The Fall of Globalization - Assignment Example

Globalization In this piece, Robert Wright uses history as a bastion of globalization. He terms the fall of the Twin Towers as coinciding – around the same time – with the fall of globalization. Globalization is manifest destiny that has been attained. It is vital to note that it also differs from the 19th century focal point that was about expanding America’s borders. This new brand of globalization was about values. For instance, Wright argues that, America’s values of both economic and political liberty have already spread beyond the borders of America. He points out that globalization was sort of pre-destined and inevitable. However, it is not only the ancient societies that resisted globalization but also neo-conservative societies like China abound were against it. The solution to this might be the need for tough American guidance coercing them towards democracy and stiff international economic competition might be the cure. Wrights states that, as perceived against the scenery of history, manifest destiny is powerful and continuous. He argues that the challenge emerges from history since it is self evident that globalization goes back to ancient history when early expansion of commerce was technologically driven. For instance, the early advances in transportation were an extremely important component in doing deals as well during wars. As such was information technology, which acted as a bastion of commerce. Writing originated from prehistoric Asia especially Mesopotamia, which has, records of what took place. All this information was grounded in human nature and deeply seated in how they went about their business. Since human nature involves the quest for profit and advances, both economic and technological advances meant a better, faster, more efficient role-playing hence globalization was an inevitable outcome. The flop side of this structure is that it might be a difficult situation at times. For instance, as commerce expands, its interdependence deepens. The ancient society saw both sides of the coin. They viewed success and prosperity stretch but also saw enormous disaster like the collapse across the Eastern Mediterranean. The main reason this trouble travels so fast is that it uses the same conduits of transport as the economic and the communication system. For instance, a good example is the downfall 1200BC raiders who used to kidnap commercial ships. Wright and Kaplan argue that in the ancient history times as it is today, protecting and expanding realm of independence is through governance. The Roman Empire for instance, secured its commercial routes. This was replicated in the middle ages where German traders in German formed the Hanseatic League to fight pirates, kidnappers, and brigades while securing their business. They argue that although global governance sounds radical, but it is not because commerce is liberating the world. They point out that today globalization of commerce and the threats emanating from the same has called for agents of global governance. With these advances, there is the need to police the world dangerous materials such as nuclear materials. This they say is just history taking its cause since globalization calls for stringent measures and plans to ensure that the avenues open for expansion of the global economy and technology are not exploited by other forces out to wreck havoc. This is only possible if there are well laid out rudiments of international governance. Wright and Kaplan state that, with the expansion in commerce, growth has not been limited to governance but also of morality. Wright describes morality as acknowledging the humanity of people even amidst the cutthroat activities that entail business. He points out that prehistoric relations featured open hostility between groups with violence being justified by moral degradation and even dehumanization of victims. Although Wright and Kaplan slightly differ in their emphasis of morality, the key points bring them together and they tend to agree on the major components of what entails morality. Wright argues that modern day people ignore the fact that people are morally equal. Wright puts the question; can moral enlightenment be self-centered as mediated by the economy where all that matters is the profits and expanding economic interdependence? They point out religious tolerances and moralities are most frequent in highly globalized countries such as Germany and the United States. Globalization, they argue, might diminish the plea of radical Islam so that economic liberty comes with political freedom. Since the world is characterized by free markets democracies, it will make Muslims differ with non-Muslims in business hall, but also vibrant and young Muslims will have a level field in realizing their economic and political ambitions. In a well laid out explanation, Wright elaborates the relationship between morality and liberty. He calls it the age-old tradition between security and liberty that often involves the third variable, antipathy. This he explains in the terms that, less hatred in the world means that people will live in peace thus business will thrive making life easy. He further states that, since people like their freedom, they have responsibility of checking on one another to ensure that they are not negatively influenced. In his work, he shows that global governance lacking global moral progression could be very unpleasant. In his own words, Wright states that America’s role is distinct from the roles libertarians and non-conservatives once perceived as passive and aggressive evangelizer. It is a grander task having a subtle and deep moral challenge. In a way, Wright is emphasizing the need for America to carry out its duty as a guardian of global governance with the seriousness it deserves. Overseeing the other democracies has to be tampered with efficient self-regulation and mutual understanding and respect. America’s role is grander in the sense that the passive role pointed out by libertarians’ points out to its ability to be an overseer of the other fledgling democracies without undue influence and interference. While the role of aggressive evangelizer in essence is trying to ensure that, the democracies that tend to veer off the straight and narrow road are brought back in line this would ensure tolerance of each other. Just like the Roman Empire and the early leaders of democracy, America as a bastion of democracy and efficient self-rule needs to be the pivot for international governance. America should take an active role of policing the emerging democracies and the neo-conservative states, some of them keen on stoking nuclear material. America’s role is grander since the country should also monitor and reprimand those countries abusing human rights of their citizens and those that are so keen to trample on the democratic rights and stifling opposition to their rule especially so those with divergent views, often termed dissenters or radicals. This role is grander in the sense that it brings America in direct conflict with those nations going against this ethos of morality, as they tend to think the role of the country as that of infringing on their sovereignty. America too has to be transparent in its endeavors and not take the advantage to wage war on those they see as divergent on the flimsiest of excuses. This role, might involve countries restructuring their national sovereignty. For example, agreeing to visit other nations in order to promote peace. It has been recorded that advance in technology can lead destabilize the world. For instance, if communication is easy, people that have no power have access to it since it is easily available. Therefore, it is the role of American’s information experts to understand this cross-cultural interdependence and ensure that information is sieved before it gets to the recipient. Americans should understand that successful and free Muslims are valuable to them thus, they should not intimidate them. President Woodrow Wilson reminded Americans that they participated in the First World War to protect the world and establish democracy. This reveals the role of United States of America in safeguarding world peace. Further, when the second world ended, US established democratic governments in enemy countries such as Japan and West Germany with an aim of strengthening world peace. After the fall of twin towers in September 2001, US government under President Bush invaded Iraq with an aim of replacing anarchy with democracy. The US invention of Iraq has called for the need to have democratic government in Iraq where peace prevails. This and many other examples show the magnitude of America’s role in guarding world and establishing democracies. More so, America has to ensure that human rights are respected and not violated. This is what Wright terms as America’s mission as being grander than envisaged by the libertarians and also carrying a deep and subtle moral challenge, that of remaining non-partisan while at the same time carrying out the duty of a global governance agent. Rudyard Kipling’s view about human nature is similar to that of Wrights. Because they both argue that democratic world is that, where human rights are respected and honored regardless of their position in society. Work Cited Wright, Robert. “Two Year Later, a Thousand Years Ago”. The New York Times September 11 2003. Print. Read More