Column 143

Globalization and U.S. intervention spread peace

Critics of America's frequent military interventions in the post-Cold War era argue that, instead of spreading collective security and reducing conflicts, our "imperial" forces actually destabilize the world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The just-released "Mini Atlas of Human Security," published by the World Bank and Canada's Simon Fraser University, details the pacifying impact of globalization's advance. That globalization is a direct descendant of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order that has been consistently defended by U.S. military forces in the decades since, but at unprecedented high frequency since the early 1990s.

Read on at Knox News.
Read on at Scripps Howard.

I change the title above back to what I sent in (SH subs 'moves' for 'intervention' when I said to myself 'this should bring the hate mail pouring in'.

Comments

[Ali Shams]

I think If people of one region of the world are still not that developed or empowered enough to embrace real democracy then the more fortunate societies should help them to acquire democracy slowly. Active intervention breaks the fabric of society causing civil war, loss of life, culture and opportunity of real development.

[Seth]

This is one of the most important message in foreign policy today, why? Because, it seems that on the left and right of the American political spectrum you have people that reject this truth. That means you could see era of protectionism and withdraw. The current economic climate could further drive this situation.