Politics of the Developing Nations POSC 311
This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Khan's Politics of Developing Nations [POSC 311-010] class.
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
- The United States of Globalization
- Global Development Network
- enotes on Developing Nations
- These are links to Globalization and the Developing World
- Defining the Third World/Developing World
- Brief History of India
Links
15 Comments:
The idea of globalization as a naturally occurring phenomenon is very intriguing. It is, as you say in your article, an inevitable and inextricable process. A question that springs forth to my mind offhand is whether globalization is good for society. And this is not to mean any particular society, but the society that everyone belongs in: humanity.
When I think of different societies mingling (perhaps not willfully, given that globalization is not a truly voluntary process), my mind goes straight to the Middle East, for I am more familiar with its history than, say, Africa or South Asia. Many Middle Eastern nations (and other global nations, surely) have been bound by tradition for centuries. To have to adjust to a brand new culture being injected into one’s very familiar world can bring society crashing down around one’s ears.
The West, meaning Europe and the U.S. in particular, have had decades upon decades of time to adjust to the new inventions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Some countries in the Middle East, such as Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s Turkey and Reza Shah Pahlavi’s Iran were subjected to strong modernization efforts in the early 20th Century. For some the transition from a war-torn fallen Empire to a model European nation (Turkey and also Egypt) was fairly easy because of a strong leadership and willingness to accept that which was unfamiliar. For others, the transformation from a (technologically) back-water state such as Iran to a hopeful European copy was nothing more than a few decades of decadence that would fall into decay.
What I am getting at is the question of how many states will not be able to survive the colliding of different cultures? It is not a question of if, but a question of numbers. Will countries across the world willingly unite and share for the betterment of the global community, or will we end up with some states that benefit greatly from the increasingly tightening net of globalization and other states who can simply not handle the converging of international cultures?
I believe that if current trends continue, a brighter future will emerge. With the technology and the cooperation that is being seen, unprecedented in previous centuries, isolationism is no longer a viable option. While I believe globalization is a trend that will inevitably bring the world closer than it has ever been in respect to economies, cultures, communication, and politics, I do not see it as a bum rush in civilization. I hope that the slow but steady pace of globalization will give certain countries the time they need to prepare for the blending of international cultures into a diverse global culture.
Back to the original blog question, the “Three P’s” of globalization is a thought-provoking take on the idea of globalization. It simplifies the complicated idea of globalization into a small group of ideas that can be related to ideas that one might be more familiar with. Overall, the idea is a valuable teaching tool.
You posed the question considering the "goodness" of globalization for humanity. Would you consider it beneficial or less beneficial? You asked,
“Will countries across the world willingly unite and share for the betterment of the global community…?”
I think that nations will do what they have to do to survive and become powerful. I do not believe that the prime reason for voluntary globalization is necessarily to better the world, but to develop mutual relations that better the personal agendas of each nation; whether the relationship is based on a development of a new government by a “Model European nation”, or a trade agreement. You speak of “other states who cannot handle the converging international cultures”, when in our own nation, we can not accept a diverse culture. There are so many people who still cannot accept Blacks, Jews, Hispanics, and likewise. Furthermore, they don’t accept this as the changing face of America. America too is a relatively young nation, growing and changing still.
On a humanitarian level, as on you were speaking earlier, we continue to battle about issues such as gay rights and stem cell research; where do we draw the line between science and religion? Should we teach intelligent design theory along side the theory of evolution? These humanitarian issues will not be solved. Likewise is the phenomenon behind globalization. It is a human process that will continue to sculpt our world until the end of time: Each nation growing and falling and superpower changing from one hand to the other. The climate, the people, and the nations we know today will change due to their effects on each other. In this respect, I would have to say that globalization is wonderfully necessary in a humanitarian sense because without it the world itself would cease to develop.
I don't mean to put globalization in a bad light, if that is how you took it. I, too, believe it to be necessary and good for humanity to continue to evolve, not as seperate nations, but one global community.
I concede the fact that, even in the United State (a so-called bastion of democracy and diversity), its citizens cannot agree on a line where state ends and religion begins. In fact, under the current administration, that line has been obsured even further.
Of course nations will do what they can to survive and become more powerful - the machiavellian attitude of survival has not been abandoned. Globalization is not, I believe, a voluntary process, but rather an evolutionary process. While it certainly can be, in the case of mutual trade agreements and pacts and treaties and what-have-you, it is also a finely spun web that is slowly encompassing the entire world and pulling it closer together.
The already clichéd example of the internet can again be used here. I can talk to someone on the opposite side of the Earth in real-time. Expand that to the point where businesses, corporations, governments, etc. are all coordinating in real-time and one can see that globalization is evolutionary. The internet certainly wasn't invented to allow someone in Britain to meet a new friend in Alaska, but I'm sure it happens. That closeness is a part of globalization.
The conflict between science and religion, I believe, will be solved eventually. Of course it will come with great turmoil, but even now conservative American politicians are agreeing with stem-cell research. An agreement will come slowly, but surely it will come.
Do I believe if globalization is beneficiary? I take it on a case-by-case basis. I certainly haven't learned enough on the subject to make more than a few observations, but I can see definite benefits and foresee some problems as well. I would like to see a kind and open-minded world community, but I am not naïve enough to see it ocurring anytime in the immediate future.
That being said, political situations are shifting and changing everyday. What can seem a certainty now could be an impossible idea tomorrow.
I do not know how it happened but we are talking about the tensions between religion and science. An interesting aspect of this issue is that these local issues such as creationims vs. evolution (which is at the moment primarily an American issue) can and are becoming global becuase of globalization.
One question that comes to mind is, is globalization a value neutral proceess, that it it can globalize anything from hiphop music to chinese food, to Afghanistani carpets, humus, etc.. or does globalization also privilege, promote, a specific set of values?
Mitch, you stated that the conflict between science and religion will be solved eventually. Originally I used this as an example of one conflict we are currently facing. Granted, specific examples such as the morality of stem cell research or gay marriage will most likely be resolved or at least come to some type of resolution. My point though, is that these core humanitarian issues will continue to pose new questions as technology develops, as the world changes. I brought this up to demonstrate that this phenomenon of naturally occurring humanitarian arguments is similar to the phenomena of globalization. Whether globalization is argued as beneficial or not to society, it still in the end promotes the development of the world.
To respond to your proposal, professor Khan, I believe that globalization, like a jet stream of knowledge and culture; can influence the world on many different levels, causing everything from cultural to meteorological changes in the world. However, as stated in another article questioning “Americanization” it is obvious that certain issues will travel worldwide depending on who has the power to promote them. If a tiny tribe in Africa believes that doing a rain dance will bring peace on earth, but they have not the means to promote it (As more developed countries have the Internet etc) the idea will not spread as quickly, and will not be supported. I think this is the main fear the world has of groups such as the Taliban and other terrorist organizations. Like nations themselves, they are organized and have the means to affect globally the lives of many with one action. I consider the aftermath of 9/11 globalization. I do believe that globalization promotes a specific set of values…the values of those with the proper means of promotion.
I agree with both Frances and Mitch that new conflicts will always arise to take a resolved conflict's place because we are an ever changing society. Sociologically speaking, new forms of deviance appear if another conflict is solved. Globalization will resolve some preceding problems but I think that increasing interconnectedness of previously isolated cultures will subsequently create even bigger problems to take their place.
I had a question concerning the discussion about newly created global forums. Mitch and Frances, you both brought up the situation of humanitarian issues. International organizations such as Amnesty International “work to protect human rights worldwide.” However, cultures vary greatly as to what beliefs they value and as to what they feel is right or wrong. There are numerous variations which very often clash (sometimes violently) when they are brought into contact. With increasing globalization, how do we determine where the fine line should be drawn between human rights and cultural differences? When should international organizations respect differences and when should a worldwide network of countries intervene? Furthermore, who decides? I know that the United Nations try to develop globally accepted ideas of human rights, etc.; however, the more powerful countries have more sway. I'm not quite clear on the way that the UN works, but aren't only a few selected powerhouse countries who remain permanent members? Leaders from these few countries bear more weight but their decisions affect everyone uniformly. Can everyone really have an equal voice? I’m not sure exactly how we, as a global community, should deal with such dilemmas.
Kristen- You posed the question “Can everyone have an equal voice” and the answer is no. I know it seems that every nation should have a voice and some power in Globalization; however, I tend to think of underdeveloped nations as children, being led by larger nations and groups such as the UN. As these underdeveloped nations become more “refined”, they gain strength in the global scene. Just as a child wouldn’t make decisions about how the household is run, more powerful nations need to run the global household with the younger nations’ interests in mind. Where it gets tricky is when the agendas of some nations or organizations do not align with what larger, more powerful nations would consider acceptable global behavior. I think if conscious globalization of issues, such as humans rights, from larger nations and organizations are promoted and practiced with general definition and flexibility, we will be able to keep the peace. Although it sounds pessimistic, it is realistic to say that there will always be conflict until something internationally detrimental is promoted by globalization. What do you think?
The differences between the right and left in the United States is small potatoes when we begin discussing problems with global cohesion. While I would love to see the UN step up and become an authority figure, it probably won't happen. The UN is a wonderful idea, but it is unable to enforce anything.
I also feel that the conscious globalization that Frances refers to may also be a fleeting notion. Without, as Kristin refers to, a global authority council of some sort set up, people are forced to wait for politics and committees to sort things out.
That being said, unconcious globalization happens quite often. I'm not sure what detrimental effects that Frances is referring to, but I would like to mention the Tsunami thath it last year. Here is an example of a global humanitarian effort. Another example is 9/11. The nations of the world were briefly united in a fight against terrorism. Although I believe its safe to say that the more or less complete common feeling has faded through the years, the beginning effect has not left. 9/11 took us out of the Cold War era (a global situation) and thrust the entire world into the War on Terrorism Era which is certainly an example of globalization.
Some of the recent developments early in the 21st Century are unconcious globalization, such as the tsunami, and others, such as the war on terrorism, are conscious globalization. These are only two examples, but I believe poignant ones.
Mitch- I never said anything about the right and left in the US. The UN Is an authority figure…and there is no question about its presence in the future. I think what you are trying to say that the UN itself can’t solve world conflict…which is something that has already been said time and time again. The concept of conscious globalization is not fleeting. I am not talking about individuals rising up and changing the world, I am talking about nations consciously making efforts to globalize. With that said, unconscious globalization would be exemplified by gas emission in the US affecting the atmosphere and therefore the climate in Australia. I understand your example of the tsunami as a global effort, but your example of 9/11 was a weak one. Not all nations rose up and fought terrorism. If anything it tore many relations apart. When you say “global” you actually mean those nations with the power to do anything about it. You mean England and America…and who else; certainly not the Taliban. Not even our own country can agree on the war on Terrorism. Personally, I think a war on terror is a fleeting effort to use your terminology. Terrorism is only another aspect of humanity that, although we may be able to beat from one angle, will arise time and time again ass society shifts. Its human nature; and no global force can fight that.
Why do the most cohesive global agreements occur after horrible tragedies (The tsunami being one example or alliances made in World War II to fight against the Axis Powers or the Kyoto Protocol to fight the gas emission)? Why does something completely and utterly detrimental and appalling have to happen before countries begin to agree on courses of action and unite? Do they only work together because there is one common enemy which poses a far greater threat than any other squabble? It seems to me that countries useem to unite the best when they can all hate something together. I will probably really sound like a hippie right now which is not my intention but why can't people come together that strongly in times of peace?
Its because you don't realize what you have till its gone...like alot of other things in life :)I ave to get to class! Discussion should be fun today--
Frances - I did not mean the right/left debate in the U.S. as a response to anything in particular - it was simply an example from previous posts on the conflict of culture.
I don't think my 9/11 example is weak at all. I didn't imply that all nations rose up and fought terrorism under a single unified banner - I simply meant that it brought to the fore-front a new kind of mentality. The new global effort was no longer democracy v. communism, but a war on terror.
I concede that the most powerful nations make the decisions in the war on terror, but the entire planet is affected by this global shift in concentration. This goes back to what I said before when I said that isolationism is no longer an option. By the very fact that the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, we are much closer to those countries than we have ever been before - closer than when Russia invaded Afghanistan or when we defended Kuwait. I don't mean a closeness as in kindness, but rather diplomatically and economically closer. That is part of globalization.
I concur on your comments about the war on terror being a fleeting idea. It's not going terribly well - not after the victory in Afghanistan. However, that doesn't change the fact that the shift from the Cold War era to the Terror Era isn't a type of globalization. The world has inarguably changed radically, at least culturally, politically, and economically, since the events of 9/11.
“The nations of the world were briefly united in a fight against terrorism.” Thank you for clarifying that.
I agree that events like 9/11 become turning points of globalization. As I said before, globalization is a process by which the world changes.
Isolationism has not been an option for a while now. However, neither is nor ever has been imperialism. I agree that there has been a shift in global concentration; however was not the cold war era a fight against potential threats as well? Did democratic nations not see communism as a threat? There is a reason my grandparents came over from Russia and never spoke of Russia again. They were in the minority and seen as an enemy to democracy, just as many Muslims are today. Communism was an idea terrible to democracy; that is why the “war on terror” is such a fleeting effort. No one will win a war against terror because terror is part of human nature. I can think of no aspect more human and no war more ridiculous.
The idea of philosophy, phenomenon, and process are key factors of globalization. Countries all over the world are being linked together by the technology such as the internet. Globalization is making many people's lifes much easier. The philosophy is that even though globalization does not benefit all of society, it makes life better for most people, therefore it is successful. Finally the process of globalization is loss of borders and communities. People are started to branch out and live all over the world. Even though cultures exist all over the world, globalization i believe will in time erase many social disctinctions in the world
The idea of philosophy, phenomenon, and process are key factors of globalization. Countries all over the world are being linked together by the technology such as the internet. Globalization is making many people's lifes much easier. The philosophy is that even though globalization does not benefit all of society, it makes life better for most people, therefore it is successful. Finally the process of globalization is loss of borders and communities. People are started to branch out and live all over the world. Even though cultures exist all over the world, globalization i believe will in time erase many social disctinctions in the world.
-Megan O'Toole 6/11/05
Post a Comment
<< Home