 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
|
| I N S I G H T -------- Antonio Fabrizio European Balloon Krzys Wasilewski Oh, To Be in England Gavin Ayling Anti-Life Opposition David Holcberg, et al Appeasing Hamas Elan Journo Talking To Iran Condi Rice Obligation To Truth ASH Smyth Darwin's CEOs Atul Bharadwaj |
EU might test America's international clout on path to globalization
By James Grimes
Posted: July 15, 2006
One important factor seems to be the promotion of a stable international market, while the world
moves closer towards total integration. However, predicting where the globe is heading exactly on its
path towards complete globalization, assuming it ever does, complicates the matter. When examining
the stability of international trade due to the hegemonic power of the United States, the emergence of
the European Union as an economic strength creates doubt in what lies ahead for the international
economy.
It is hard to pinpoint the exact location of the United States in a scale of true world power. Arguably we
are still at the top, but the question of how much legitimacy have we lost as the hegemon arises.
Considering the current IPE, and the possibility of the emergence of a second or even third great
economic power, it is important to take into account the possibility if the United States slips from the
top their economic policies as well as political policies could devastate potential inclusion into a new
world order.
The EU and possibly Asia could both become economic superpowers within the next couple of
decades, provided a single or several events to alter the current structure. The United States might
possibly be in a better position to lead an economic revolution working with the world instead of
attempting to dictate our policies. There should be less of a promotion for big U.S. industries to
succeed in the country, and more of a global humanitarian outreach taken on by the U.S.
The current trend of integration on the part of the member states of the European Union shows little
sign of a slowdown among the growth of the EU as a unified world power. By showing even small
amounts of compromise on behalf of many of the states to sacrifice state sovereignty to the group
gives the possibility of more actions similar to this to be taken on in the future.
Examining the mindset of lesser powers it is possible that the individual states of the European Union
see the only possibility of competition with the hegemonic power of the U.S. to be joint compromise in
the international arena. Accepting this theory explains the willingness of the great powers of Europe to
downgrade their own power into a collective great power rivaling that of the U.S. to pursue more
pertinent international policies in regards to the European continent.
From an American point of view this seems to be almost impossible because of the nature of U.S.
foreign policy in the past couple of years because of the mindset that no one can coerce the country to
do otherwise.
Considering economic practices of the larger corporations based out of the United States, it is
possible to see a strong backlash of the unequal capitalist practices of these corporations stemming
from a political point in the near future. In a sense if the United States does not learn to control the
international practices of these corporations an emerging power such as the EU might test the waters
of its international clout in an attempt to restrict them. This act of aggression would not be taken directly
against the United States; however it would serve as a test of ability to govern in the anarchic
international system in comparison to the hegemonic state.
The United States should emphasize more importance on the promotion of the Third World by creating
their own industry instead of selling them ours. It almost seems that the Multinational Corporations
themselves practice a form of invading protectionism. When corporations become strong and big
enough to expand overseas not only do they move to weaker nations for cheap labor, but they set up
their business in these other countries before they can get a chance to develop these industries for
themselves.
This puts the Third World at a great disadvantage because when it gets down to it, if a similar
competitor decides to try and set up in a nation where a multinational corporation already exists, that
Third World domestic company is going against what could probably be the industry leader.
This leaves the third world up against almost impossible odds for self contained development since
they would not even be able to sell the products to themselves at the same prices. In addition, this
practice does not necessarily strengthen the United States as a nation, as these multinational
corporations become more of a global figure in an almost individual sense, separate from any one
individual country with headquarters all over the world.
With the lack of any true form of regulation the United States itself is investing its future in the concept
that a company with the motivation to make as much profit as possible will stay true to any one
government. The concept of capitalism itself leads to the conclusion as these corporations grow more
and more internationally eventually a better offer from a rival government will be able to lure them away
with relative ease.
This concept shows that there is a real inherent danger in letting any corporation work beyond the
boundaries of any one individual government without a governing body with the jurisdiction to control
their actions in existence.
Given the rapid globalization of the past few decades, to ignore the chance of a major shake up in the
international system is dangerous, especially when dealing with economic policy. Also, the relative
strength of the multinational corporations in comparison to individual strengths could lead to
complications because of their past examples of lacking loyalty to any specific group of people and
only to the possibility of increased profit.
### ### ###
James Grimes is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
By James Grimes
Posted: July 15, 2006
One important factor seems to be the promotion of a stable international market, while the world
moves closer towards total integration. However, predicting where the globe is heading exactly on its
path towards complete globalization, assuming it ever does, complicates the matter. When examining
the stability of international trade due to the hegemonic power of the United States, the emergence of
the European Union as an economic strength creates doubt in what lies ahead for the international
economy.
It is hard to pinpoint the exact location of the United States in a scale of true world power. Arguably we
are still at the top, but the question of how much legitimacy have we lost as the hegemon arises.
Considering the current IPE, and the possibility of the emergence of a second or even third great
economic power, it is important to take into account the possibility if the United States slips from the
top their economic policies as well as political policies could devastate potential inclusion into a new
world order.
The EU and possibly Asia could both become economic superpowers within the next couple of
decades, provided a single or several events to alter the current structure. The United States might
possibly be in a better position to lead an economic revolution working with the world instead of
attempting to dictate our policies. There should be less of a promotion for big U.S. industries to
succeed in the country, and more of a global humanitarian outreach taken on by the U.S.
The current trend of integration on the part of the member states of the European Union shows little
sign of a slowdown among the growth of the EU as a unified world power. By showing even small
amounts of compromise on behalf of many of the states to sacrifice state sovereignty to the group
gives the possibility of more actions similar to this to be taken on in the future.
Examining the mindset of lesser powers it is possible that the individual states of the European Union
see the only possibility of competition with the hegemonic power of the U.S. to be joint compromise in
the international arena. Accepting this theory explains the willingness of the great powers of Europe to
downgrade their own power into a collective great power rivaling that of the U.S. to pursue more
pertinent international policies in regards to the European continent.
From an American point of view this seems to be almost impossible because of the nature of U.S.
foreign policy in the past couple of years because of the mindset that no one can coerce the country to
do otherwise.
Considering economic practices of the larger corporations based out of the United States, it is
possible to see a strong backlash of the unequal capitalist practices of these corporations stemming
from a political point in the near future. In a sense if the United States does not learn to control the
international practices of these corporations an emerging power such as the EU might test the waters
of its international clout in an attempt to restrict them. This act of aggression would not be taken directly
against the United States; however it would serve as a test of ability to govern in the anarchic
international system in comparison to the hegemonic state.
The United States should emphasize more importance on the promotion of the Third World by creating
their own industry instead of selling them ours. It almost seems that the Multinational Corporations
themselves practice a form of invading protectionism. When corporations become strong and big
enough to expand overseas not only do they move to weaker nations for cheap labor, but they set up
their business in these other countries before they can get a chance to develop these industries for
themselves.
This puts the Third World at a great disadvantage because when it gets down to it, if a similar
competitor decides to try and set up in a nation where a multinational corporation already exists, that
Third World domestic company is going against what could probably be the industry leader.
This leaves the third world up against almost impossible odds for self contained development since
they would not even be able to sell the products to themselves at the same prices. In addition, this
practice does not necessarily strengthen the United States as a nation, as these multinational
corporations become more of a global figure in an almost individual sense, separate from any one
individual country with headquarters all over the world.
With the lack of any true form of regulation the United States itself is investing its future in the concept
that a company with the motivation to make as much profit as possible will stay true to any one
government. The concept of capitalism itself leads to the conclusion as these corporations grow more
and more internationally eventually a better offer from a rival government will be able to lure them away
with relative ease.
This concept shows that there is a real inherent danger in letting any corporation work beyond the
boundaries of any one individual government without a governing body with the jurisdiction to control
their actions in existence.
Given the rapid globalization of the past few decades, to ignore the chance of a major shake up in the
international system is dangerous, especially when dealing with economic policy. Also, the relative
strength of the multinational corporations in comparison to individual strengths could lead to
complications because of their past examples of lacking loyalty to any specific group of people and
only to the possibility of increased profit.
### ### ###
James Grimes is a Global Affairs Intern, The Atlantic Affairs.
| (c) 2006 New Criterion Foundation, London |
| Security. Ideologies. Multiculturalism. |