One of the best non-fiction books I have read is “The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization,” by Thomas Friedman, a New York Times columnist. In it, Friedman explains the new world we live in, the world of globalization, in which seemingly insignificant events in relatively unknown countries or cities can drastically affect the United States.
Before the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, the United States and the rest of the world lived a Cold War. The United States and the U.S.S.R. constantly were struggling for the balance of power. The determining factors of world affairs and international politics were nation states, but the fall of the Soviet Union changed everything.
In the words of Friedman, “The world is 10 years old.” With the fall of communism, capitalism spread rapidly throughout most of the world, bringing open markets and private property, especially to formerly communist Eastern Europe, through a process now known as globalization.
Friedman defines globalization as the “overarching international system shaping the domestic politics and foreign relations of virtually every country … it involves the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states and technologies to a degree never witnessed before … that is enabling countries, corporations and individuals to reach around the world farther and faster than before …”
In other words, because the world now is so interconnected, the events in one country or one market influences the events of another country or market more than ever before. For example, within two days of reopening Wall Street after Sept. 11, stocks plummeted. Likewise, the stock markets in Tokyo, Beijing, London, Frankfort, Germany and many others all nose-dived as well.
Though globalization has lowered the number of people living in absolute poverty in the world and raised the standard of living more in the last 50 years than in the previous 500, some disadvantages to globalization exist.
The most apparent disadvantage to globalization is terrorism. Super-powered men such as Osama bin Laden, who resent the culture of globalization that began in the West, use the very tools of globalization (rapid movement of communication, ease of traveling through and between the borders of countries, etc.) to commit terrorism.
Another downside that two University professors brought to my attention is the decrease in the security of nations.
You may be wondering what I’m getting at; here it is.
The actions of one crazy man in a country thousands of miles away (and merely the size of California) can have disastrous effects on the U.S. economy and threaten our national security (yes, I’m talking about Saddam Hussein).
The actions I speak of run the gamut from terrorism against the Israelis by the Palestinian intifada (uprising) to threats against the oil fields in Kuwait, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia and yes, Iraq, which harbors terrorist organizations.
The strategic importance of Middle Eastern oil must not be underestimated. The entire U.S. culture and society is absolutely dependent upon oil. Oil represents a potential choking hold (the United States imports 58 percent of its oil, according to the Department of Energy) on the United States, and therefore gives countries such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait the ability to threaten our national security.
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and most other Middle Eastern oil-producing countries cooperate with the United States and aid, rather than threaten our national security. However, countries such as Iran and Iraq represent clear and present dangers to U.S. national security and they threaten the stability of the region, which in turn, threatens our stability at home.
It is easily understandable why the United States is perfectly justified in continuing its 12-year war in Iraq with removing Saddam Hussein and replacing him with a U.S.-friendly regime, sending a powerful message to other threatening countries such as Iran and North Korea.
The United States should, and thankfully President Bush seems willing to, restore stability and peace (through strength) to the Middle East vis-à-vis the U.S. military, thereby creating a “Pax Americana” far more successful and far more enduring than the Pax Romana.