open society. The issue of clash of civilizations is not moot after the Iraq campaign. Im not sure about the level of support Syria has for terrorists. I think they mainly support groups opposed to Israel but not necessarily the US or any in the west. Israel could single handedly drop the occupation of the west bank and gaza and therefore kill in the egg much of the anger that creates that support in Palestine and Syria and elsewhere... Syria in fact hepled the US against al quaeda greatlya ccording to Powell last year. Why he says they support terrorists now is an odd statement in light of the previous one.

Accusations against Syria are vague when it comes to terrorism.

America does not force its will when the intervention is at heart for democracy which is the universal desire of the individual to freedom to contribute to the political process... This by no means says we must have blind faith in the interventions America does undertake tho.

Globalization would be good if it had taken into account the technological revolution and some of the economic fundamentals of actual ability of the consumer society to realise and absorb production.

Im trygint ot keep tabs pon that as best I can for my own curiosity. I think we will see one of 2 trends in regards to that. Continued shifting of production to cater to an ever smaller but richer constituency in the consumer society. Or adventing a political revolution, a reinvigorating of the mass market consumption which is showing signs of credit malaise and stagnation\reduction in consumption. Even necessary and essential consumption is showing probs.

 

[Stvn]

Accusations against Syria are vague when it comes to terrorism.

I am not an expert on the subject, but from what i have read/seen recently, you are correct in saying that Syria seems to support more anti-Israel terrorist groups (Hezbolah). But I tend to think that many anti-Israel groups are also anti-west because of the precieved degree of support for Israelis given by the west.

 

[Stvn]

I think total globalization is an impossibility...just a fantasy in sci-fi movies. It could never work in real life.

I beg to differ, I think all it would take is an invasion by an oppresive alien race bent on psychologically enslaving humans with mind bending drugs to work in distant space mines to unite the people of earth into a global society.



-stvn

I dont know, maybe i have been reading a little to much Phillip K Dick lately.

 

[Nagorak]

I think the next logical step is for the US to just take over the world. After all, any country not completely under our control can conceivably attack us. And, it's not like in the long term any of our corporations can compete with the Japanese. Not to mention, businesses are pretty equal opportunity. Given the chance they'll leave the country and higher cheaper workers in 3rd world countries.

So we'd better just get it over with and take everything over.

The truth is the US has a serious problem. The major advocates of globalization are corporations since decentralization increases their power. Unfortunately, the US wants to delude itself that it's a "super power", but its power can only exist so long as it can maintain a strong central authority.

Contrary to popular belief, state governments do not benefit from globalization, they are made obsolete by it. The increase in aggressive imperialism by the United States government is just an attempt to stem the tide of decentralization. I expect this sort of attitude to increase in the future as the tide of globalization becomes more and more predominant. In the end, it will probably prove futile, and the transition will probably end up proving unpleasant. But that's life for you...

Another misconception about globalization, is that it is the road to global harmony, with the whole of humanity united. In fact, the truth is, globaliation is the path to world disharmony, with no centralized authority and state governments fighting to woo the huge corporate conglomerates that hold the true power. All of this has already begun as can be seen, with the rampant corporate mergers and the loss of US manufacturing jobs to 3rd world countries (and the beginning of the exodus of jobs in the tech sector as well). Misguided as US patriotism is, it's not entirely unfounded, because our standard of living can only suffer as a result of all this. The unions in this country have seen the writing on the wall for the past 20 years.

Is it a bad thing? I'm not sure. But 50 years from now, things will be different.

By the way, it's not a conspiracy, it's just a result of similar actors all performing the same way, in search of the same goal.

 

[Stvn]

I think the next logical step is for the US to just take over the world.

Your not the first one to advocate that, and you certainly wont be the last before its all over.

http://newamericancentury.org/index.html

This is a neo-conservative think tank which preaches the same thing (in a much more politically palettable way of course). Some of the membes names might be familair to you.

Donald Rumsfeld
Dick Cheney
Paul Wolfowitz
Jeb Bush
Steve Forbes
Dan Quayle
William Bennett
Elliot Abrams
Zalmay Khalilzad

By the way, it's not a conspiracy, it's just a result of similar actors all performing the same way, in search of the same goal.

I think that its not only not a conspiracy, but that it is a nessecary step in the evolution of mankind on this planet. The whole world is busting at the seems, something has to change. Its short sighted to believe that we (humanity) can continue along current lines forever, major world change must happen. No doubt it will be painful and drawn out, any major re-organization is. It will be an interesting century to say the least.