Connecting Mumbai to globalization--as it should be

OP-ED: "They Hate Us--and India Is Us," by Patrick French, New York Times, 8 December 2008.

OP-ED: "Trouble in the Other Middle East," by Robert D. Kaplan, New York Times, 8 December 2008.

Two great pieces that say this is really all about globalization.

Kaplan on why Hindu-Muslim relations are getting hot again:

The culprit has been globalization. The secular Indian nationalism of Jawaharlal Nehru's Congress Party, built around a rejection of Western colonialism, is more and more a thing of the past. As the dynamic Indian economy merges with that of the wider world, Hindus and Muslims have begun separate searches for roots to anchor them inside a bland global civilization.

This is why I have long argued for a globalization-centric grand strategy for the U.S., or one that puts in focus the real change dynamics of the world today--ones triggered purposefully by our historical trajectory that propels our American System into an international liberal trade order into a West into a globalization.

Kaplan's conclusion echoes my argument that America doesn't "leave" the Middle East until the Middle East joins the world:

The Middle East is back to where it was centuries ago, not because of ancient hatreds but because of globalization. Instead of bold lines on a map we have a child's messy finger painting, as the circumvention of borders and the ease of communications allow the brisk movement of ideas and people and terrorists from one place to another. Our best strategy is, as difficult and trite as it sounds, to be at all places at once. Not with troops, necessarily, but with every bit of energy and constant attention that our entire national security apparatus--and those of our allies--can bring to bear.

I call it the SysAdmin function: more civil than military, more USG than just DoD, more rest of the world than just the U.S., and more private-sector invested than public-sector funded.

Where I differ with Kaplan: my focus on the private sector and my stronger argument that we need to widen our pool of allies beyond the West.

French's argument on Mumbai echoes my own long-standing explanation for 9/11: it's got nothing to do with Kashmir or any other grievance (just like I reject Michael Schuerer's analysis that says, give al Qaeda what it wants and this will all end).

In the end, this remains all about globalization, whether or not our enemies are smart enough to realize it, much less articulate it. The "grievances" cited are just a child's excuse of "he hit me first." Eliminate them and the real problems still remain: these traditional societies simply aren't ready for dealing with globalization's triggered social revolutions.

The real compromises are not about U.S. military withdrawals or acceding to al Qaeda's dreamy demands for civilization apartheid, but more about understanding that, with connectivity must come content control. In short, traditional societies will want "parental controls" on globalization's connectivity.

Comments

[historyguy99]

Tom,

With "Great Powers" in the bag, you have been able to release your mind and pen to make almost every post an insightful snippet, laying like a trail of mental morsels to the doorstep of your grand strategy.

This post, and the previous about Russia are real gems.

[ryan]

re: content control / parental control. this concept touches on the answer but is only one component of integration.

globalization / core vs gap / new vs old will always have friction points. the key to a successful integration is in reducing these friction points. content control is one method, but isn't a common understanding/agreement on greater values the best answer? isn't content control a means of isolation?

I understand all societies require a unique individual culture/flavor, but isn't that a natural amalgamation?

Point being, content control has an air of me vs you whereas successful integration requires common bonds and humility.

[Sean Meade]

common values might be 'better' but is almost certainly impossibly hard. content control differentiates without necessarily isolating, at least in a serious way. economic and diplomatic interaction can still take place, plus, it allows a society to protect itself somewhat while still leaving the door open for more 'liberal' citizens to venture further afield.

[Tom Barnett]

The parental control analogy is a good one: We can all agree that cable can be wide-open, but if I want to censor access to some of the most unsavory stuff (e.g., porn), in my household, shouldn't I be able to do that? Or is it an all-or-nothing point on connectivity?

I really believe in letting people connect up at a pace their culture can stand, but since connectivity usually comes at a rush or in big bunches, I recognize the local desire to control content.

And I see that desire as both legitimate and inevitable. I will bet on the connectivity altering any society over generations; I'm just more patient than the average bear.

[Dave Porter]

Kaplan sets the challenge too narrowly by limiting it to be "national security apparatus" in the phrase "with every bit of energy and constant attention that our entire national security apparatus...can bring to bear" phrase. The challenge is broader. Globalization is about the connection of people and businesses. We can accelerate and strengthen the process by invigorating world (foreign) language studies and study abroad programs in our schools. Here in Oregon legislation will be before out 2009 legislative session for public school districts to pay for high school students to study abroad with public funds. We need many more high school students studying abroad as part of the strategy Kaplan proposes;.

[Louis Heberlein]

I think we need a lot more dialogue on content control. I saw a lot of unaware 'in your face' displays in the Middle East by people with Western and Russian cultural backgrounds. It's not usually politics that causes friction in situations like that, it's insensitivity and self orientation on the situation and impacts.