Opinion Editorials, November 2003, www.aljazeerah.info
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine
Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people
Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah
Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
Iraq as an anti-globalisation case
Ahmad Y. Majdoubeh
Jordan Times, Friday, November 28, 2003
THOSE WHO support and try to argue the case for globalisation see it as an inevitable, and thus natural, process both economic and social in which the mighty powers of our small earth work, in close coordination and cooperation, with the smaller and less powerful nations for the overall good and welfare of all. Those who oppose globalisation, or are sceptical of it, see it as an imposed, and thus unnatural, ideology or means (militaristic, political and economic) by which the strong or the big dominate and manipulate the weak or the small. As the former are either American or Western and the latter are, essentially, developing or Third-World, globalisation becomes synonymous to either Americanisation or Westernisation.
Which of the two does the present Iraqi case illustrate? The answer on the basis of what happened prior to, during and in the aftermath of America's war on Iraq does not require much thinking. The Iraqi case illustrates globalisation in its second, negative, sense.
Until now, the American administration and some of its advocates of heavy-handed politics insist that America has done what it has done in Iraq for the sake of the Iraqi people, democracy in the region and global harmony and peace. When you get rid of dictators and terrorists and replace them with democratic regimes, you are contributing to the good and welfare of specific countries and regions (in the case at hand, Iraq and the Middle East region) as well as of the globe as a whole, the argument goes.
On the basis of what has unfolded so far and what has (or has not) materialised on the ground, however, no one accepts this logic. All of this talk about democracy and freedom in the absence of concrete, convincing evidence and in the presence of hegemonic, oppressive practices is seen as mere lip-service and cover up for all kinds of covert intentions and practices. What America has done in Iraq, in fact, illustrates nothing (at least largely) but domination, hegemony, imposition of will and manipulation.
American actions in Iraq bode ill for the cause of globalisation. If America's invasion and conquest of Iraq is taken as an example of how the new global order is to be brought about, it justifies all or most of what the anti-globalists are saying.
First of all, globalisation is nothing but Americanisation (not even Westernisation). Prior to, during and after the war on Iraq, America acted unilaterally. Not only has it totally ignored the international community, it has also ignored many Western powers which have strongly opposed it, and which continue to do so. The anti-globalists who have argued that in the unipolar world after the collapse of the Soviet Union America will impose its will and whim on the world unabashedly and unconditionally have turned out to be absolutely correct in their argument.
Second, where are the cooperation and coordination? As stated above, those who believe in globalisation as a positive approach view it as based on cooperation and coordination. The Iraqi case illustrates the opposite: Darwinian competition. Those who oppose or are sceptical of globalisation see it in Darwinian terms: assertion of the will of the strongest and competition in the most negative terms. Why have the European countries which did not support America's (and Britain's) war on Iraq done so? Is it so much out of concern for Iraq, the small and the weak, or the welfare of the globe? Not really. It is (largely at least) out of a sense of competition with America. America wants either all the cake or a bigger piece of it than the other European countries can accept.
And what about the lot of the small and the weak? They are under this new global order like small fish: food for big fish. America's motive for the war is economic, not humanistic. That is why it can, in total cold blood, ignore both the position of its mighty competitors and the needs and wants of the weak.
Finally, who is anti-globalist: the traditional opponents of globalisation or, in fact, its proponents? The answer, again and on the basis of the Iraqi situation, is clear: its proponents. It is they (America and Britain in this case) who, through their practices, are proving the anti-globalists to be correct in what they have warned against and in their negative reading or interpretation of globalisation.
America, through Iraq, had the chance to show to the world both globalisation and its role in it as a positive thing. Unfortunately, it did not.
 |
| Earth, a planet hungry for peace |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers (Ran Cohen, pmc, 5/24/03). |
 |
| The Israeli apartheid (security) wall around Palestinian population centers in the West Bank, like a Python. (Alquds,10/25/03). |
 |