October 28th 2006


  Buy Issue 2743
Qty:

Articles from this issue:

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Media laws: dramatic change or maintaining status quo?

EDITORIAL: Water trading: what it's all about

TECHNOLOGY: Beijing bid to steal Australia's secret military technology

TRADE: The fate of Australian agriculture under globalisation

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: East Timor: the Cubans are coming

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Kofi and friends, Obituary wars, Skills shortages and literacy shortages

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: New strategy needed for global security, prosperity

SPECIAL FEATURE: What globalism is doing to 'Middle America'

EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: Embryonic stem cells: fraud and fairy tales

ENERGY: Hot rocks: is geothermal heat the way ahead for power generation?

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: North Korean nuclear test: implications for Middle East

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Empowering women: Israeli bid to curb Islamist extremism

Kyoto protocol (letter)

Queensland election (letter)

Margaret Whitlam (letter)

BOOKS: THE PARTNERSHIP, by Greg Sheridan

BOOKS: THE DEATH OF ADAM, by Marilynne Robinson

Books promotion page

survey link

FONT SIZE:

FOREIGN AFFAIRS:
New strategy needed for global security, prosperity


by Sharf Shuja

News Weekly, October 28, 2006
For most of the 1990s, US foreign and economic policy was based on two assumptions: first, that a healthy economy and sound financial system make for political stability, and second, that countries in business together do not fight each other.

The number one priority of US foreign policy was clear: to encourage the former Communist countries of Europe and the developing nations in Latin America, Asia, and Africa to adopt business-friendly policies. Private capital would then flow from the developed world into these countries, creating economic growth and jobs.

When free enterprise took hold, so the argument went, traditional grievances, resentments, and hostilities would fade. As Americans liked to say, no two countries with McDonald's had ever gone to war with each other.

The policy was backed with lots of money, in the form of direct aid, loans from multilateral lending institutions such as the IMF, and a liquid market for governments to issue bonds to international private-sector investors.

Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this support was the US-led bailout of Mexico after the so-called Tequila Crisis of 1994. In effect, the United States and other developed countries were sending a message: adopt economic reform, and we will be there to bail you out if your economy gets into trouble.

Reform agenda

This reform path involved fiscal discipline, trade liberalisation, privatisation, deregulation, and expanded property rights through legal reforms. Promoters of these reforms hoped the changes would make developing countries more attractive to foreign investment and would integrate those countries even further into a competitive, but peaceful, global economic network.

The vision became one in which these countries would become part of a liberal, open world economy that promoted Western values such as democracy and helped globalisation.

For most of the 1990s, the developing countries were more than happy to oblige. By August 2000, with the membership of Albania, the number of WTO members had nearly doubled to 139.

Since 2000, however, America's focus has switched to national security, now defined not just in the narrow Cold War terms of safety from attack from a hostile power, but very broadly to include safety from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, as well as vital economic inputs such as oil.

Every individual feels the consequences of globalisation in his or her daily life; some feel helplessly exposed to them, and some are concerned that their national identity is at stake, that their cultural identity will be erased through the spread of ever more generally accepted norms. Many developing countries no longer accept the rhetoric of globalisation.

Under the second Bush administration, the economic and political rationale behind the Washington Consensus of the 1990s has unravelled, forcing a radical change to our perceptions of which countries are and are not safe for business.

Bush's new foreign policy chiefly means that the US government will base its decision on whether or not it will provide economic support less on a country's economic policies and market size and more on its importance to US national and international security.

In today's world, no matter where we live and work, we are faced with two major challenges: first, the phenomenon of globalisation; and second, how can we establish and maintain peace and security in the world.

India has a major role to play in bringing this about. Its voice carries great weight, especially amongst developing countries. Multilateral trading systems are superior to other systems because they are fairer. A multilateral approach is the only one geared to letting many people see the tangible benefits arising from globalisation.

Over the past three years, global economic growth has been positive despite high oil prices and political uncertainties. It is important to establish a strategy for bringing secure energy supplies into the global economy. Here, a multilateral approach is needed. We need safe, reliable, and politically stable energy-exporting nations.

The second challenge we are facing is the international security situation. There is the threat of international terrorism. There is privatised violence, the disintegration of entire states, and the fear of WMDs.

The tasks we are facing require a strong multilateral system based on the rule of law rather than on the idea of the survival of the fittest.

Acts of terrorism are a fundamental threat to any civilisation. But security cannot be guaranteed by police or military means alone. To eliminate the breeding grounds of fanaticism and terrorism, we must ensure that we provide for social, material, and cultural security. We hear voices around the world talking about a "Clash of Civilisations." This does nothing but fuel extremism. It would be far better to point to the values we all share and which therefore unite us, such as the desire to live in an atmosphere of peace, tolerance, and justice.

The knowledge about the diversity of cultures and respect for other religions, I believe, will make us more tolerant, bring people together, and create the basis for successful economic activity in a globalised world.

- Sharif Shuja
(Sharif Shuja teaches International Relations at Victoria University and is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Global Terror Research Unit at Monash University, Victoria.)




























Join email list

Join e-newsletter list


Your cart has 0 items



Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers



Trending articles

NATIONAL AFFAIRS Cardinal rebuts commission's 'Get Pell' campaign

COVER STORY Anti-discrimination law validates Safe Schools

U.S. AFFAIRS First Brexit, now Trump: it's the economy, stupid!

INDUSTRY AND ENVIRONMENT Wikileaks reveals U.S, funding behind anti-coal campaign

COVER STORY QUT discrimination case exposes Human Rights Commission failings

FOREIGN AFFAIRS How the left whitewashed Fidel Castro

ANALYSIS What is possible to a Trump Whitehouse



News and views from around the world

19-year-old homeschooled pro-lifer wins Ontario election by landslide (Lianne Laurence)

Trump makes right choice for education secretary (National Review)

Transgender conformity (Katherine Kersten)

Sex education programs do not reduce teen pregnancy or STI rates (Philippa Taylor)

Photographer who captured Safe Schools founder harassing bystander shuts down business (Frank Chung)

Is the global middle class here to stay? (Samuel Rines)

Donald Trump could end America's new feudalism (Joel Kotkin)

It just got easier to find the perpetrators of Stalin's purges (David Filipov)

Castro's death eradicate bacillus of old-style Marxism (Gerald Warner)

Labor MP Terri Butler in QUT race case apology (Geoff Chambers)



























© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
December 2, 2016, 2:36 pm