adelman2_Valery Hache_AFP_Getty Images_Marine Le Pen

Culture

عولمة أشد خطرا

Mar 23, 2017 Jeremy Adelman and Anne-Laure Delatte

برينستون ــ "أمريكا أولا" هكذا يردد دونالد ترامب بحماسة وحدة، أما مؤيدو الخروج البريطاني من الاتحاد الأوروبي فيقولون "بريطانيا أولا"، وتصيح مارين لوبن وجبهتها الوطنية "فرنسا أولا"، ويعلن كرملين فلاديمير بوتن أن "روسيا أولا". في ظل تأكيد شديد كهذا على السيادة الوطنية، يبدو مآل العولمة إلى الفشل.

لكن الأمر ليس كذلك. فالصراع المتنامي اليوم ليس صراعا بين العولمة ومناهضيها، بل إن حقيقة الوضع هي أن العالم متأرجح بين نموذجين للتكامل: أحدهما متعدد الأطراف مؤمن بالدُولية، والآخر يميل إلى الثنائية والإمبريالية. وبين هذين النموذجين تأرجح العالم طوال العصر الحديث.

منذ عام 1945 كانت اليد العليا للمؤمنين بالدولية. فقد أيدوا التعاون وساندوا المؤسسات متعددة الأطراف لتعزيز المنافع العامة العالمية كالسلام، والأمن، والاستقرار المالي، والاستدامة البيئية. ويتسم النموذج الذي تبنوه بتقييده للسيادة الوطنية من خلال إجبار الدول على أعراف ومواثيق ومعاهدات مشتركة.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Jeremy Adelman

Writing for PS since 2015
5 Commentaries

Jeremy Adelman is Director of the Global History Lab at Princeton University.

Anne-Laure Delatte

Writing for PS since 2015
2 Commentaries

Anne-Laure Delatte is Director of the Centre d’Études Prospectives et d’Informations Internationale, Paris.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 17 Comments on this article

B Wilds Apr 9, 2017

Over the last several years the "stop globalization" movement has gained support in developed countries across the world. The subject of globalization is made up of many threads interwoven in a complex way, the discussion can include several issues such as, but not limited to, immigration and free trade.

Other social concerns also feed into the mix, things like global warming, nationalism, inequality, even population growth. The article below explores this complex issue and questions whether it is justified.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2016/07/is-stop-globalization-movement-justified.html
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Mar 27, 2017

and imagine the wars ... Cities not just leveled, but radioactive ... on a bright side, this will definitely lessen the fears of overcrowding.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mitchell Porter Mar 27, 2017

A bizarre attempt to make "bilateralism" the name of the enemy, and to rewrite history around this theme. Yes, who can forget Kipling's racist ode to Bilateral Thinking, or the fearsome Bilateral Commission that organized the Axis from behind the scenes?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Mar 26, 2017

Jeremy Adelman and Anne-Laure Delatte warn against a "more dangerous globalism" that could turn "predatory" like the one history witnessed in the 1930s that ultimately led to the outbreak of World War II. "Powerful countries imposed uneven trade pacts on neighbors and partners, or simply overran them." Japan invaded China and colonised Manchuria; Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia preyed on their weak neighbours and imposed unequal treaties or seized territories. Often their quest was "fueled by racism and fears of overcrowding."
The authors don't speak of a "struggle" that pits globalism against anti-globalism. Instead they see the world being put on two paths of integration: One is "multilateral and internationalist" whose outcome is "a balance of great powers" that provides for "peace and security." The other is "bilateral and imperialist" that glorifies "the strong and punishes the weak, and that rewards competitors at the expense of cooperators."
Throughout modern history, "the world has seesawed between them." The post World War II era had given birth to generations of internationalists, who - having the upper hand - had secured a world order, that promotes "global public goods like peace, security, financial stability, and environmental sustainability," and advocates "cooperation and multilateral institutions." Subsequently countries around the world have complied with international "norms, conventions, and treaties" that constrain their "national sovereignty."
While the Brexit vote and Trump's election in 2016 may have "tipped the scales toward bilateralists, who regard national sovereignty as an end in itself," a rising China and a resurgent Russia have also been among the bilateralists, who seek to defy the current global order led by the US and its allies. Unlike populists in the UK and the US, both China and Russia don't complain about the Washington consensus that advocates free trade, floating exchange rates, free markets and macroeconomic stability. They just want more say in IMF and the World Bank etc.
The authors speak of an integration based on "a hybrid of internationalism and imperialism" throughout the 19th century, which is an euphemism for colonialism. "Globalizers could also be bullies: the 1842 Treaty of Nanking between Britain and China subordinated the Middle Kingdom to the West." China certainly saw Britain as an invader, who was heavily involved in opium trade. The Chinese tried to stop it, which led to the Opium War of 1839-1842. Following the Treaty of Nanking China ceded the island of Hong Kong to Britain.
Elsewhere, "bilateral imperialism’s ugliest face was reflected in Europeans’ carve-up of Africa into exclusive possessions." Between the two World Wars "the pursuit of national grandeur led to ruinous economic rivalry and mass violence." The 1929 Wall Street crash and the ensuing Great Depression in America resulted in a global recession, with country after country turning inward. The "brutality of bilateralism" was the reason why Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Winston Churchill drafted the Atlantic Charter in 1941 - a "blueprint for a post-war order " that we have known.
European integration was a successful "experiment in multilateral globalism." The Franco-German cooperation eased tension and brought peace to Europe, which had restrained "national sovereignty" and boosted "global trade, investment, and migration to buoy post-war prosperity. Billions escaped poverty. Relative peace was maintained." Yet not everyone came to benefit from these opportunities. Social and economic gaps had widened and inequality increasingly eroded the "bonds between citizens" and the trust in the political establishment, financial elites, experts etc.
Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump and other populist leaders long for "a return to a world of muscular sovereignty, unrestrained by multilateral niceties." America's withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, its desire to re-negotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, and disregard for "the hard-won Paris climate agreement" have convinced the international community that the US no longer is to be reckoned with. Allegations of currency manipulation and "threats of protectionist measures" have plunged the business world into uncertainty. "With the UK, which gave the world free trade in the 1840s, having now decided to go it alone, the old Atlantic Charter allies are putting national sovereignty ahead of global public goods."
The authors say all eyes are on France's presidential election, because the Franco-German "engine" has been the driving force in the EU, keeping it "at the center of the post-war multilateral system." Marine Le Pen's victory "would spell the end of the EU, leaving German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the final pillar of a crumbling world order." Germany would be the "last bastion" of the post-war internationalism, surrounded by "bilateralists in France, the UK, and Russia, with its main patron, the US, in the hands of nativists." Let's hope that the French and Germans will follow the Dutch example, by placing rationalism ahead of raw emotion.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Сирёжа Лапкин Mar 25, 2017

Yes, rams need to be united in one flock - so it is easier for them to manage.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
олег вася Mar 25, 2017

...the process of which I speak, is a powerful cover of ideological propaganda and misinformation and lies that are superior to those of the times of Nazism and Stalinism in terms of means and scale, and the intellectual sophistication and hypocrisy. Contemporary militant totalitarianism disguises itself in the clothes of humanism, democracy, fight for the rights of individuals and peoples, justice. And in fact, their business and their implications it is worse and more dangerous than cynical of the naked totalitarianism of the Nazi persuasion. He's not naked, he's deeper, he meets serious resistance, it is bigger, it has far greater resources, he has the support of the overwhelming majority of the peoples of the Western world and the countries under its influence, ideologically brainwashed and not think about the fact that they threatened if they did not have the desired resistance to the ongoing process of totalitarization planet. This is totalitarianism evolutionary...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
олег вася Mar 25, 2017

As a result, the old allies of the Atlantic Charter had put national sovereignty above global public goods.

Say: all countries that joined NATO, lose some of their national sovereignty. All, but not the United States, which the national security interests above international law. What, in this case, multilateralism is concerned, the author? It never was, and never will be. Trump, who said that America above all, did not say anything new: it's always been. As EU countries begin to fight for the liberation from annoying us custody, which puts them in the position of the colonies.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Desiree Dogood Mar 24, 2017

"The struggle playing out today is not one of globalism versus anti-globalism. Rather, the world is poised between two models of integration: one is multilateral and internationalist; the other is bilateral and imperialist."

I don't see it this way. Both the multi-lateral and bi-lateral visions involve government control. The multi-lateral "constrains national sovereignty by binding states to shared norms, conventions, and treaties" while the bi-lateral "a model that favors the strong and punishes the weak". What about those who believe in the Golden Rule: treat others as you want to be treated, and who advocate free trade, even if other countries don't want to reciprocate?

To me the struggle is between statists and libertarians. Those who want to control others, and those who follow the Golden Rule of not telling others what to do, provided they don't harm others or pick their pockets.
The statists are the ones I fear, because their actions involve using force against individuals for purposes other than preventing them from breaking my leg or picking my pocket. Because either they want to do the pocket picking, or they get satisfaction from telling others how to live their lives.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rob Brown Mar 24, 2017

The most important factor in the continuing and inexorable march of globalization is the technological shrinking of the world. People who are disenfranchised by power elites, intellectual elites and financial elites will whine constantly and rise up occasionally, but they will be unable to resist the need to re-tool themselves and accommodate to global reality. The followers of Trump, LePen and Britain's Labour party will ultimately join the ranks of the Luddites and other feckless souls who have tried unsuccessfully to oppose technology in the past.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Mar 24, 2017

REFUGEES DROWNING BY THE BOATLOADS IN THE SURROUNDING SEA - AN EPITAPH.
In 1814 - the surrounding sea was "America Australia Canada"
In 1914 - the surrounding sea was "America Australia Canada"
In 2014 - the surrounding sea was "Britain".
The Anglosphere has been Salvation, for nearly 500 years.
And if, as your very insightful comments have insinuated, "you ain't seen nothin' yet".

The underlying root cause remains unaddressed.
2014 = 1814 + 1914.
The past is never past.
Dreams of The French Commonwealth and The German Commonwealth never were dead.
In allowing them to flourish - without the existential threat they pose to The Anglosphere - Diplomatic dexterity is needed.

Otherwise, many more millions are headed for "the surrounding seas" - in your very insightful comments.
Now that Brexit has unleashed - France will not want to become "the surrounding sea".
France will leave if it cannot use The EU platform to convert Britain and Germany as "the surrounding sea".
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Solomon (Solly) Benatar Mar 24, 2017

It is amazing that there is no mention of the introduction of neoliberal economic policies by Reagan and Thatcher in the late 1970s and early 1990s that led not only to widening domestic inequality but also widening global inequality that undermined the lives of billions of people. See The Great Divide by Joseph Stiglitz and many other books.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Mar 24, 2017

PS
As what appears to be disharmonized may not be so, so what appears to be harmonizing may not be so in a deeper analysis. For instance, I am of course not opposed to and everyone agrees to the promotion of "global public goods like peace, security, finacial stability and enviornmental sustainability," but globalists have often tried to promote their particular interests in the camouflaging attire of globalization for everyone, and this is why so many people stand behind Ms. Le Pen. Our problems are arising perhaps from deep layers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Rech Mar 23, 2017

"Imagine the scene a few weeks after a Le Pen victory, when the G7 leaders gather in a gilded hotel in Taormina, Sicily. The US and Canada are feuding over NAFTA. The UK is squabbling with France and Germany over Brexit. Japan is reeling from the demise of the TPP."

Why is it that there is such a high level of international angst? I suggest the reason is post traumatic stress syndrome.

The world has experienced two decades of one crisis followed by another. We have had:

- the financial crises of the late 1990s (Asia, LTCM)
-the DotCom collapse of 2000
-the 911 World Trade Centre attack
-incessant brutal wars in the Middle East and the flood of refugees
-the financial trauma of 2008/2009 and the ensuing slump
-elevated tensions on the Korean Peninsula and South China Sea
- a belligerent revitalized Russia threatening Europe
-rolling terrorist attacks in our cities
-the threat of climate change.

There has been no respite - no world economy bounding along as in the 1980s and 1990s to mitigate the stresses. Fear and anxiety are in the air we breathe. How much of this can we bear as individuals and as societies? The next bout of world economic growth (which believe is in the offing), I believe will assuage a great deal of our angst and relieve our PTSS symptoms. And in any event, I believe the game of globalism is just about over, its underlying dynamics and driving forces waning, replaced by a new dynamic.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yoshimichi Moriyama Mar 23, 2017

The artcle is only skimming the surface of the past two hundred years. I cannot be sure but I feel that what appears to be contradictory or opposing or not fitting may be not so if we go in our analysis deeper under the surface.
Anyway, so long as "For too many people, the world became messy, risky, stultifying, and threatening," we must address it or people like Ms. Le Pen will do it in a wrong way. Such people are at least warning us that what has been being done in the name of globalization is wrong in some way or some ways.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Mar 23, 2017

In other words a little less in the way of overt global aspirations and a little more focus on the health of the local manor would have worked wonders.
- Jan Czaja Mar 25, 2017
  
  Bravo, I couldn't put it better.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/W72RJiKar

عولمة أشد خطرا

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Handpicked to read next

Nationalists and Globalists

Log in/Register

عولمة أشد خطرا

Subscribe to PS Digital

Handpicked to read next

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification