Globalization

02.04.2008

The following Introduction I would like to devote to the growing academic Confusion about Iraq.

Experimentalism Vs. Instrumentalism in the fundamental Poltical Process

The Instruments of the global political Process introduce the most Challenging and disputed Demands. Why? On some other Levels (concerning Issues like cultural Globalization) there are disposable and less disputed or challenging Globalization Instruments. The economic process is led by Institutions like the World Trade Organization and some other related economic and custom Unions, in which  Membership has not been obligatory or challenging for the international Community. The WTO Decision Making system grant the Members equal rights, wherefore each has the right to Veto undesired Decision. Countries have been welcome and encouraged to join the WTO, but no Country dare to approach from the Security Council Meetings without being forwarded by the big Veto Whales. So the political Track is being the most challenging aspect of Globalization. On the other hand; Many Countries have liberalized their Economics, but remain politically illiberal, which make their political Life Structure contradictive and disharmonic.

(The assumption; that economic Liberalization is supposed to have a responsive effect upon Politics , make the third World liberals find in the WTO a Hope for political Freedom. Such equalizing Coupling ( Economic/Politics) has been supported by many Theorists world Wide. That is to say; when economic Situation changes or develops, the politics be correlatively at a similar Course. But many neglected to explain whether their Theory refers to a description of a natural social Process, or is it an "is-ought" conclusion. In practical Life, we exclude the possibility of real economic Freedom, without a related political freedom, where by we see a dialectics in the politics-economics relation.

I have been admiring the international trade and economic Development, but every try to find a responsive Harmony in the international Structure, has failed.

What is wrong with the global political process? Does the Error lie in the international organizational Structure? or in the local political Systems of undemocratic or illiberal Countries? Fact is; both ( international and local political Structures) are neither constructed nor tightened well. The Security Council was announced during the second World war, and has been authoritarian since its early emergence. Each of The traditional super Powers may block the Entire World Will, and impose own  Strategy over Nonmembers Countries. (some believe that the Council could not be modified or democratized during the Cold War, because of a communistic World View being Part of the decision Making Mechanism). But since the fall of the soviet Communism, the Reform Demand grew stronger, and has become the effort of  even some super Powers like the United States ( liberal Institutions and Foundations). We all agree to the fact; that the Reforms should not make it possible for Dictators to be part of the Security Council Representation, for they could block up the international democratic Process based on the UN rights Declarations. But what about democratic Countries like (par example) Sweden, Holland, Italy etc. The mentioned are better at Modernity and Democracy than the contemporarily run Chinese red permanence. Any way, in the Process of Political Globalization we deal with two or three Instances;
1. The Structure of Globalization Institutions themselves ( which despite the defects act mostly in according to the liberal Principles declared by the UN and western or American Revolution "with some exceptions of course)
2. The Structures of the UN member States and Governments
3. The Structure of the states internal social Movements and political Cultures growing within the cultural social variety.
Considering the International Organizations as the leading Forces of the liberal and democratic Globalization makes the functional and structural Reforms of the Organizations prior to the concerned Members. But in dealing with State of the States, we stand practically before 4 possible Cases:
a. A dictatorial Government, ruling over people of liberal democratic Nature. The removal of Such a rule is usually a legitimate target from local and international point of View.
b. A Liberal and democratic Government, presiding authoritarian Culture. In such a Case; Globalization Effort would rather be supportive to the ruling Government. School Methods, Publicity, Internet, Televisions, Radio Stations and a strong and protective Security System of preserving and defending individual Freedom and rights would be needed. In other Words; the international and State Government would rely ( in Globalization) on cultural Process mainly. Such a model exists in Turkey, where Military and Security Forces initiate Alarm, when the democratic or liberal System be at Threat, which makes Turkish Liberalism less credible any way, (due to its lack for the relevant Education, the Army might not be the right political Judge). But internationally and locally better accepted than authoritarianism.
c. An Authoritarian Government, supported or likewise opposed (to some Extent) by an Authoritarian Culture ( whereby authoritarian in this contest means dictatorial). In such a case, either there exists a 1. considerable democratic Stream with enough Population to build a Government and make involvement in politics possible for every likewise democratic Movement ( a dictatorial Liberal, like approximately the mentioned Turkish exemplar ). Or
2. There exists no considerable democratic Stream, which makes it liberally legitimate for the international Community to marginalize, treat or combat the expansion of such a System. Similar to the local marginalization or ban on  undemocratic Streams within some Countries, a marginalization and restriction of Authoritarianism on international Level cope with the Philosophy of Globalization emerging from the liberal Doctrines to create and develop a free World Institutions.
In his Nato Speech Today, Mr. Bush made a clear political Position to the Nato Membership, in which he said: NATO membership must remain open to all of Europe's democracies that seek it
That is to say: the US politics couple rather tie Democratization with Integration in the international political Process.
In the Case of Iraq, the International Community stands before two Choices; a. Either the international Community supports the already ruling democratic Government, and provide it with all possible control Tools and Power, or b. Let Authoritarianism rule, to be exposed experimentally to international Pressure and Treatment ( Such Experimentalism would not pay any attention to the Genesis, but to the Justification. Experimentalists would prefer to let Authoritarianism rule, hoping that Experiments are the best way to increase knowledge and convince the authoritarians of the System Failure. But the Problem is: religious Authoritarianism neither offers an ambient for Experiences, nor give up when it come to a Failure. Although, empiric Data show positive Results in some Cases. In My Research, I found out; that suppression and harsh combat weaken the religious Illusions, and therefore, Extremism go on a low Course).
In social Theories, Time-Space dualism play a great role. For social development  is being ( unlike the physical and Math theories invariance) variant in time and Space. Some conclude that kind of Constructivism. (read The Austrian Philosopher Gerhard Schurz).
In the Case of Iraq, we deal with a sensitive region, where Oil, natural Resources and Strategic Stance is very decisive for the international Stability and economic Prosperity, which makes its Stability of a vital Interest for the World Peace and Progress. The Theory of Expereimentalism could not fit the Time-Space well, and the americans succeeded in making the iraqis agree to relatively liberal Statute.
Conclusion: The international Community should support a democratic Iraq.
Question: Why do many Countries express Happiness over the US Casualties and difficulties there? Answer: It is about putting pressure upon the Americans to let others ( Plates lickers) benefit from the Project. Some Kings wish that the Project fail, so that their Thrones gain more international Sympathy. Those who oppose the Stability in Iraq, do that in order to harm the Americans, but not to help Iraqis. Iraq is a democratic State, and we will do our best to let the Democracy in Iraq Grow well. If Kings, Dictators and barking colonial entrepreneurs succeed in defeating the democratic Process in the Bazaars there, their fate will not be better than the destiny of other Dictators and Cannibals for sure ( Think the holy Alliance " Austria, Russia, Prussia etc" against the Liberal Revolution in Europe).
I know that it doesn't make sense to lose Time in dealing with the Opposing Arguments to the Democracy in Iraq or even to the supportive US role there. But to make an easy test let us pose the following Questions:
1. What was the factual role of the opposing Powers to the invasion? Were they really sincere Friends of the massacred Iraqis? And why didn't they do anything on the Ground? They were (as far as I am informed) discussing marginal deals with the Americans, but the Bargains were not very promising.
2. Now, after the Invasion happened. What is next? Every normally thinking Person would say; let them form a Government. A Government has been democratically elected, and this should decide whether the Americans remain in Iraq or not.
3. What if the Americans Leave Iraq- before the Iraqi Government be Immune enough to keep security and national Unity in Tact? Under the great Umawiayte Empire, Iraq ( because of its hazard religious Diversity) had been a weakening factor, and a troublesome region of controversies. We all know that the Solution was a Strong and tough Leadership. Alhajjaj Ibn Yusof althakafi was appointed to be the governor there. Suppressed insurgency, and made the entire empire prosper under Alwalid Ibn Abdulmalek. If the religious Challenge grows up and gain wider Sympathy, there would be no better Rule Model than a liberal or democratic Dictator, to protect the young Democracy and dictates the religious Fundamentalism Rights and Order, which a very natural liberal behavior.
Given the Circumstances in Iraq, IF THE AMERICANS LEAVE IRAQ, before a strong Government anchor stabile and strong roots there, the right shi'ite Wing will be flow out of Control, and the Saudis (as they have already announced) will support the Sunnites against them. The Aftermath would be a sever Civic War. Turkey will break from the North to invade the Kurdish Region. From the very early beginning of the War, The  Turkish PM Ardogan tried to convince the Americans of a 60km security Zone Deal, but the Americans refused. So the supposed American immediate departure would open Pandora Doors, through which each will fight each. Iran will be at War with the Arabic States, and Iraq will be at war with Turkey, which would make Israel more happy and adequate in liberating the dialog with the Palestinians from every possible foreign Pressure.
Conclusion: The American Presence in Iraq serve the national Security of both ( America and the Middle east).
If ( and only if) the Americans establish a strong Government in Iraq, and the free and democratic Iraqi Government demand the Departure or evacuation of the American Troops there, and America Refuses to, we will join the Iraqi Government and resistance Forces in their Liberation Actions. But would the contemporarily open big Mouths appear in that hypnotized War of Dignity really? Surely not. For they would be afraid, that the Thrones could get lost

Ann_2006@hotmail.de