This blog is a pedagogical tool for Dr. Muqtedar Khan's Class [POSC 311].
Globalization is one of the most studied issues of our time. As a result, many discipline-specific modes of understanding globalization have emerged. But how can one grasp globalization beyond individual disciplines? To read and comment more click here: What do you think of the 3 Ps of Globalization? Also read Teaching Globalization in Era of Terrorism.
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is also the Driector of Islamic studies Program. 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).
16 Comments:
Professor Khan raises an interesting point about the relationship between globalization and terrorism. He states, "(W)hile globalization facilitates global terrorism; terrorism itself will put the brakes on globalization." This is a fascinating interaction, which leads to the question of whether terrorism can in fact slow or even reverse globalization. Professor Khan addresses the slowing of the flow of capital, the decreased profitability of the airline industry, and increases in security and regulations; which all create higher costs and decreased profits, potentially reducing incentives to seek foreign markets.
However, another way to approach the issue is to look at the effects of increased regulation. For example, the recent stir about the bid of a Dubai (United Arab Emirates) company to take over the operations of 6 major U.S. ports brings into question globalization and the fear of terrorism. Although there has been great political denouncement of this deal, it looks likely to go through despite allegations that "Dubai operates as a "bazaar for terrorist nations" and cannot be trusted to safeguard American national security interests." (Hunter, http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/196369/1/.html)
One must question whether the deal will be a victory of globalization over the fears of terrorism, or rather the fear of terrorism's ability to get people to second-guess globalization and economic incentives and slow the processes of the market (regardless of the final outcome). Thoughts?
In his article, “Teaching Globalization in the Era of Terrorism,” Professor Khan asks the question, “will global terrorism become an integral part of our times?” I believe that global terrorism may not become a necessary part of our life, but that it is very likely that it will continue so long as our world continues to globalize. There will always be people who are not satisfied with certain aspects of our world; thus, there will always be people who are willing to resort to terrorism as a means to rectify what they see as wrong. Globalization simply allows these people to make the world into their unwilling audience as opposed to only those people immediately surrounding them. Global terrorism will end if absolutely everyone is content with our world. Since this is highly unlikely, it is therefore very probable that terrorism will continue.
"It is ironic that global terrorism, the phenomenon of terrorists operating in and against several nations simultaneously, was facilitated by globalization and now it has become the biggest challenge to globalization."
I think the word ironic is most appropriate concerning the conundrum of terrorism in the ever increasing globalized world. As discussed in class, globalization cuts across the dimensions of time and space, and renders geographic location irrelavent. Tranportation and communication technology play a huge role in this process, allowing the quick and smooth flow of capital, labor, and ideas. However, with globalization also comes the "gradual erosion of state sovereignty" and this allows for the easy communication and gathering of resources between terrorist cells in different countries.
Diane Randolph says that "One must question whether the deal will be a victory of globalization over the fears of terrorism, or rather the fear of terrorism's ability to get people to second-guess globalization and economic incentives and slow the processes of the market". I think there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that the fear of terrorism and its ease in which terrorism can now operate have slown down the process of globalization. This can be shown by the more "protectionist" views on foreign policy that certain countries have reverted back to. However, we must realize that by doing this, the terrorists have already won. Fear is the main weapon of choice for those considered "terrorists", and if they can get anyone in the World to second-guess themselves or shy away from moving onward with life (e.g. the rise of globalization), then the terrorists have had some degree of success. So the question still remains as to how exactly to deal with "terrorism", and that may be as difficult a task as any.
Terrorism definately slows down the globalization process. As borders close down and security checks become more rigorous, many people are afraid, or unwilling to travel and relocate. Thus, to stop people from traveling and exchanging ideas face to face, although unlikely, is possible. Globalization in the terms of exchanging ideas and information however, cannot be stopped or reversed. With the invention of the internet, and satallite TV, the flow of information and ideas is almost uncontrollable. It may be possible for governments to censor the internet and disallow people to search for certain words or phrases they do not like, but there are loopholes upon loopholes. So although terrorism has slowed down the spread of people, it cannot slow down the spread of information; and with information, often comes education, and understanding- thus continuing the growth of a "global culture."
When I read Professor Khan's article about "Teaching Globalism in the Era of Terrorism," I was struck by the following statement: "globalization was a sense of profound optimism that the world was inevitabl[y] heading towards greater and greater prosperity for greater and greater numbers."
While this is certainly true, I think the emergence of terrorism has, at least in part, destroyed this overly optimistic and naïve attitude about globalization. As you can see in the cartoon in the article, cultures around the world are being flooded with global "stuff" at the expense of some of their own products, customs, etc.
Thus, while of course I am not condoning terrorism as a means of expression, the attacks on 9/11 and subsequent slowing of globalization might remind us of the serious implications of our eagerness to support globalization and spread a "global" culture. What we must understand is that when a new culture steps into a society, there may not be room for both cultures to coexist peacefully. The ramifications of this fact were seen (and felt) on September 11th.
Professor Khan asks the question "will terrorism become an integral part of our time?" In my opinion, terrorism already satisfies that statement. It is nearly impossible, in a post-9/11 world, to imagine a world in which terrorism does not play a large part. For instance, consider the changes in the world that can be tied in some way to terrorism. The vast changes in the travel industry discussed in the article, the defense department's focus on fighting global terrorism, the passing of the Patriot act, the toppling of one terrorist-harboring regime, the frequent acts of terrorism in Iraq, Israel, and Palestine, and the political opposition to the Dubai Port takeover that Diane mentions. Would people be opposed to the UAE taking over the operation of US ports if terrorism wasn't an integral part of our time? I think not. Whether the passing of the Patriot Act and the opposition to the Dubai takeover is justified or not is irrelevant, the fact is that these events occured because of the fact that terrorism is an integral part of our time.
To me, Professor Khan’s article “Teaching Globalization in the Era of Terrorism” deals with the strange relationship between globalization and terrorism. He mentions periods in history can be identified by a singular, dominant process. Today this distinction is not clear-cut, because we exist in a period of globalization as well as global terror.
Professor Khan also explains how perhaps global terrorism has arisen out of globalization, but terrorism may effectually may hamper globalization. Security measures certainly do damper the spread of people, ideas, goods and capital (he mentioned in class that these were crucial to globalization). This makes sense, and in my opinion it would seem that if global terrorism would be strong enough, it would become the new “dominant process.” Hopefully (and more realistically), global terrorism is just a set-back to globalization, a hurdle it must overcome and not a process of its own.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
In Prof. Khan's article about the 3 P's of globalization he mentions that globalization transcends individual disciplines. In his other article he questions whether the era of globalization is waning as terrorism takes over. In this same article he considers creating a new discipline to teach the terrorism of globalization, or the globalization of terrorism. To teach and learn about globalization it is necessary to break it down into disciplines to try and grasp some of the complexities of this phenomenon. But in talking about the phenomenon, terrorism is just one facet, and just as globalization transcends disciplines it also transcends its complexities and often conflicting characteristics.
No, globalization will not be stalled or halted by a rise in terrorism. Yes some aspects will slow down in an effort to combat terrorism, like the time it takes to fly into the United States. But a need to share intelligence among the international community will cause governments to work more closely with each other. The only effective way to combat the rise of global terrorism is to trust the intelligence of other states or transnational institutions. Is that not an increase in globalization?
The irony that global terrorism was both born from globalization and is now attacking its foundations is perplexing, yet not surprising. As Professor Khan said in his article, “Global history is often marked by periods when a singular process is dominant”. The issue of globalization and global terrorism is strikingly reminiscent of the era of colonialisms and global empires followed by the drastic 180 to the period of decolonization. It is fascinating to parallel the two, noting the drastic change that once occurred, and imagining what our world today may soon become.
As Professor Khan’s article suggests, the world may now be facing a reverse in the era of globalization, due to the effects of global terrorism on the outlook and fears of the world. In the future, students may be studying the period of globalization (1990’s-early 2000’s) and the era of deglobalization (2005-?). I don’t believe that global terrorism in itself constitutes an entire era, but rather the acknowledgment that it was a prominent and defining cause in the change between the two.
I approach the idea of what is next for the world with interest, wonder, and fear. To compare again to the past, the prediction of the “Era of Industrialization” and the “Information Age” were surely unfathomable. So what is next? What possible era will next be upon us that would seem completely unbelievable today? These questions are cause for great fascination and apprehension. Surely, no era or period in time renders itself prosperous for all. Will the next era we face be one of negative effect or fortune to the “global north” and powers of the world that have so long prospered?
In the past, the course of the world has taken it to places never before imagined. This change in the course of current globalization will surely follow suit.
Although “deglobalization,” as mentioned in Professor Khan’s article, is possible, I believe that it is extremely unlikely. Despite security issues across borders, globalization is already very progressed after the era in which people believed that globalization is inevitable and beneficial. Therefore, it would be extremely difficult to reverse globalization. Economic, political, and social interests are already invested in the process of globalization. For example, comparative advantage largely shapes the world’s economy today; powerful corporations like Wal-Mart push for the cheapest products, which in turn forces manufacturing companies to outsource. Even if these companies had to spend extra money on security measures as a result of global terrorism, this would probably be in the companies' best interest as opposed to moving their factories back to the US. Also, politicians and organizations that have certain goals gain strength by forming relations with other countries; this advancement of global communication is part of the process of globalization. Since many people benefit from the worldwide disintegration of borders, I believe that globalization will continue to occur, but the rate at which it will occur will most likely slow down as a result of global terrorism.
I agree that globalization has definitely facilitated the mobility of terrorists, but as far as global terrorism arresting or reversing our current level of globalization, I would have to disagree. Although recent security measures, such as more stringent airport security, worldwide, and the construction of Sharon’s “security fence,” in Israel, are simply examples of governments attempting to enhance their national security in order to better protect their citizens from potential terrorist threats and attacks. To some, these strict security measures may appear to indicate an anti-globalist trend, but I don’t believe that their establishment will have that great of an impact on the current era of globalization (besides merely the enhanced security aspect). In fact, I tend to think that the continuous spread of globalization will ultimately put an end to (at least) the heightened reign of global terrorism that has dominated the public view in recent years. Increasing communications, technology, and information flow may aid in facilitating mobility of terrorists, but it also facilitates countries’ abilities to thwart and even prevent terrorist attacks, as well, by informing and befriending new nations and groups of people who share the desire to fight back against terrorism.
I studied in Granada, Spain last fall semester and learned a lot about globalization through this experience. Mine is the third essay on this page.
http://international.udel.edu/studyabroad/photo/writingcontest2006.html
The article about the "Three P's Of Globalization" made an excellent point about how globalization is not just an increase in the interconnectedness of all people (although that is also happening), but is primarily an increased awareness of this interconnectedness. Modern technology gives us a clearer perspective of how far-reaching our actions really are. As a result, people are beginning to take this "interconnectedness" into account more than ever when making decisions. This explains the second "P" (philosophy).
The other article asks the question "will the rise of terrorism arrest or ever reverse globalization?" Personally, I don't think it will do anything to reverse the process - even if that's what appears to be happening on the surface. For example, say there is a series of anti-American terrorist attacks in one part of the world, and the US strikes back. News of this might cause an increase in anti-American sentiment in a different part of the world, who might be inspired to launch a campaign to purge their culture of American influence. At first glance, the disappearence of American values in this country might be percieved as a reversal of globalization. But aren't they still being influenced by the terrorists' values? Terrorism is facilitated by globalization, as is the spread of their message and their values. And any backlash against the "traditional" aspects of globalization is still a product of that process
ON THE 3 P's
I think that globalization is a subject that should be studied both as discipline-specific and multidisciplinary. However, I think that a true understanding of what globalization is can only be ascertained by comprehending both features: discipline-specific and globalization as a whole process. With a lack of emphasis on discipline specific teaching, how can students ever expect to have expertise in a certain area?
If globalization can be characterized by three P’s: the phenomenon, the philosophy, and the process, can’t it be seen as all three P’s at the same time, and, at the same time, a combination of the three individual P’s. This is another reason I think more emphasis should be placed on discipline-specific aspects of globalization. Disciplines, like the P’s, are each affected by globalization differently and at the same time the process of globalization is affected by how each affected discipline combines. At best, equal emphasis should be given to both single and multi-disciplinarian views. Are not multi-disciplinarian views a combination of single disciplines? I think it would almost be easier to dissect globalization piece by piece than to take on the entire monstrosity at once. Why don’t disciplines outside of political science at UD, or any other school for that matter, offer courses about globalization.
“Globalization is the complex interconnectedness of people present and future”. Does globalization neglect the past? I say no. The events of the past directly affect the present and future. The events of the past led to globalization. How can you leave out the past and talk about “interconnectedness”? I think the past should be included in that sentence for all the historians’ sake.
When Professor Kahn talks about globalization as a philosophy it almost sounds as if he means it should be viewed as a policy. Perhaps policy could be the fourth P. Surely globalization is a policy taken into account by all political groups and international businesses.
If globalization is both inevitable and a process, how long will this inevitable process take to complete? With all the speed bumps it has already encountered such as fears of losing cultural and national identity and governments fearing the loss of sovereignty, and given the fact that globalization has already begun and its affects are plain to see, how certain are we that this process will be completed or will it be defeated.
On Globalization in the Era of Terrorism
I agree strongly with Professor Kahn that the 21st century is both an age of globalization and terrorism. Yet, the fact that terrorism receives more attention from the media and more concern from society as a whole leaves me to believe that the world has put globalization on the back burner while terrorism takes center stage. I feel it is indeed true that globalization facilitates as well as causes global terrorism. Moreover, I think that global terrorism is the culmination of countless conflicts left unresolved before globalization began combined with new problems that globalization has begot.
Thus, I feel that global terrorism will “put the brakes” on globalization but only until the world as a whole deals with troubles that it has neglected from the past. These tribulations we have ignored like the Israel/Palestine conflict need to be addressed not disregarded. Terrorism is a reminder that we have failed to provide fair and just finality and those problems left unsettled are going to come back and bite us in the ass. Although the US proclaims it does not negotiate with terrorists, I believe that in this case, the concerns of the terrorists must be dealt with.
Think of globalization as a bus ride going to a better place and the people on the bus as individual countries. Before the bus leaves a few of the people are having a fight at the bus station. The bus driver’s name happens to be America. America is impatient and tired of waiting for the people outside to stop fighting and leaves without them. When those people who got left behind catch up eventually, they are going to be pissed off. Now the bus driver knows he has to go back and pick those people up. But before they get on the bus, they need to settle their differences once and for all because we’re not allowed to take conflict to this better place that we’re going to. If America doesn’t go back and pick those people up, it is pretty to see that they might get a bomb in their mail box every now and then.
Global terrorism is also bringing to light that globalization might have some problems associated with it, some of which we might have yet to see. The duration of global terrorism has proved that it is not another issue that can be merely cast aside. The world must address their grievances. We need long term solutions in place of the patch work of the past.
Post a Comment
<< Home