Globalization or "Your page has been recently cracked..."

If we want to grasp the essence of this phenomenon, we have to understand the meaning of the word itself. The word “Globalization” comes from the word “Globe”.  It’s totally different from unification or centralization. Thus we can see that political and economic aspects of the trend we are talking about have nothing to do with real globalization. It’s all about the Globe; it’s all about our planet which is supposed to become more and more united. But is it really so? Is it possible to say that not only are we the citizens of Russia, but that we are “The citizens of the world”?

The signs of Globalization are everywhere:  we wear the same clothes as most people all over the world; we eat the same food bought in worldwide-spread chain stores.  Walking along a street, we are more likely to see a BMW or a Toyota cruising by than a kinky looking Kalina squeezed in the dark of its five-foot long garage.  Any greeny can click himself into another part of the world praying that some artisan doesn’t break his personal page in “MySpace”. Sorry, your page has recently been hacked……   

We cannot see past the choices we don’t understand. The choice has already been made. We are a part of a big system. The question is whether we truly understand what kind of system it is.  Once our fancy twelve-cylinder friend runs out of gas, our provider cuts the hard line or a soft melodious voice says “the subscriber is not available at the moment”, we immediately fall out of the system. Truly as it can be, we are not Global, we are dependent. Thus, to my mind, such trend as Globalization simply doesn’t exist…

two articles on START treaty compared

The Republican election victory in the United States brought up a lot of issues, both domestic and international, which President Obama will have to address in the nearest future. Along with the program of modernization of nation’s nuclear weapons, there is a problem with the New Start arms control treaty, which ratification might soon become a stumbling block not only in Congress but also in the relations between The US and Russia. Thus the Fleet Street provides a detailed coverage of the issues above.          

                         Two articles by Peter Baker “U.S. Vote Could Derail Russia Ties” and “Obama Forces Showdown With G.O.P. on Arms Pact” published in The New York Times are focused on the impact of Republican election victory on Russia – U.S. relationships. The first article, which was published on the 6^th of November, draws reader’s attention to the U.S. foreign policy and its relations with Russia in particular which might soon be soon deteriorated. The author describes current Russia – U.S. friendly ties as forged but sees them as an important prerequisite to successful international policy (particularly in Iran and Afghanistan). The first article outlines a “nightmare scenario” in The Middle East if Obama fails to persuade both chambers to ratify The Start Treaty. The language of the article is image-bearing and full of different figures of speech (“to shelve the treaty”, “anti-American hawks”, “a nightmare scenario”, etc.).

                        The second article “Obama Forces Showdown With G.O.P. on Arms Pact” published on the 18^th of November shifts reader’s attention to The Capitol Hill, where the ratification of The Start Treaty has recently become the major political debate. It gives a historic insight of the problem and provides a wide range of qualified opinions (by Geoffrey Kemp, Joseph Biden Jr., and Gary Samor). The article is focused on the necessary conditions which would secure the procedure of ratification of the Treaty.  It also describes in detail Senator Kyl’s position which plays a significant role in the issue. The author depicts the current situation in Washington D.C. as a political struggle between two camps opposing and supporting The Start Treaty. The language of the article is more neutral and is full of political vocabulary (“escalate ratification”, “reach an agreement”, “failure to ratify the treaty”, “to abandon a nuclear program”).

                        The two articles give a clear view of the situation and suggest Mr. Obama give proper consideration to the matter. It seems a rather complicated task since G.O.P. gained majority in The House. 

democracy and real politic

Democracy is…

I would like to look at this question from an unusual perspective. Democracy is freedom, both individual and institutional. And any freedom is limited by anther coexisting freedom in this very place and timeframe. Thus, any democracy may be checked by another one. In this case it is quite complicated to identify what democracy is in terms of international relations.

The United States of America is the greatest cradle of democracy. All citizens are equal before the law and have equal access to power and their freedom is protected by the constitution (particularly in The Bill of Rights). Not only does the country enjoy all benefits of democracy as an institution, but it also actively exports it throughout the world.

But one more democratic society would pose a significant threat to the “Stronghold” for, as it was said, any democracy can be checked or limited by another one. Thus it would be logical to suppose that the “export variant” of the institution is different from what is known be American democracy.

In terms of international relations, democracy is a powerful tool or instrument for the USA to pursue its national interest. It seems to be an “almighty” shield to justify the principles of Realpolitik, described by Hans Morgenthau (i.e. any state on international arena is driven by its interests only and any method is good to secure them). 

Long before the 20^th century, it was possible to openly adhere to the principles of Realpolitik (even very aggressive ones). But the first nuclear weapon changed the approach to foreign policies dramatically (in 1962 our world was at the edge of a catastrophe). The methods of Realpolitik had to be substituted for democratic ones as a pursuit of a better future. Many countries in the world (especially the Western Block) fell for this trend.

Eventually it led to mutual limitations of national “hunger” OR to the situation in which there is one democracy which suppresses all the others. Exporting democratic values and the idea that democracies don’t fight with each other, America obtains a powerful instrument to secure its national interests. Protecting the world from a potential threat coming from Iraq and the idea of establishing a democratic regime (export democracy) justified bringing American troops into the region which is of great national interest for The US. We can see a similar situation in Iran and Afghanistan nowadays. Multiple advances in science and military technology made it necessary to cover such an approach to international relations under the mask of DEMOCRACY.     

 Thus I have to admit, that democracy, in terms of international relations, has become a powerful instrument for The United States of America to pursue its national interests; the greatest manifestation of Realpolitik.