Edited by author 03-13-2003 07:23 PM
"But if globalization is itself a hedge against war in the globalized world..."

the problem with this point of view, as claimed by Barnett and repeated above, is that there are far too many examples of globalization being the RATIONALE for war in a globalized world. without addressing this point, Barnett's views appear to be overtly pro-globalization, and as such, they are self-supporting. war=peace, and globalization=peace - both phenomena are far too complex for the sort of elaborate-yet-simple explanations that he is suggesting. and, of course, the "gaps" can always be viewed as areas that have yet to be annexed by the systems of the west, and thus, will fall prey to conquest until they are sublimated and assimilated. ??

I found the ideas dangerous as it posits US as having a "divine" mission. Just exactly how many WARS are we talking about here?

The idea that greater knowledge means better understanding is hardly revolutionary. It was the Soviet citizens learning more about the lies about the West that eventually brought down the regime there.

if globalization is itself a hedge against war in the globalized world, then why focus on keeping potential partners weak? Why not encourage as many players as possible?

this was partly addressed recently in the cover stories of newsweek and businessweek: "The price the Bush Administration is paying for its failed diplomacy is high, and it promises to rise even further. A world divided between multilateral economic and unilateral security policies is an uncertain and risky place. It is not likely to encourage economic growth or prosperity. The Administration risks turning what was once trumpeted as the American Century into the Anti-American Century."

hence i think charges of arrogance stick more than imperialism: "To tell your allies that your word as a nation is not good--that agreements won't mean what you said they meant if you find it convenient to pretend otherwise--is extremely dangerous. It changes international relations from a search for mutual benefit into a struggle for power, and may have very bad implications for the long run."

also in the wsj :D http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1...27133059700,00.html
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1...22981384500,00.html
cheers!