|
Nationalists Hijack
Washington*
|
|
American media undertakes nationalist tones.
|
Anti-globalization
protesters may soon be celebrating. Globalization -- often referred
to as the theory of all countries adopting similar political,
economic and social platforms -- has stumbled in its seemingly
unstoppable march toward uniformity; moreover, it doesn’t seem to
be recovering anytime soon. While many agreed that the fast pace of
globalization achieved in the ’90s could not be sustained, very
few predicted that it would be the United States that would
inevitably halt its progress.
During
the Clinton years, the success of globalization was thought to be
indisputable. Economic and political leaders spoke about an end to
trade barriers and a dawning of a new world, free from major
political, economic and social conflict due to the reasoning that
when state economies are so intertwined, all groups will have too
much to lose in the case of war and will prevent major conflicts
from arising. Yet with the fall of the Twin Towers, suddenly the
idea of a “free world” disappeared behind the protective
barriers quickly built to shield the United States from both foreign
economic and military threats.
After it became clear that the attacks on September 11 created a
damaging ripple effect through the global economy, there was concern
that a sustained campaign of terrorism could ruin the chance for
future economic integration. With the world’s economies so closely
tied together, when an economic powerhouse like the United States
suffers economic setbacks, it is also felt throughout the rest of
the world. The danger was that terror attacks created global
consumer uncertainty, which acts as a major impetus against economic
growth. Yet the blows to globalization not only came from terror
attacks, but also from official US policy.
US plan for invading Iraq is a clear effect of rising US nationalism. |
|
After
the attacks of September 11, the Bush administration acted to shield
the US economy from global integration, putting the future of
globalization in doubt. In addition to increasing restrictions on
foreign tourists and immigrants, threatening the proposed borderless
world of globalization, Washington, to the ire of globalization
proponents, imposed trade restrictions on international trade. Along
with boosting agricultural subsidies to its farm industry,
Washington placed tariffs on steel imports to protect its domestic
steel industry from foreign competition. Both of these moves ran
counter to the theory of free trade and acted to block temporarily
the path toward globalization.
By
only focusing on national interests and not global interests, the
United States is beginning to abandon this once sacred ideal. Adding
to these trends, the Bush administration’s public distaste for
international treaties –- shown through their withdrawal from the
1972 anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, refusal to participate in the
International Criminal Court, and rejecting the Kyoto protocol --
and its choice of unilateralism over multilateralism have
globalization proponents rightfully concerned.
Trade wars could lead to military conflict. |
|
The
simple explanation for this change can be found in the theory of
nationalism, when states pursue national goals often at the expense
of international ones. The nationalist rhetoric coming out of
Washington is stunningly blunt. Richard Perle, Chairman of the
Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board, closely tied with other members
of the Bush administration through their work with the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) and its spawn, the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), both Washington based think tanks,
epitomizes the unilateral and nationalist bent of this
administration. Perle has claimed that “France is no longer the
ally it once was,” and also stated: “It is now reasonable to ask
whether the United States should now or on any other occasion
subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations
who do not share our interests.” President Bush, in his 2003 State
of the Union Address, also threatened to eliminate America’s
history of multilateralism by announcing that the “course of this
nation does not depend on the decisions of others.”
|
|
J. Dennis Hastert |
In
addition to nationalists in the Bush administration, members of the
US Congress are also abandoning their global outlook. House Speaker
J. Dennis Hastert has called for restrictions on the imports of
French water and wine. France, being the top exporter of water to
the United States, would be notably angered by such an action and
would react by creating trade barriers of its own. To begin a cycle
of various trade wars would obstruct free trade and bring the return
of nationalism along with what comes with it: a receding of
political, economic and social integration and a higher probability
of great military conflict.
That
is the ultimate danger of emphasizing national goals at the expense
of international ones. If the United States stops taking into
serious account the views of other governments, these governments
will no longer feel tied to the United States and will also begin to
follow nationalist policies. When powerful governments follow
nationalism, they always clash in their undying pursuit of national
objectives.
What
is remarkable is that the United States -- which was the core of
globalization -- is the country that is bringing about this change.
It is abandoning the policies drafted after the fall of the Soviet
Union when the US used persuasive pressure to rally the world behind
the ideal of internationalism and what is known as globalization.
Now, the United States is pushing a message that the US will take
actions based upon US interests alone in a definite diversion of
policy.
The North Korean stance is an example of other countries’ reaction to US
nationalism. |
|
The
unremitting mission to invade Iraq is the most visible effect of US
nationalism. With important regional powers -- and nearly the entire
world population -- against its invasion plans, the Bush
administration is still warning that the US will take action
regardless of lack of support from regional powers; moreover,
Washington has warned that it will even disregard the United Nations
if the organization does not endorse a US invasion. This will cause
other states to feel powerless and they will develop their own
nationalist policies in response.
Already,
Kim Jong-il in North Korea has deserted international agreements
protecting North Korea from foreign aggression and has instead
decided that the only way to protect against the United States is to
develop a nuclear arsenal that would make it difficult for the US to
attack Pyongyang. Iran, too, has raised eyebrows in its insistence
of managing every aspect of its nuclear energy program, including
the handling of nuclear waste that can be used to create nuclear
weapons. In addition to North Korea and Iran, other countries have
also begun to follow more nationalist and unilateralist policies.
There
is no doubt that France, Germany and Russia’s stance against US
plans in Iraq are primarily founded on the fear of having to deal
with an American nation unrestrained by international agreements.
These three nations in particular do not want to have to deal with a
country that threatens to invade other states without achieving
multilateral support. If Washington chooses to go ahead and attack
Iraq without their support, these three states will reevaluate their
foreign policy and may choose to distance themselves from Washington
and the rest of the world; nationalism will creep in and what once
were America’s allies may end up being aggressive competitors.
The
dreams of a globalized future so prevalent during the Clinton years
have been temporarily halted. While the last decade was a time of
strengthening allies in an attempt to bring the world’s economies
closer together, the beginning of this decade is radically
different. The September 11 attacks provided the radical elements of
the Bush administration -- those members who were part of the
neo-conservative AEI and its various offspring such as the PNAC --
just the justification they needed to divert the course of US
foreign policy away from internationalism and toward nationalism. If
these policies continue, the chances of a new global polarization
that could easily break down into violence will be assured.
Ash
Pulcifer is an international conflict analyst and human rights
activist. He is based in USA. You can reach him at apulcifer@YellowTimes.org
*This
article was originally published in YellowTimes.Org
|
