Status of globalization

Consequently the status of globalization in mid-2001, which was complicated by President George W. Bush's determination to reject and/or reverse US participation in international agreements dealing with global warming, missile defense, and domestic-industry protectionism (Cooper, 2001). After the events of September 11, 2001, the posture of global unilateralism was a thing of the American past. President Bush called for support from many nations for the US's war on terrorism.

For the first time since the postwar constitution of NATO, Article 5 of the treaty that created the Euro-American alliance was invoked to declare that the attack on the World Trade Center was an attack not just on the US but on all of its NATO allies, and to effectively enlist European support for a US war "in a region far from the European theater" (Schwenninger, 2001, p. 27). The beginning of the war on terrorism virtually changed the setting of globalism.

The position of the US towards globalism and the policies regarding other countries interests where revised. Also the US took a position of enforcing a host of policies pursuant to its unilateral defense and law-enforcement interests. With the same importance, the war on terrorism made manifest the conflict between industrial-capitalist nation-states and entities arrayed for economic, political, religious, and/or social reasons against the power, prestige, and/or existence of such states.

Barber B. (1995) makes reference to the two topics "McWorld" and "Jihad" and explains the disagreement. For Benjamin R. Barber, McWorld is the environment of Western (and specially American) corporate supremacy over global economy and culture, and Jihad was a name given to any of a variety of narrow, extremely passionate, and/or aggressive parochialisms motivated by religious, ethnic, or political attach¬ments.

According to Benjamin Barber, the real casualties of the argument are the democracy and social justice, to which both McWorld and Jihad take a posture of indifference or hostile (Barber, 1996, p. 295, et passim)--the former because it has enough money to ignore democratic institutions and social justice in pursuit of profits and the latter because whatever is not-Jihad (whether McWorld, democracy, or a competing Jihad) is anathema, to be despised and/or destroyed.