Can Globalization Help Stop Terrorism? Kerry Thinks So

[DrFunkenstein]

I know how many people here feel about the effects of globalization - for one, it seems to invariably aid unaccountable multinational corporations at the expense of 3rd world peoples. That understood, I still find these proposals by Kerry to be extremely forward-thinking, and even inspiring hope. I would be proud to have this man as my President.

"We must drain the swamps of terrorists; but you don't have a prayer of doing so if you leave the poisoned sources to gather and flow again. That means we must help the vast majority people of the greater Middle East build a better future.

The Middle East isn't on the Bush Administration's trade agenda. We need to put it there.

The United States and its transatlantic partners should launch a high-profile Middle East trade initiative designed to stop the economic regression in the Middle East and spark investment, trade and growth in the region. It should aim at dismantling trade barriers that are among the highest in the world, encouraging participation in world trade policy and ending the deep economic isolation of many of the region's countries.

We should build on the success of Clinton Administration's Jordan Free Trade Agreement. Since the United States reduced tariffs on goods made in "qualifying industrial zones," Jordan's exports to the US jumped from $16 to $400 million, creating about 40,000 jobs. Let's provide similar incentives to other countries that agree to join the WTO, stop boycotting Israel and supporting Palestinian violence against Israel, and open up their economies.

We should also create a general duty-free program for the region, just as we've done in the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Andean Trade Preference Act. Again, we should set some conditions: full cooperation in the war on terror, anti-corruption measures, non-compliance with the Israel boycott, respect for core labor standards and progress toward human rights.

Let's be clear: Our goal is not to impose some western free market ideology on the greater Middle East. It's to open up a region that is now closed to opportunity, an outpost of economic exclusion and stagnation in a fast-globalizing world.

These countries suffer from too little globalization, not too much. Without greater investment, without greater trade within the region and with the outside world, without the transparency and legal protections that modern economies need to thrive, how will these countries ever be able to grow fast enough to provide jobs and better living standards for their people?

We should use the leverage of capital flows and trade to lift, not lower, international labor and environmental standards. We should strengthen the IMF's ability to prevent financial panics from turning into full-scale economic meltdowns such as we've seen in Argentina. And in the Middle East especially, we need to be sensitive to fears that globalization will corrupt or completely submerge traditional cultures and mores. We can do these things.

We must side with and strengthen the aspirations of those seeking positive change. America needs to be on the side of the people, not the regimes that keep them down. We as Americans must be agents of hope as well as enemies of terrorism."

http://www.johnkerry.com/news/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

<>

[Maple]

1. Too many people on here

seen globalizaton as something only companies do, or only involving trade.

They don't realize that the UN is global, so is Kyoto and so are all the other efforts to cope with world wide problems.

If we deal...on every level...trade, art, travel, education, technology etc...with every country....and stop trying to tell them what kind of govt to have, or what to believe or how to live...yes, globalization can stop terrorism. They don't want masters.

And if everyone in the world had the kind of life of the average middle class North American...there would never be terrorism anywhere again.

Or most other problems either.

[DLCfromGA]

8. Globalization

Globalization of trade, services, standards, etc. is one of the most crucial things Democrats can fight fow.

Unfortunately, it's hard to do so politically, and neither party is willing to do so. On globalization, Bush has a horrible record, and I don't see a candidate out there for the Dems that would have a better one (though Kerry does have a flawless free trade voting record, he doesn't sound like it on the trail).

[LuminousX]

2. I think so too

Globalization, true globalization where we get everyone to have a vested interest in the system, will eliminate the things that help spawn terrorism.

[Ecotopian]

3. The concept is right, but the context is wrong

The primary reason that we're facing terrorists is because of our rightist political relationships with other nations so that corporations can thrive. What creates hatred with other nations are when our corporations exploit and abuse hard working people.

Globalization as it's currently set up, will only keep the working people of the world poor, and the elites rich. It's heavily skewed towards the upper class. In essence, it's pure unrefined capitalism without any of the social mechanisms that correct its failures. This will bleed the western world dry, and create enmity and disdain for the system world-wide.

What we need to fight terrorism is to stop interfering with their culture by weaning the west off of it's addiction to oil by relying on alternative energy sources, to stop selling them military goods, and develop a more peaceful dialogue with them. Once we have a more peaceful relationship, then we should trade with them, but only through small business so that the exchanges of culture and trade remain with the most people, providing them wealth. The only possible advantage to elites doing this is for the manipulation of people throughout many nations. There would be very little if any cultural exchange between elites (with the exception of some artwork they may bring into their homes which amounts next to nothing) so the value of international exchange is a moot point.

Globalization really isn't that bad, so long as it operates under the conditions where local economic viability is preserved, earning ability is similar, and environmental degradation doesn't occur. However when cities collapse due to the inviability of their local economic base, when people in India can be paid a small fraction for the same kind of work that people do here, and when Brazil, Madagascar, and Indonesia have to cut down their rainforests for exported goods that can pay off their international debts, the supporting argument for globalization falls flat on its face.

I agree that globalization should occur in the sense that as many people as possible from as many nations as possible should trade with one another, but under an economic system that accounts for environmental losses & gains, and social costs. In addition business organizations should be exclusive to one nation (no transnationals or multinationals), and nations should have the right to put limits on how many goods come in so that they can preserve their economic viability.

[sandnsea]

5. That's his plan

You just said it. He just has his policies set up more in line with our current Departments, I imagine. AIDS, medicine and health is in that area; environment and clean energies is in that Department; economy & trade is what this post was about. It all interacts though, even with our own economy and definitely with us changing our behavior. He introduced weapons legislation that would prevent the US from selling arms to these countries. He is against Bush's nuclear weapons programs. He is serious when he says we can't drill our way out of our energy problem and that he doesn't want to see any more men and women die because of our dependence on fossil fuels. He means it, he's got the legislative history to prove it.

[George_Bonanza]

6. John Kerry has critically mentioned oil as a cause for America's troubles

He has mentioned that America's dependence on oil makes them weak in cracking down on ME oppression because they deal with the bad governments for their oil. This is why JK needs to be in the White House. His plans for 2020 and for a new Manhattan Project will help end terrorism and pollution.

[sandnsea]

4. We have to do this

Our survival depends on it, not just terrorism but environmental too. If we don't have meaningful relations with every country on the planet and become committed to each countries' well-being, we don't have any hope of making the kinds of environmental and health changes that are needed for everybody. We just have to be smart and dedicated to the real goals, this Administration clearly isn't. They don't even care about their own citizens.

[Octafish]

7. Kerry has ideas of his own.

Another good reason for supporting the most qualified candidate for President.