To Be Or Not To Be: The Nation Centric World Order Under Globalization
By Jerry Harris

But rather than gathering in a string of conservative camp followers nearly every neo-liberal conservative government in the world refused to follow the U.S. lead. France, Russia, Canada, China, Mexico and Turkey (as well as social democratic Germany) are all deeply committed globalists regimes. They not only opposed the war but the nationalist arrogance of Washington. Tailing the superpower parade were the social democratic governments of Britain and Poland and the conservatives of Spain.

It was this new split between hegemonic nationalism and multilateral globalism that overrode the conservative and social-democratic divisions of the past. The world capitalist class is now divided between those who support US domination of the old international system, and those linked to the new transnational mode of accumulation. This includes splits within the US capitalist class itself. In fact, the old definitions of left and right have largely disappeared or altered within the transnational capitalist bloc. Instead the political terrain has changed creating new alliances and divisions that focus on the nature and structure of the world system.

The military/industrial complex is the political and economic base for the current administration’s hegemonic policies. The defense industry is the most protected and state sponsored industrial grouping in the US. Unlike transnationalized sectors like finance, information technology and auto, the arms industry has the majority of its production, assets and employment inside the US entering international markets mainly through exports rather than foreign affiliates. The patriotic culture and ideology of the military also provides a rich environment for nationalist politics. (Harris)

But we must be cautious not to view the military/industrial complex as one consolidated bloc, it too is divided between globalist and nationalist wings. The presidential campaign of General Wesley Clark clearly reflected this conflict as he emerged as a representative of the globalist military sector and their alliance with broader political and economic forces inside and outside the US. This sector argues that a balance between political, cultural, economic and military power builds a more secure environment for global capitalism and necessitates peacekeeping and nation building. These policies are best carried out through multilateral coordination and structures, and they specifically criticize a unilateral hegemonic policy as dangerous, costly and arrogant. (Harris, 2)

One example of this internal military split was the closure of the Peacekeeping Institute at the Army’s War College shortly after Donald Rumsfeld’s ascension to Secretary of Defense. The Institute was the government’s only agency that studied peacekeeping operations and nation building in post-conflict situations. Nationalists rejected globalist nation building efforts as wasteful distractions from the military’s fundamental function of fighting and winning wars. An important practical result of this has been the failure of the Bush administration to rebuild a secure Iraq. Their rejection of nation building left the Bush hegemonists unprepared and unable to understand the difficulties they would face. Clark, as well as other military globalists, have consistently called for a common international effort based in multilateral institutions. In fact, Clark lays much of the failure in the Middle East on the political and economic influence of the military-industrial complex that by its very nature sees peacekeeping as unprofitable. (Clark) More >>