The modern
concept of “globalism” arose in the post-war debates of the 1940s in the United
States. This was an America in a position of unprecedented power, due largely
to the fact that, The USA alone, among the developed nations of the world, had seen
economic boom during the war as the end of the Great Depression gave way to
wartime production while other nations saw their production capabilities severely
limited or all but obliterated by the same war.
US planners
formulated policies to shape the kind of postwar world they wanted, which, in
economic terms, meant a globe-spanning capitalist order centered exclusively
upon the United States. In a sense this was almost Hitlerian or Stalinist in
concept, as world domination was the goal, albeit of a “kinder, gentler” type, but
domination, nonetheless. This was the period when US global power was at its
peak: the country was the greatest economic power the world had ever known,
with the greatest military machine in human history. In February 1948, George
Kennan's Policy Planning Staff memorandum described those aims thus: "We
have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population.… Our real
task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will
permit us to maintain this position of disparity". Read that
again. Sounds like Steve Bannon wrote it. It is global in reach and intent and
is Capitalism run amok. It might as well say: “Let’s do all we can to ensure
the rest of the world remains impoverished relative to the USA.” America's allies and foes in Eurasia were
still recovering from World War II at this time, and that process was examined
rather short sightedly in assuming that their secondary status either could or
should be maintained.
Why this lengthy
opening? Simply because what Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, et. al. have derided
as “globalism” shows one or more of several possibilities. One (and the most
likely) is that they simply changed the definition to suit their world view,
which would mean that, while their view echoes that 1948 definition, they now
deride “globalism” in favor of the illusory “American Exceptionalism.” This seems to be a sort of “Well, if we’re not
totally in economic control of the world, we’re morally superior!”
This also
entails a shift in the perception of what the, US created, United Nations
mission truly is. In my opinion, 1948 Globalists originally envisioned the UN
as a paternalistic control mechanism for White Europeans and North Americans to
exert control over world events. Again, Trump and Bannon would have been (and
are) on board with that concept, but what happened is that the definition has
morphed significantly. This explains far right antipathy to a UN which dares to
deal evenly with all nations.
Remembering the
Kennan memo verbiage, now consider the current definition of “Globalist”: “A
person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign
policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.”
So, bearing in
mind that the latter definition is essentially the opposite of the 1948 one,
which does Trump really detest? Of course, it’s the current one, and I would
assure you that he has no idea that the 1948 one, which enriched his father and,
by extension himself, existed, since he has demonstrated on numerous occasions
that he slept through History class, and has what is most likely the lowest
cultural IQ of any 20-21st century Chief Executive, save for Warren Harding
and Bush 43. This would explain that, while he now uses “Globalist” in the revised
sense as a pejorative, he has sucked up to Saudis, Russian oligarchs, the
Chinese (even though COVID-19 has dimmed that love affair), Turkey, the Emirates,
and the list goes on. Of course, we know that instead of assuming any true
philosophical purity of thought in Trumpian rhetoric, we would be better advised
to adopt the tactics urged upon Woodward and Bernstein by Deep Throat - “Follow
the money.”
Doing that shows
that Trump himself is more globalist than not where his persona financial affairs
are concerned. His long- time affair with Deutsche Bank, (aka the “Global Laundromat”
for its Russian Money $20 billion cleaning service) which only recently has
also cut him off as have all major US Commercial lenders already have, is an indicator
that Trump will do anything and go anywhere for money, patriotism be damned. There
are serious questions regarding how much Russians and the National Bank of
China are owed by the Trump Organization. All this, of course, while shouting the
opposite philosophy to the great unwashed at rallies conducted at taxpayer
expense.
But enough about Trump, specifically, for
the moment, and let’s reconsider the current definition of globalism and the
implications of worldwide changes since WWII. The earlier definition was
essentially a plan for world economic domination. That ship has sailed. Even more
than that, the means to accomplish economic prosperity have changed as distribution
of essential of not only basic raw materials, but also relatively rare metals and
metalloids has significantly altered the playing field.
As briefly as possible: The dominant fact apparent in any meaningful discussions
of the raw materials position of the United States is its increasing
dependence on foreign sources of supply. Less than 50 years ago we
produced, within our own borders, practically all of the basic materials
required by domestic industries and, in addition, had some surpluses for
export. Not anymore. The transition from a position of relative
self-sufficiency in industrial materials to that of the world's greatest
importing nation deserves to be regarded as a major event in modern economic
history. It marks the transformation of the United States from an
underdeveloped to a highly developed industrial economy. But also presents the
reality of dependence on others.
Currently, we consume 35 to 40 percent of the
free world's output of basic materials. Our annual purchases from abroad put billions at the disposal of foreign countries, most of them in the
category known as "underdeveloped." Clearly the “new” globalization
is essential to our continued economic well- being. In fact, some of the most
critical rare earths used in high tech electronics, computer memory, DVDs,
rechargeable batteries, cell phones, catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent
lighting, many military systems and much more are distributed globally to the
extent that, for the rarest ones, China and Brazil control about 60% of the known
world’s supply. Clearly, the “old” Globalism doesn’t, and can’t, work anymore,
yet Trump and McConnell use the “new” context (international economic cooperation)
as a negative even as (primarily) Japan and Saudi Arabia, and other foreign
investors own 29.3% our national debt. You’ll probably hear some of this
strange disconnect from Senate Republicans during some of the Biden cabinet confirmation
hearings. Don’t be fooled into thinking Mitch McConnell ever had, or has had,
the true national interest as his moral compass.
No comments:
Post a Comment