The US and most of the developed nations, in particular those nations with industrial democracies, are more likely to be associated with McWorld and the North, while some of the developing world of Latin America, Asia, and Africa, form the South. Jihad, is the name given to parochialism in the framework of innovation and augmented global trade.
The need of international consensus about the human impact on the environment suggests disagreement between the two ideologies antipathy. Zartman (p. 3) describes the problem as one of different stages of development, “so that the South only produces the ingredients for the industry of the North, and it sells them at uncertain and fluctuating rates to buy the more expensive finished products. ” Zartman mentions that the McWorld tends to analyzed North-South problems in terms of “established economic mechanisms” and “power determinacies” (p. 5), which agrees with Barber’s point of view that the dominant inclination goes toward globalization of economic and industrial super powers that are controlled mainly by McWorld.
Now when we see this topic from a economical point of view, the US (North) have moved entire factories to the Latin America (South), closing American industries and taking jobs away from US workers. The Global war on terrorism, mainly led by the US has been a vivid stage for representing the flexibility and reach of American power in comparison with virtually every other organized entity, whether state or not. Barber consequently views Jihad and McWorld not really as adversaries or as limits of tension between conflicting ideas:
Jihad stands not so much in harsh resistance as in slight counterpoint to McWorld and is itself a philosophical answer to modernity whose features mirrors and supports the modern world’s virtues and vices. Jihad via McWorld rather than Jihad versus McWorld (Barber, 1996, p. 157). The arrangement of experience Barber explains in theory the efficient exploitation of modern American air-traffic systems to obliterate a symbol of geopolitical capitalism.
The attackers on the World Trade Center perhaps did not anticipate was the power of 9/11 to amplify the hold of international McWorldism on the mind’s eye of traditional nation-states. The greater part of Arab and Muslim states did not take a position supporting al Qaeda and the 8th century but instead with prudent swiftness took a side against ter¬rorism as a controlling idea.
Pakistan, which had protected and looked after al Qaeda, and Osama bin Laden for many years and which it all appeared that they would take a side against the western infidel, but instead Pakistan became the US’s allied. The globalism that has been analyzed as economically beneficial mainly to US industrial democracies appeared to have taken new emphasis politically by the war on terrorism. Schwenninger (2001, p. 27) cites NATO’s “unprecedented display of common purpose. “