The first world is constantly preaching and criticizing third world nations for their inability to curb the violence that has taken thousands of lives in countries like The Democratic Republic of Congo, Colombia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and more. Interesting though, as it seems the first world is the number one exporter of military equipment. According to Richard F. Grimmett's report to congress the top 7 weapons exporting countries are the United States with 135 billion dollars, Russia with 68 billion, France with 32 billion, the U.K. with 26 billion, Germany with 13 billion, China with 12 billion, and Italy with 7 billion dollars. The United States is by far the largest distributor of arms in the world, selling more than twice as much as the next closest competitor. The truth, then, is that there is no economic incentives for the United States to stop exporting weapons; In fact, the economic incentive is to increase the sales. How can a government that profits so highly form "running guns" be effective in combating the Black Market arms trade? Maybe it can't.

Jane Birkin chante Aung San Suu Kyi - V.O
Uploaded by Amnesty_France

Susan Strange is another author who believes that globalization has weakened the autonomy and authority of both well established, and burgeoning states and governments. However, in an excerpt from her book The Retreat From the State, her argument adds another, and far more abstract idea to the mix. That the rapid improvements in technology, the increased mobility of capitol and business, the expanding authority of market: all the things that characterize globalization, have also led to a change, albeit an overlooked change, in modern day sociology and international relations.

Though her argument is similar to that of Kenichi Ohamae, she makes several distinct and specific points. First, that technology has played a key role in the eroding public confidence in the state. In her example (the creation of the nuclear bomb) the idea of mutually assured destruction meant that in a nuclear war, no nation was safe from annihilation, even those as seemingly powerful as the United States. Such an idea led many people to question the effectiveness of government when they could not even uphold one of their most basic purposes. Secondly, she comments on how “scholars in international relations for the past half-century have grossly neglected the political aspects of credit-creation, and changes in the global financial structure.” Meaning that it is often the market-to-market relations that affect politics rather than state-to-state relations. Because many governments control credit and interest rates, transnational corporations that require credit to keep up with technological innovations will gravitate towards more economically liberal states.

Finally, Strange states, “At the heart of the political economy there is a vacuum, a vacuum not adequately filled by inter-governmental institutions or by hegemonic power exercising leadership in the common interest.” This to me was the most interesting and relative part of the piece. Considering that many of the articles thus analyzed have been written in the 1990’s, they have obviously been unable to consider recent history. With the near crash of the market and the fall of such economic giants as Lehman Brothers and, and near falls of Bear Stearns, AIG, and others, the unregulated free market system has fallen on hard times. With the recession in full swing now, the public has begun to question the almighty free market in a way that would have seemed blasphemous less than a decade ago. At the same time, people are looking to the state to pick up the slack left behind by those on “Wall Street”. The newly elected administration has already promised tighter over watch of the economy and business, directly contradicting the rhetoric of recent elected officials. As people begin to redefine the role of Government in the free market, it is obvious that they may tend to lean in favor of increasing the states authority. Perhaps this is the climax of globalization, where the seemingly exponential growth of unregulated power is finally curbed as people come to realize that CEO’s and corporations aught not be the sole proprietors of policy; that perhaps it is time once again for the rise of an evolved nation-state. One in which a balance must be struck. Globalization. This tragedy might in fact be the beginning of a reformed globalized community.

I admit that the articles I have been discussing of late have illuminated only the problems of globalization and offered few if any solutions. However, in Dani Rodrik’s “Has Globalization Gone Too Far?” he highlights some obstacles and solutions regarding the newly globalized world.

His first points of contentions are the obvious ones. First, “reduced barriers” to business and trade have, in recent years, served to accentuate “the asymmetry between groups that can cross international borders and those that cannot”. According to Rodrik, the migration is less of a choice and more about demand. Though the highly demanded specialized professionals and businessmen might have freedom of mobility, thee unskilled laborer does not. This is not necessarily because of less need for the underskilled wage laborer, but rather that this type of worker can be easily substituted. He points out that such “elasticity” in demand for unskilled employees has several consequences for the common people of the world.

• Workers now have to pay a larger share of the cost of improvements in work conditions and benefits.
• They have to incur greater instability in earnings and hours worked in response to shocks to labor demand or labor productivity
• Their bargaining power erodes, so they receive lower wages and benefits whenever bargaining is an element in setting the terms of employment.

Second, nations with very different values and societal norms are being forced to trade with one another and compete on a global scale for the same goods. For example, under the rules of the World Trade Organizations, the U.S. would have to trade and compete with a country that might use child labor, or support terrorism

Third and finally, global trade has made it increasingly difficult for governments to provide “social insurance” for its people. The welfare state is in a very dangerous position right now. Since things like social security and welfare run countercyclically to free market practices they are often demonized as helping those unwilling to help themselves. The danger we as a society face then is the fact that if globalization continues to weaken the governments ability to provide financial and social aid to the less fortunate, people may begin to be displeased with the free market system, leading to a “resurgence in protectionism”.

But unlike other authors, who often state the predicaments associated with globalization and leave it up to the rest of the world to untangle, Rodrik makes several suggestions for how to remedy some of Globalization’s side effects. He says that, first, there must be a balance “between openness and domestic needs”, that the need for free markets should not take precedent over social cohesion. Indeed, it aught to be the right of every state to use tariffs in a responsible manner in order to protect the values of the taxing society. On this point I agree slightly. Tariffs can be a useful tool, no doubt, but they can also be an easily abused power. I believe it is still important for the WTO to continue to set limits on the use of tariffs.

Second, he says not to neglect social insurance. According to Rodrik, social insurance has acted as a peacekeeper in the last half century and giving it up for the sake of free market rhetoric would be a catastrophic and politically suicidal idea. Though his proposal of cutting the amount of money flowing into social security programs and siphoning it elsewhere may be a difficult act to play out unscathed (politicians have yet to truly tamper with social security).

Thirdly, “do not use competitiveness as an excuse for domestic reform”. Such rhetoric taints any form of political and social change that might have otherwise been quite useful. Why would people want to change their lives or domestic conditions to be more on the level with foreign countries? “The lessons for policymakers is, do not sell reforms that are good for the economy and citizenry as reforms that are dictated by international economic integration.” On this point I totally agree. Speaking as a U.S. citizen, it does not serve politicians well to try to explain their policies by telling us that if we don’t play the game the way the other “big boys” do, we’ll get left behind. If anything it would make me not want play the game at all.

In general, this author and I have similar points of view. The idea that free market economics parallels a decline in the quality and sovereignty of a nation must be viewed as absurd, lest it come true. The idea that we as a people have the power to direct the course of Globalization, now that makes sense.

There is no doubt that globalization has enabled businesses across the globe to interact more freely, with less regulation, and across nearly all state borders. While this might not at first seem sinister, it is important to remember that a deregulation of the market affects all enterprises. Organized crime is, in the most literal sense, a business. It operates according to the laws of supply and demand, and is based on producing a profit. The new globalized market has made it far easier for these illegitimate industries to diversify their services and activates, and to work their organizations on a far larger and uninterrupted scale.

In his article “Global Organized Crime”, James H. Mittelman describes how he believes that organized crime syndicates have become globally innovative institutions. He claims that the rapid introduction of the free market into traditionally non-free market economies dispersed wealth in a very uneven manner, creating large populations of marginalized peoples willing to travel and take part in any affairs to remain afloat. Thus, as the poor emigrated to the economic hot spots of the world, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, New York, so did to the organized crime that fed off of the misfortunes of these migrants.

But that was just the beginning. The new economy gave organized crime the tools to diversify its operations. Aside from the stereotypical trafficking of peoples and narcotics, these enterprises stuck their greedy thumbs into the global pie: illegal currency transactions, “computer crimes, money laundering, stealing nuclear material” and more. Not only did these technologies give crime more business opportunities, but also made the action of crime across international borders far more efficient. Laptops and satellites have done the same for organized crime as they have for legitimate businesses. What's more, the process of freeing up global markets have made the borders of nations that much more permeable when it comes to illegal trafficking and trading.

Finally, the growth of globally integrated and connected criminal organizations serve to weaken the already vulnerable authority of the national governments. Organized crime’s ability to pay off and even circumvent governments has undermined the position of said administrations. But in a far more frightening way, these criminal organizations provide many of the same services that governments do, only a lot more and without all the red tape. They offer:

Banking in black and gray markets that operate outside the regulatory framework of the state; buying, selling and distributing controlled or prohibited commodities… providing swift and usually discreet dispute resolution and debt collection without resorting to the courts… and arranging security for so-called protection of businesses.


But what interests me the most, considering how it deal directly with my field of interest, is how organized crime deals so heavily in the black market arms trade. What is most alarming, however, is how the selling of illegal arms further intermingles organized crime with private and government institutions. The use worldwide of mercenary armies is only adding money to the bank accounts of those who sell the weapons used in such conflicts. This connection “between the state and organized crime gives rise to more state-sanctioned violence.”

Once again, as has always been a point I make with this blog, globalization is not perfect. As with all times of change there will be opportunists who will take advantage of the weekend joints of the evolving world. But this mustn’t continue. By attacking the root of the problem (wealth disparity) it is my hope that these organizations will begin to crumble from within.

There is no doubt that globalization has enabled businesses across the globe to interact more freely, with less regulation, and across nearly all state borders. While this might not at first seem sinister, it is important to remember that a deregulation of the market effects all enterprises. Organized crime is, in the most literal sense, a business. It operates according to the laws of supply and demand, and is based on producing a profit. The new globalized market has made it far easier for these illegitimate industries to diversify their services and activates, and to work their organizations on a far larger and uninterrupted scale.

In his article “Global Organized Crime”, James H. Mittelman describes how he believes that organized crime syndicates have become a globally innovative institutions. He claims that the rapid introduction of the free market into traditionally non-free market economies dispersed wealth in a very uneven manner, creating large populations of marginalized peoples willing to travel and take part in any affairs to remain afloat. Thus, as the poor emigrated to the economic hot spots of the world, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, New York, so did to the organized crime that fed off of the misfortunes of these migrants.

But that was just the beginning. The new economy gave organized crime the tools to diversify its operations. Aside from the stereotypical trafficking of peoples and narcotics, these enterprises stuck their greedy thumbs into the global pie: illegal currency transactions, “computer crimes, money laundering, stealing nuclear material” and more. Not only did these technologies give crime more business opportunities, but also made the action of crime across international borders far more efficient. Laptops and satellites have done the same for organized crime as they have for legitimate businesses. What's more, the process of freeing up global markets have made the borders of nations that much more permeable when it comes to illegal trafficking and trading.

Finally, the growth of globally integrated and connected criminal organizations serve to weaken the already vulnerable authority of the national governments. Organized crime’s ability to pay off and even circumvent governments has undermined the position of said administrations. But in a far more frightening way, these criminal organizations provide many of the same services that governments do, only a lot more and without all the red tape. They offer:

Banking in black and gray markets that operate outside the regulatory framework of the state; buying, selling and distributing controlled or prohibited commodities… providing swift and usually discreet dispute resolution and debt collection without resorting to the courts… and arranging security for so-called protection of businesses.


But what interests me the most, considering how it deal directly with my field of interest, is how organized crime deals so heavily in the black market arms trade. What is most alarming, however, is how the selling of illegal arms further intermingles organized crime with private and government institutions. The use worldwide of mercenary armies is only adding money to the bank accounts of those who sell the weapons used in such conflicts. This connection “between the state and organized crime gives rise to more state-sanctioned violence.”

Once again, as has always been a point I make with this blog, globalization is not perfect. As with all times of change there will be opportunists who will take advantage of the weekend joints of the evolving world. But this mustn’t continue. By attacking the root of the problem (wealth disparity) it is my hope that these organizations will begin to crumble from within.

The nation-state is a relatively new invention. For its time it was a novel idea; taking the invisible lines encompassing common culture, history, language, and often religion, and stenciling in political borders. In the 18th and 19th centuries many nations were incredibly homogenous, and identified with their fellow citizens in not only a political sense, but also by cultural means. But globalization has not left the traditional nation-state untouched. With the growing global economy, the legitimacy and authority, of the nation-state and the governments that control them has been severely weakened.

During the mercantilist age the governments of sovereign nation-states could control their economies and regulate businesses as they saw fit. But not so in today’s globalized world. In Kenichi Ohmae’s article “The End of the Nation State”, he describes how “the modern nation state itself - that artifact of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries – has begun to crumble.” The problem for these entities is that, in an economically free and borderless world, their ability to tinker or “twinge” with the market has been drastically hindered, since businesses have the ability to move capitol away from those states. Since these nation-states are such “remarkably inefficient engines of wealth”, governments that are democratically elected in these nations will continue to be ousted until they are willing to submit to a free global market.

What’s more, the ability to attribute products and goods to a certain country has become nearly impossible, considering that Japan has car factories in the U.S., U.S. companies have bases in Europe, and European textiles have factories in Asia. To what nationality do I attribute my automobile, t-shirt, and backpack?

Finally, with today’s freedom of mobility, people are hardly constrained by the borders within which they were born. The open movement of people has not only eroded the political authority of nation-states, but has also weakened the cultural ties people once shared with those of common heritage.

So, having established that the nation-state is in fact on the decline throughout the world, what are the consequences of such a change? Are these transformations good or bad? Well first, the history of the nation-state is by no means a peaceful one. Because these states are based nearly entirely upon common ethnicity, those unfortunate peoples who have lived within ethnic borders while not actually sharing in the national traditions have often been the targets of violence. The idea of ethnic cleansing, master races, and segregation is based upon the idea that, though a person may live within a country, it does not make them the same nationality.

Yet the feeling of community and unity offered by the nation state is unquestionably comforting. To know that you are surrounded by people with whom you can identify is not at all a bad thing. It is when this comfort turns to disdain for those of different “nationality”. The violence enacted against Slavs in Yugoslavia, the Jews in Nazi Germany, and the Kurds in modern day Iraq find their origins in blind nationalism that goes in tandem with a nation state.

What’s important is that, as the nation-state begins to fade, people do not lose their sense of community. It’s an important part of being human, having a place to belong, a home and a so called brotherhood of neighbors. However, this cannot come at the cost of human lives or dignity. In a sense, globalization is offering us the opportunity to draw new community lines, surrounding people who share, if not heritage, but interests and ideas.

Many people wonder if Globalization, instead than bringing people closer together, is in fact just making them more uniform. Does Globalization destroy the cultural individuality of non-western nations? In an excerpt from James L. Watson’s book Golden Arches East: McDonalds in East Asia he discusses how the implementation of a McDonalds, a traditionally Western institution based on free market capitalism, in China affected the local culture. Though he admits that the new fast food restaurant precipitated some basic changes in an economic and structural way, he also assures the reader that the people of Hong Kong were not stripped of their heritage or identity.
Let’s take McDonalds as an example of the far spanning reach of Globalization. McDonalds is after all one of the largest international corporation in the world, operating in over a hundred countries with over 31,000 total restaurant locations. From personal travel I have seen many different McDonalds in many different countries. But what has become apparent is that, more then anything else, the local culture seems to shape the institution, not the other way around. For example, a few years ago I was in Tunisia, a small North African country bordering the Mediterranean. Because of the Muslim dominant culture McDonalds was forced to craft its menu around the dietary restrictions of Muslims. As such, the menu had no fish on the menu, no pork, fewer beef products, and veggie pizza.
The point is that in order to be economically viable in countries like Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and China, the individual restaurants must be willing to grow within the confines of the local culture and tradition. In this sense, neither capitalism nor globalism is destroying non-western culture; rather, it is because of globalism that traditionally western institutions must learn about cultures other than their own. What’s so bad about that?

Knowing that most of the people reading this blog are teachers and administrators (who am I kidding: only teachers and administrators) I would like to take a moment to apologize. I know that in class I am usually the talker; I like dominating discussions, arguing with my peers and even with my teachers, and for that I am sorry. However, the USM administration may take solace in the fact that it has finally presented me a course that shuts me up. It’s true; Global Studies is unlike the other classes that I have taken in that I shockingly have no concrete opinion on any subject we have thus far discussed. There is a reason for this, and it is not that I have learned to share the airspace of a classroom.

I have always loved history class. I love looking at the tiny facets of bigger ideas, and understanding how the world we live in was shaped by moments and ideologies of the past. I thought Global Studies would be like my other history courses with the above focus. I was wrong. The difference here is that I am not a child of the revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, or of the Cold War. No, I have grown up in the age of Globalism. I am a product of the Internet, sushi bars, international corporations, and free market capitalism. So to take a class which forces me to look, not at the past to see how it has shaped the present, but to critically look to the present to see how it will make a future creates a different sensation entirely. More over, it leads me to question the very principles of the world I have grown to trust. That perhaps I should not question individual politicians but the system under which they work, not to criticize a selfish businessman but the type economy that allows him to prosper.

So how can I have any concrete opinions on subjects with such a wide birth? Capitalism: good or bad, how the hell should I know? To each legitimate idea there is a legitimate argument against it. In a class that approaches the world in such a holistic manner how can I know what is right, or what is wrong? Maybe the truth is that there are more than two sides to the issues, maybe there are hundreds of sides, each with their own distinctions and idiosyncrasies, ideologies and beliefs, pros and cons, and the black and white of this world is meant only for the newspapers.

It can be frightening to know that you may be facing questions that force inner reflection, that challenge the infrastructure of the world you know. Even in recent classes I have found myself clinging to my perceptions I see them being torn from my fingers. But I will say this. This may be the most interesting class I have ever had, and the single most important one any student can take. There is nothing wrong with changing ideas; it is the very definition of progress.

According to Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto, capitalism requires larger markets, newer supplier and more consumers. Thus, as industry grew so did capitalism, launching an expansion that would envelope the globe, interconnecting individuals and organizations worlds apart. In truth, the Republic that capitalism fosters destroys the Feudal classes the 17th and 16th century. As Marx says, capitalism has “torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his natural superiors”. But while Marx says this fuels “callous” self-interest, I say it fuels community. In a capitalist society, contrary to the opinions of both Marx and Karl Polyani, people do not look at one another as though they have a price on their foreheads. Rather, in a capitalist republic, society must look inward and ask how much can they be worth to others. What can one person offer to someone else? It is because of the inwardly reflective nature of a capitalist society that people choose to strive for more, to extend themselves, learn more, and improve their own self worth; not to be viewed as more valuable by others, but to know that there is more they can offer to the rest. In a way what I mean is that the ideology Marx seems to detest so much cultivates progress, the kind of progress that destroys the barriers that may have otherwise have separated peoples of all races and religions. Free markets do not see skin color or heritage; they see opportunity, opportunity that has in recent history brought people closer together.

In Tony Judt's article "What have We Learned, If Anything?", he explains that, though the 20th century was a revolutionary one, filled with both successes and disasters on far grander scales than ever before, it seems that the world has begun to forget the lessons they taught. As the World moved into the 21st century, Judt argues that it did so with a feeling that the past was behind it, and the world ahead was a new one entirely. Such attitudes have made the first decade of this new millennium chaotic and unwieldy.

The Case Against the West, written by Kishore Mahububani, describes the disconnect that has occurredbetween the West and the rest of the world that occurred during of the apex of globalization. He explains that the West's views itself as an omnipotent force, believing that its duty to lead to world into the 21st century allows it to leave behind the rules and regulation it has taken to responsibility to enforce. As such, the rest of the world has begun to disregard the wishes of the West, and have grown strong doing so. It seems the power of the West is dwindling.

In the United States, the cost of an Avtomat Kalashnikov model of 1947, more commonly known as an AK 47, can be anywhere from 500 to 1000 dollars. Yet all over the world, in the poorest countries, wars are fought primarily with this assault rifle. How can it be that people who often cannot afford to feed or clothe themselves and sometimes live on as little as a dollar a day can afford this weapon, and other small arms, like grenades, explosives, or RPG’s. Somewhere, someone is purchasing these weapons, and someone else is profiting from the violence they fuel. Who then is willing to pay and who is willing to profit from the small arms conflicts around the world?