« Ivashov: Press Secretary for Absolut? HET... | Main | 23453 :) »

April 11, 2007

A Tale of Two Globes

The parallel globalism and the supply chain of bomb-making

 

 

Thomas Friedman’s theory that the earth is becoming flatter through globalization is partly true in the sense he intended and true also in a sense he does not seem to notice: simply because the Cold War (that is, low-level hostilities between the United States and NATO and the Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact) is seen by historians to have ended, it should not be assumed that there were no cold wars prior or any thereafter. Actually, Mr. Friedman describes in one of his articles that what has historically been referred to as our only cold war was not only one that pitted democracies against the Soviet Eastern Bloc, but also one between democracies and Communist China, an ally of the Soviets. If that be the case, how then is even that cold war at an end? In reality and current events in Russia aside, if the Soviet Empire has ceased to exist, truly China has been more than willing and able to take its place; and not only China, but others as well are each waiting their turn for primacy in opposing democratic interests. To borrow from an old expression, “The Cold War is over; long live the Cold War!”

 

The Taylorism of Bomb-Laundering

 

So even as the developed democracies invest countless billions in worthwhile supply chains to ensure products and services reach their market as inexpensively as possible, so too the developing dictatorships (most notably Communist China) are taking full advantage of the theories behind what one otherwise naïve critic of globalism correctly calls the new Taylorism (applying science to increase production efficiency). The most recent example of this successful supply chain of bomb-making is news that many of the roadside bombs being found in Iraq are being brought to Iraq by way of Iranians, who customize those bombs and train their counterparts in Iraq in using them. However those bombs were not made in Iran; instead, they were made in China; to paraphrase Mr. Friedman, even as one bomb was blowing up in Baghdad, another was being made outside Beijing or Shanghai. Given China’s interest in seeing the United States pull out of the region and fail as a regional force in Asia and worldwide, there is little doubt China is fully aware if not deliberately a part of the process from start to finish. China has also been the proprietor of other weapons and tactics (including nuclear) passed on to other rogue states and organizations (usually through third-party “bomb-launderers”), so it’s really not anything new; Russia too has been following the same model with Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and other states and groups of men (and if anything, is the state historically responsible for making Axis-Globalism an artform). The latest news of Chinese weapons blowing up U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians in Iraq is simply what Thomas Friedman might have described as Axis-Globalism 3.0.

 

Interdependence or Vassal-Status?

  

If there indeed are two competing globalist trends – a “Cold War Reloaded” – then where exactly now do the players stand? The first thing that seems clear is that at present only one of the two players knows there are two parallel globalisms occurring; autocratic regimes like Communist China, Iran, Russia, and others seem fully aware of the dueling systems and are seeking to take advantage of that knowledge. On the other hand, the “Westnocentric” EDCs seem to exist within a bubble in which European integration means worldwide amalgamation, Google’s IPO meant all would soon be well for emerging markets, and that the world was smaller because those living in economically developed democracies could send e-mail from their phones. Given the predatory nature of those in the know who seek to harm the precise group that isn't, this should be of some concern for any thinking person who happens to be a member of the latter.

How does the idea of economic interdependence affect the relationship between axis and ally? Mr. Friedman is correct in asserting such interdependence will likely prevent war (if not at least forestall it), but it is important when dealing with hostile regimes in the mix to also ask why.  Why this is may be due to the fact that hostile dictatorships can force their people to accept the economic losses of a trade (or other) war with their opponents, while democracies are seen by those dictatorships (and often by democratic governments) as being unable to respond productively to such a hardship (not because they can’t, but because it is believed – despite the lessons of World War II – that they won’t). So to boil this down to its simplest form, fewer wars are likely because democracies have been locked in the choke hold of what amounts to paying tribute to stave disaster from without. If there be any doubt of this, observe as China continues to ratchet up demands on Western states even as it demonstrates its ability to shake Western markets, as happened with the stock market corrections in February. In fact, giants like Google and Yahoo! are so terrified of offending the Communist Chinese government that they’re now given to censoring ads and other speech which offends Beijing on their portals not in China, but in the U.S. As we continue to feed the dragon, this will only promise to grow worse so that the question then is asked, where will our children be in 20 years and will they be able to recognize their country and free way of life as something close to what it at least was in our time.

 

Conclusion

 

What Sun Tzu would no doubt have marveled at, it seems dire to consider the combined effect of establishing an economic stranglehold on your opponent while successfully outsourcing your military attacks on him, all while he is completely oblivious to what is happening to him from beginning to end. The reality of two competing globalist paradigms should be obvious to everyone; however, that reality seems sadly not lost only on tyrants and terrorists. I believe Thomas Friedman almost sees it, since he has made mention that terrorist networks are very much aware of using the tools of Western globalism to their advantage. Yet, he seems not to fully explore that thought or the idea that globalism is not only nothing new, but competing globalism (or cold-warring) is also neither nothing new nor unique to the Soviet era. Such a full realization is the sine qua non of our era, yet Mr. Friedman and most in the West have yet to grasp it.

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at April 11, 2007 01:33 PM

Comments