In the latest issue of “Foreign Policy”, Steven Weber, Naazeen Barma, Matthew Kroenig, and Ely Ratner have published an article entitled “How Globalization Went Bad”. They present their argument in three clear axioms:
1. Above a certain threshold of power, the rate at which new global problems are generated will exceed the rate at which old problems are fixed. It is basically the belief that with more power comes more responsibility, but can the U.S. handle more responsibility. Do we need more power?
2. In an increasingly networked world, places that fall between the networks are very dangerous places. In the global economic pictures there will be big players and little players, and those who are not allowed to play at all. It is the latter that will disrupt the global orgy.
3. Without a real chance to find useful allies to counter a superpower, opponents will try to neutralize power, by going under ground, going nuclear, or going "bad". Example Venezuela, North Korea, the idea is that these smaller powers will not be able to align with a bigger power and be forced into "facilitating the dark side of globalization".
The article goes on to discuss the threat of a global pandemic being brought to fruition by a forgotten nation. The solution, according to the article, is the emergences of another superpower to remove some of the burden on the shoulders on the U.S. It doesn't seem feasible to both openly trade with and police the same country. What do you think, does America need to take a lesser role in the global realm of business, politics, and security? What is your opinion of America's push toward a global economy while also maintaining unipolarity? Talk amongst yourselves...