Sam Ghandchiسام قندچيNation States and Global Line Ups

Sam Ghandchi

http://www.ghandchi.com/326-GlobalLineupsEng.htm

 

دولت های ملی و صف بندی های جهانی

http://www.ghandchi.com/326-GlobalLineups.htm

 

Postscript January 19, 2015

For an updated discussion of this subject please visit the following links

 

Global Lineups at the Present
http://www.ghandchi.com/860-global-lineups-update-english.htm

صف بندی های گلوبال در زمان حاضر
http://www.ghandchi.com/860-global-lineups-update.htm

 

Political and Economic partnerships resulting from globalization are not based on geography or national identity, and to explain the fall of US dollar against Euro and Canadian dollar in the last three years, or to analyze India's 100 Billion dollar annual revenue of high technology, or  to grasp the partnership of oil producing countries in the world economy, one cannot rely on old paradigms.

 

In my article entitled "A Vision from City of Heretics ," I explained about the misunderstanding of some leftist organization, of the issue of globalization and war, and noted how they had taken my opposition to the retrogressive forces like Saddam's regime and Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), as defense of Bush, and had not understood that I condemn the ultranationalist forces in the U.S., as much as I condemn the retrogressive forces in the developing countries (1). 

 

But misunderstanding of the new global formations is not particular to the leftists.

 

Many of the Iranian technocrats of Shah's time, who currently live abroad, and the Iranian technocrats inside Iran, although acknowledge globalization, in their analysis of present political and economic forces in the world, like the years of 1900's, try to find the axis or the allies, the same way they would do in the eras of World War I and II.  Even some of our astute economists, consider "the United States (appended by Canada, Mexico, and Latin American countries), Europe (with extension of European Union to Russia), and Asia (China, India, and Japan)"* as the new world blocs.  I think the problem is that we are trying to explain the present, with the paradigms of the past, without even being aware of how globalization has changed the paradigm.

 

For example, explanation of the reality of the drop of U.S. dollar in the last three years, against Euro and Canadian dollar, cannot be explained by the geographical alliances.  Or the reality of the 100 billion dollar a year annual revenue of India from new technologies, cannot be explained, like the colonial investments of 1900's for the cheap labor, even though the low labor cost is still the reason for success of India in the competition for development and production of new technologies.  The same way the participation of the oil producing countries in the world economy in our times, cannot be understood the same way that the use of raw materials by colonialists in the 1900s was understood, although in both cases the raw materials is the issue at hand.

 

In my opinion, new global formations in all realms of human life are being shaped, and in different parts of the world, the ratio of these structures to pre-global structures is different, and depending on the policies of states of different countries at different times, and to the degree that they attack global formations, they hurt the relationship of their country to the global capital, the same way that ultranationalist economic policies of Bush's government in the last three years in the U.S., and the retrogressive policies of Islamic Republic of Iran in the last 25 years in Iran, have hurt their respective countries.

 

In my opinion, the escape of capital from the U.S. in the last three years, has been the reason for the fall of the dollar against Euro and Canadian dollar.  It is true that the fall of dollar in turn makes the American products cheap abroad, but thinking that fall of dollar in this period has been done by purpose by the Bush administration is not real, especially considering the emphasis of Bush administration on free trade.

 

In fact, the ultranationalist policies of the last three years have discouraged the willingness to import capital to the U.S., and many owners of foreign capital, have exported their capital from the U.S.  It is true that if infrastructure projects such as Broadband for Every Home had been driven in the U.S., they would have helped the volume of capital investment in the U.S., but the resulting profit of such investments, in conditions of an administration hostile to globalization, would not strengthen the national economy in the U.S.

 

The criteria in the world today, for any country, in all areas of economy, is its ability to work with globalization, the same way that at the time of inception of national economies three hundred years ago, the economy of locations that were hostile to national development, and were proud of their own self-sufficient economies, died very quickly.

 

Today, when in India, investment for new technologies is made, it is not like the years of 1900.  A global company that may even be originally American, because of cheap labor in new technologiesو may find the production to be to its benefit in India, but the profit may not come to the U.S. and could go elsewhere.  For example, two years ago, in the view of Cisco Systems, president Putin of Russia, understood global economy better than the U.S. administration, and they sided with that, and thus they viewed Putin's Russia, as a partner, closer to themselves, than Bush's America.

 

The same way that I quoted in my article Why Vote for Kerry? , from David Bower, Chief global Investment Strategist of Merrill Lynch,  "America is more dependent on the rest of the world for capital than at any time in the past 50 years" and Bush's unilateralism has aliened Europe and even investors from other parts of the world to invest in the U.S., and in a global economy, such policies from any nation are shooting oneself in the foot.  In my view the fall of dollar against Euro and Canadian dollar, in the last three years, has been because the political leaders of those countries, contrary to the U.S., have been in more harmony with the global formations, that are getting shaped in the world.

 

The issue of war with Saddam by itself is not the cause of Bush's weakness, although even in that area, the ultranationalist policies of Bush administration, and their lack of cooperation with other forces in the world, resulted in their loss, despite their victory in the war.  From a military standpoint, he acted with strength and with the minimum of casualties won the war in Iraq. Today after Bush has understood the real intentions of Shi'a Islamists, hiring Saddam's Sunni generals, and using Saudi's financial plans, reviving Saddam's regime, without Saddam, , the dreams of Islamic Republic of Iran, to play a role like Syria's role in Lebanon, has been shattered.  But none of these military victories of Bush can solve his main problem of his economic advisers not understanding the global economy.

 

In my opinion, Kerry's election will change this condition in the U.S. Why?

 

One of Kerry's supporters is the famous Hungarian billionaire George Soros.  George Soros has said it clearly that he will not stop at any financial support to remove Bush's administration. What is special of Soros is that he helped the downfall of the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc states by clear support of globalization. And his supporters are playing the main role in Russia and other Eastern European countries after the downfall of the Soviet Union. In fact, despite having a Communist ideology, in politics and economy, the Soviet Union was nothing but an ultranationalist regime.

 

A pro-globalization state should put its emphasis on global structures. The same way that at the time of formation of national structures in Europe, progressive city states sided with the national formations, that were being shaped at the time.

 

In other words, from forces like supporters of Soros in the U.S., to similar forces in Europe, India, or Singapore, and other parts of the world, a global formation is being shaped. My use of the term supporters of Soros, is only to help to understand my point, otherwise the reality of these new structures, is not a traditional political and economic organization, with the leadership of any specific individual, and is essentially a network of various economic, scientific, political, financial, and associations of new global formations formed in today's world.

 

In contrast, retrogressive forces like Saddam and Islamic Republic, and ultranationalist forces in the U.S., are the other side of the contention of our times. Understanding this contention, as the main contention of our world at the present, can clarify the main line ups in the global world today. Part of these global formations can geographically be stronger in Europe today, and tomorrow in the U.S., or India, but essentially these line ups are not geographical.

 

Understanding the above, for Iranian political movement, is very important. Because it is a mistake to consider a specific country, or a specific area, as the ally of our progressive movement.  Our ally is the global development across the world. Of course, the issues of Social Justice, within this development, are the paramount issues of our times, which I have discussed elsewhere. 

 

And also my words do not mean that if, for example the leaders of Islamic Republic of Iran, cooperate with globalization, Iran can be modernized.  The experience of Shiite Islamism in Iraq has proved this fact more than ever, and I have discussed it in details why Islamic Republic of Iran Must Go, and anything short of referendum for regime change, cannot open the road of progress and democracy in Iran. 

 

My point in this article was to show that our allies are in the global partnerships of the forces that are neither Western ultranationalists nor retrogressive pre-industrial Islamists and the like.  The progressive forces that are in line up for global post-industrial development are our allies as we free Iran of the rule of Medieval Islamists and also when we start building the Futurist Iran.

 

Hoping for a democratic and secular futurist republic in Iran,

Sam Ghandchi, Editor/Publisher
IRANSCOPE
http://www.ghandchi.com 
http://www.iranscope.com

April 26, 2004

 

Footenotes:

 

1. A Vision from City of Heretics

http://www.ghandchi.com/314-VisionEng.htm

 



Featured Topics
http://featured.ghandchi.com

 

 

 

Web ghandchi.com