US Hegemony and Globalisation

SUMMARY |  & LAYPERSON'S UNDERSTANDING  GCSP Policy Brief No. 15 US Hegemony and Globalization Dr. Mark Sheetz Faculty Member Geneva Centre for Security Policy http://www.academia.edu/3187122/US_Hegemony_and_Globalization -------/\/\/ US Hegemony and Globalisation GCSP Geneva Centre for Security Policy GCSP Policy Brief Series ... The series was created and is edited by Dr. Nayef R.F. Al-Rodhan, Senior Scholar in Geostrategy and Director of the Program on the Geopolitical Implications of Globalization and Transnational Security. GCSP Policy Brief No. 15 US Hegemony and Globalization Dr. Mark Sheetz Faculty Member Geneva Centre for Security Policy http://www.academia.edu/3187122/US_Hegemony_and_Globalization Dr. Mark Sheetz Columbia University, PhD. political science John Hopkins School of Advanced Studies, MA International Relations Dartmouth College, BA in government various fellowships taught at: Dartmouth College Yale University Wesleyan College published articles - various December 6, 2006 Abstract / Summary World affairs defining feature = US power & influence USA is hegemonic power: -- able to impose US set of rules on international system -- US provides 'public goods' to international system     -- international economic order     -- commercial order [trade]     -- financial order [banking]     -- global political order [ideology]     -- global security order [military] GLOBALISATION | [DISSOLUTION / DEREGULATION] -- if OPENING of NATIONAL BORDERS to FOREIGN influence:     -- economic     -- political     -- cultural -- then:  GLOBALISATION serves an AMERICAN VISION of world order What happens to globalisation without American hegemonic power? 1.  Pressure to reverse political & economic reform may grow. 2.  Protectionism in economic & political forms may survive. PAPER argues: 1.  Globalisation is PRODUCT OF A PARTICULAR SET OF STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS 2.  Globalisation is epiphenomenon (secondary phenomenon) of AMERICAN HEGEMONY 3.  Globalisation CREATED & nurtured by U.S.A. 4.  Globalisation CANNOT be sustained without US hegemony 5.  Globalisation will persist ONLY while US remains world's *ONLY* superpower Policy Changes -- author describes capacity to PROJECT FORCE -- US capability to project force estimated in excess of most world's armies combined Military example: USS Enterprise -- nuclear-powered -- 25-story high -- 5,600 crew -- 85 combat aircraft -- x2 Aegis-class cruisers (protection - air) -- x4 frigates &  destroyers (protection - surface ships) -- x2 Los Angeles-class nuclear attack submarines     (protection - enemy subs) -- several amphibious assault ships -- battalions of marine expeditionary forces -- helicopters & landing craft -- carrier battle group estimated as 'virtually indestructible' -- full crew:  15,000 personnel -- aircraft alone:  700 target strikes in single day, at accuracy of 1 metre -- no equivalent in world to offensive military power -- US has x12 of such battle groups Economy: -- US economy produces over 30% total world product  [comment:  yeah, but is this actual *product* produced, or is this Wall Street casino figures? ] Research: -- 70% of all Nobel laureates (prize-winners) in science, economics & medicine -- conduct research from USA -- USA - 50% of all internet traffic -- US world's leading firms re:  info tech, biotech, nanotech     nanometre     one thousand-millionth of a metre (symbol:  nm)     -- physics:  nanoscale - very small scale     nanotechnology     -- science & technology of nanoscale devices     -- eg.  electronic circuits, using single atoms & molecules [comment:  Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and he has a weekly CIA extra-judicial kill list, so that tells you straight up how empty these self-congratulatory ruling oligarchy-spawned institutions'  reinforcement mechanism prizes are ] [comment:  has this old boy lost the plot:  "American universities are the envy of the Earth"  Are these the same universities in which they're gnashing their teeth over ''microaggression', 'trigger warnings' and 'safe spaces' or some such crap?  LOL  - LINK | Here   Also refers to 'American language.' Silly-billy, no such thing:  it is bastardised English  ;) *but he is correct about media & cultural garbage raping the globe by extending beyond the confines of USA ] [American Military - Gendarmerie] -- US deploys forces in over 125 countries -- then refers to a 'mere 3%" of GDP spent by USA on 'defence' -- but then acknowledges US military budget exceeds military expenditures of other countries combined -- cites Paul Kennedy, historian, referring to unprecedented DISPARITY OF POWER American empire dwarfs -- Charlemagne's empire - merely Europe; -- Roman empire - other great empires:  Persia & China. AS LONG AS THE WORLD LETS USA IMPOSE ITS AGENDA (RULES)  ON THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM -- US remains a hegemonic power Argues that hegemons are not merely imposers of 'rules of the system' -- hegemons deemed suppliers of 'public goods' to provide incentive for others to accept rules -- speaks of inability to exclude one from benefits of this 'public good' & likens to clean air & water [comment:  bankrupt city of Detroit - shutting off water to city's 45% unpaid accounts - here "UN experts responded in June that the shutoffs could constitute a violation of the human right to water." Flint, Michigan & other US cities - official neglect / lead poisoning:  LINK | here "Decades of inadequate replacement and repair of aging water infrastructure has resulted in a nationwide problem that cuts across income brackets and city lines" LINK | here *OMG  these people can't deliver unpolluted water in their own country, but they want to rule the world! US also denies international 'public good' in form of sanctions on nations the target of US aggression (eg Iran not being given access to financial system during decades of crippling US sanctions).] Argues that due to the logic of 'collective action' international public goods     -- monetary system     -- free trade     -- global security -- will not be provided unless there is one party willing to ABSORB DISPROPORTIONATE COSTS -- I gather that party is US taxpayers in terms of the current international system -- USA [taxpayer] pays disproportionate costs so that the US [US ruling oligarchy] receives a disproportionate benefit -- from 'international community' members being 'enticed' to play by US rules International public goods: -- global economic order -- global financial order (World Trade Organisation) -- free flow of capital    (International Bank for Reconstruction & Development) -- flexible exchange rates (International Monetary Fund) -- global political order supposedly based on:     -- self-determination     -- human rights (United Nations) -- what is supposedly global 'security order'     - enforced by NATO Globalisation - an expression of US hegemony US [intrusion] across national borders:  economic, political, societal, cultural, info related -- recently, both US political parties promote 'value' of 'free markets' and 'free societies' -- competition is the 'very soul of the American ethos' - the author claims [comment:  that's propaganda preached to the exploited to justify ongoing exploitation along deregulation, privatisation type of lines.  Capitalist exploiters preach 'competition' but then partake of corporate 'communism' in the form of government (ie taxpayer funded) bail outs.  What a scam.  It should read:  'exploitation' is the 'very soul of the American oligarchy capitalist ethos'] -- 'home-court advantage' goes to Americans in terms of:     -- world capitalist competition for:         -- economic markets         -- 'democratic' competition for political ideas -- since Woodrow Wilson -- US has sought to remake the world into America's image [comment:  the world must resist this proposed vandalism] Globalisation tool to fulfil an American vision of "world order' via: 1    -- modern version of 'open door' [deregulation, I'm guessing] 2   -- penetration of sovereign state:         -- markets         -- cultures    American military forces supposedly 'protect' Europe & Asia -- from 'potentially destructive cycle of security competition & arms races'  [comment:  any state that gives over its military functions to another state in exchange for 'protection' risks ceasing to exist as a state.   ] US hegemony-- supposedly serves to control proliferation of nuclear weapons [comment:   How come Israel secretly got nukes under this US watch?  And why does somewhere as radical as Pakistan even have nukes if this US hegemony is such a wonder of nukes-blocking powers?  Mind you, they're not bothering to include themselves in the nukes minimising program and they've got the biggest pile of nuclear arms & they've shown themselves as irresponsible immediately, by bombing Japanese civilians in two cities.] Goes on to immediately discuss 'rogue' states, naming what are US targets: Libya Iraq Iran North Korea [Comment:  so far, I can see two destroyed states, and Iran that's probably next. The only reason the Norks are safe is the nukes they've got.] Author quotes an Egyptian diplomat, as if the Egyptian US butt-kisser's opinion amounts to anything, when Egypt is yet another US puppet -- one that gets MASSIVE US credit to buy a MASSIVE amount of weaponry from private US arms manufacturers (subsidised by the US taxpayer, by the look of things), while US money lenders and arms manufacturers are kept in profits for years in advance. According to the author, the larger question is whether there's an alternative to American hegemony, before quoting 'President Bush' (presumably the daft looking younger Bush - yep, here):   “the only alternative to American leadership is a dramatically more dangerous and anxious world.” [comment:  LOL ... you have got to be kidding.  Now the US is going to pretend it's some benevolent world cop and that without the US throwing its weight around the world and killing millions of children, bringing down entire countries and destabilising entire continents, the world would be a much nastier place? Also quoted that child-murdering cow Madeleine Albright, pronouncing the US as an 'indispensable nation'. What else is the old bat going to say?  It's not like she's going to have any other conception of the vehicle that gave her power etc ... and, if she did, I'm sure she wouldn't say.]   -- Author says, without 'stability' arising from US hegemony -- Germany & other European states might otherwise develop own nuclear deterrents  [comment:  wish they would] -- & that same is true of Japan & Japan's Asian neighbours According to author, US military presence in Middle East -- ensures free flow of oil to industrial / at reasonable prices -- the American commitment to military force in Middle East -- followed 1973 oil 'shock' -- & continued in aftermath of Iranian revolution President Carter -- any attempt by outside forces to gain control of Persian Gulf region: -- regarded as assault on vital interests of USA -- such assault to be repelled by any means, incl. military force Saudi Arabia -- USA positioning: to maintain what is described as 'free flow of oil' commitment -- via US 'protection' of Saudi Arabia -- author claims that this 'protection' of Saudi Arabia & free flow of oil agenda was motivation for wars against Iraq both in 1991 and in 2003  [comment:  'nothing' to do with regional strategy, regional hegemony, or get-rich-from-destruction strategies etc.] Dilemmas -- the author states that the US preference is to extend & maintain hegemony -- "with minimum of exertion and with maximum of acceptance" from other states -- that implies (to me) that the alternative is forceful extension of US hegemony -- to be imposed upon other states -- author contends that to facilitate diffusion of:     -- technological innovation     -- economic prosperity     -- organisational skills -- on what he refers to as 'a global scale' -- the US risks potential rivals taking advantage of the above by building up indigenous capabilities -- so advancement of US vassals (technological, economic & other) is seen as a potential threat to US power comment: -- the author specifically refers to build up of 'indigenous capabilities' -- while this is in relation to skills, know-how and wealth -- can it be assumed that the 'indigenous' itself is also a threat to such an empire? -- hence the destruction of European nations by way of policy facilitating the invasion of Europe, spanning the post WWII period to date Differential Growth: -- the US empire's diffusion of know-how etc -- creates a dynamic of DIFFERENTIAL GROWTH RATES -- that, according to the author, ULTIMATELY results in emergence of CHALLENGERS Economic Challengers -- challenges to American hegemony in terms of economic [power] -- are already apparent [insert] Gendarmes -- 13th Century France - heavy cavalry, knightly royal guard -- 15th Century (mid) - crack units of gentry heavy cavalry - celebrated for striking force -- functions taken over by cuirassiers, with spread of firearms & innovation of light cavalry -- 15th C. & 17th C. - lost combat role -- smaller units of gendarmes retained in:     -- France     -- Prussia -- used principally as military police [source] International Gendarmerie -- another risk to American hegemony is the possibility that the American taxpayer -- may grow weary of the costs of:     -- maintaining an international 'gendarmerie'     -- ongoing military intervention -- the American public may question the cost-benefit factor -- & may conclude that the benefits of sustaining -- what the author refers to as an 'open international system' -- are meagre / inadequate considering the costs Should the US taxpayer public decide that the costs -- outweigh the benefits of:     -- maintaining an international military / crack force     -- involvement in constant military intervention -- the days of American hegemony would be numbered  -- in which case, what happens to globalisation -- & can it continue without the FOUNDATION of American hegemonic power? It is believed that GLOBALISATION is synonymous with AMERICANISATION -- US is blamed for Middle East:     -- pressure for liberalisation     -- pressure for political reform -- in Europe, US film [& media] industry is decried / condemned -- LOL ... 'threat' to French cuisine McDonalds poses is an issue in France Otherwise, many *believe* that globalisation is inevitable -- and that the following 'cannot' be reversed:     -- openness of markets for goods     -- openness of markets for services     -- rising level of international capital mobility comment:  note author uses the positive-spin 'openness' as opposed to what is:  national DEREGULATION & the removal of national protections & what is corporate usurping/seizure of national sovereignty AMERICAN HEGEMONY & GLOBALISATION AGENDA - BEWARE -- the forces for PROTECTIONISM & ECONOMIC NATIONALISM -- quote:  "like certain resistant strains of virus"   -- are RESILIENT!! [comment:  I dislike this guy.  These capitalist creeps are trying to destroy others as a people.] -- 'mercantilist' impulses are not far from surface, according to author -------/\/\/ Mercantilism 1. -- theory and system of political economy prevailing in Europe after the decline of feudalism -- based on national policies of:     -- accumulating bullion     -- establishing colonies     -- establishing a merchant marine     -- developing industry     -- developing mining -- to attain a favourable balance of NATIONAL TRADE economics: -- aka 'mercantile system' - theory prevalent in Europe 1600s & 1700s -- asserting wealth of nations depends on possession of PRECIOUS METALS -- therefore that govt of nation MUST MAXIMISE foreign trade SURPLUS -- & foster NATIONAL commercial interests, mercantile marine, colony etc. 2.  practice, methods or spirit of merchants / commercialism http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mercantilism -------/\/\/   WWI - WWII  | INTER-WAR PERIOD "During the interwar period, the seemingly irresistible momentum for ever-greater economic interdependence was stopped in its tracks. " [Dr Mark Sheetz] -- author goes on to quote, Benjamin Cohen [likely political economist - California / research economist at Federal Reserve (ie private banking cartel overlords of USA) - here]:     -- govts demonstrated willingness to LIMIT MARKET OPENNESS     -- [ie to impose national regulations in relation to national concerns]     -- 'sacrificing', according to Cohen, 'benefits' of GLOBALISATION     -- when DEEMED NECESSARY for the sake of:         -- NATIONAL SECURITY         -- CULTURAL PRESERVATION         -- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION US Congress itself experiencing growth of pressure for:     -- limitations on trade [ie regulation]     -- limitations on capital flows [ie regulation of capital movement] ENDING GLOBALISATION GLOBALISATION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED if America: A.   voluntarily withdraws from DOMINANT ROLE internationally OR B.   is forced to scale back due to combination of:     1.  military over-extension; &        2.  economic over-extension. POTENTIAL SCENARIOS -- USA the GLOBAL MARKET OF LAST RESORT -- with willingness to ABSORB:     -- unimaginably HIGH DEFICITS in balance of trade -- willingness to provide EXCEPTIONAL FINANCIAL BACKING TO INTRNATIONAL MONETARY FUND (IMF) -- USA acts as GLOBAL LENDER OF LAST RESORT -- willingness to:     1. 'intervene militarily' -- exert / put into effect:  MILITARY FORCE     2. provide 'disaster relief' in international crises -- USA acts as UNDERWRITER of a global 'insurance policy' against adverse occurrence THE ALTERNATIVE -- "without the American hegemon to sustain a liberal economic system" -- expect:     -- INCREASE in BARRIERS to *unfettered economic penetration* of NATIONAL borders    -- WTO talks difficulties (as at 2006) seen by author as characteristic of : -- the ongoing struggle by 'free traders' against 'protectionist impulses' -- comment:  the modern-day US imperialist robbers against foreign *national interests*, more like it   Therefore, GLOBALISATION depends upon: 1.  sustaining an American 'liberal economic system' 2.  American GLOBAL MILITARY PRESENCE OR -- failing which, there will be an increased resistance to:     1. UNFETTERED SPREAD of the following imperialist evils:     -- liberal political reforms - eg:         -- 'democracy'         -- 'rights' of women         -- 'rights' of minorities     2.  pressure for STANDARDISATION globally recognised standards harder to establish re:         -- communication         -- transportation         -- technology       3.  English may not remain lingua franca of:            -- business         -- air-traffic control         -- diplomacy CONCLUSION -- imagine that Soviet Union had 'won' what the Yankees call the 'Cold War', author suggests ... -- is it likely 'globalisation' would have reared its ugly imperialist head? -- in this case, the author contends that the model would have been:     -- that of an IMPERIAL COMMONWEALTH in a spoke-and-wheel model -- as opposed to a 'liberal'   -- POLITICAL & ECONOMIC SYSTEM [ie unregulated, corporate-agenda dominated profit-trough monopoly of the ruling American oligarchy] -- author argues that imperial commonwealth model benefits would not flow from centre to periphery but, instead, from periphery to imperial core  [comment:  so by implication, the alternate system -- the mythical 'generous' capitalist system --  according to this guy, is all about sending 'benefits' to the periphery?  Oh, please.  That's like a twist on the 'trickle-down' fantasy Latin America has already discovered is crap.  ] -- author states that globalisation is the product of:     -- 1.  UNIPOLAR HEGEMONIC WORLD     -- 2.  A PARTICULAR *KIND* OF HEGEMON     -- 3.  the result of:  PARTICULAR SET OF STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS GLOBALISATION -- author contends, is the result of:  American hegemony -- which gave birth to & sustains globalisation through the LIBERAL INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM &:     1.  political institutions     2.  economic institutions -- that govern the *liberal international system* -- therefore, globalisation:     1.  is a product of US hegemony     2.  is given character by American         -- political values         -- cultural values         -- economic values        3.  will persist as long as USA remains world's *ONLY* superpower    -------/\/\/ GCSP Policy Brief No. 15 US Hegemony and Globalization Dr. Mark Sheetz Faculty Member Geneva Centre for Security Policy http://www.academia.edu/3187122/US_Hegemony_and_Globalization ---------------------- ---------------------- SOURCE Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) -- international foundation -- f. 1995 -- to promote building 'peace, security & stability' -- ie to promote US hegemony via ideological trojan GCSP -- founded by:     1.  Swiss Federal Dept of Defence, Civil Protection & Sports     2.  under authority of:  Swiss Federal Dept. of Foreign Affairs -- as Swiss contribution to the US oligarchy empire initiative:  'Partnership for Peace' (PfP) -------/\/\/ Partnership for Peace (PfP) -- program of:     --  North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) -- ostensibly aimed at: -- 'creating trust' b/w NATO & Europe member states -- however, this is in fact a tool for projecting American INFLUENCE     -- among the projection of US influence arsenal of tools is:            -- military to military cooperation on:             -- training             -- exercises             -- disaster planning & response             -- science issues             -- environment issues             -- 'professionalisation'                 (ie standardisation according to US serving vision             -- policy planning (ie in favour of interests of US hegemon)             -- relations with civilian government                  (to further EXTEND US hegemon influence) *So this is like a self-funding / taxpayer-indebting vassal mercenary army of the expansionary imperialist US empire   -- that buys US manufactured arms, profiting the US empire ruling oligarchy five (5) times over:         1.  rapid response vassal mercenary military cannon fodder       2.  taxpayer indebtedness to American lenders       3.  support of American arms manufacturers        4.  vassal tools for maintaining projection of US influence       5.  vassal tools maintaining US empire hegemony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership_for_Peace SOURCE Dr Mark S. Sheetz (US) PhD + M.Phil in Political Science - Columbia University MA in International Relations     - The Johns Hopkins School of International Studies BA - Government from Dartmouth College Fellow: -- National Security Affairs    at:  Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Harvard University -- International Security Affairs    at:  Belfer Centre for Science & International Affairs,  Harvard University -- John M. Olin Fellow    International Security Studies, Yale University Other: Research Associate -- International Security    at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University -- holds the Fulbright-NATO Chair -- of Security Studies at the College of Europe (2014-15) -- teaching international politics for over 15 years -- prior: Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts -- courses in American Foreign Policy & World Politics in Nuclear Age plus various courses: -- Dartmouth College -- Boston College -- Wesleyan University Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) Switzerland -- courses for career diplomats & military officers Lectured at following: Yale University MIT NATO Defence College (Rome) Ecole Royale Militaire (Brussels) Ecole Supérieure de Guerre (Tunis) Published: -- various journals Working on: -- book manuscript     subject:  origins of 'European integration'                through prism of Franco-German relations April 2016 http://whoswho.coleurope.eu/w/Mark.Sheetz SOURCE Prof. Nayef Al-Rodhan -- Saudi Arabian -- philosopher, neuroscientist, geostrategist, author -- honorary fellow:  St Antony's College, Oxford Uni (UK) -- senior fellow & centre director: -- Geopolitics & Global Futures Program: -- Geneva Centre for Security Policy (GCSP) -- GCSP - Swiss think-do tank  -- established as part of 'Partnership for Peace' -- NATO projection of US empire influence & global domination agenda propaganda Education -- Newcastle University Medical School – Newcastle University, Newcastle, England -- Ph.D. in Neuropharmacology - Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA     Newcastle University (UK)     Mayo Clinic (USA)     Yale University (USA)     Harvard University (USA) -- among written output, authored:  Inevitable Transhumanism -- scholarly focus:  interplay between neuroscience and international relations -- argues that human behaviour is governed primarily by "emotional self-interest" -- argues that  the human mind is a "predisposed tabula rasa"     -- tabula rasa - Latin:  clean slate (blank slate)     -- ie. individuals born without built-in mental content     -- all knowledge, therefore, from experience or perception     -- some proponents of theory favour 'nurture' vs. 'nature' take -- argues that human beings neither innately moral nor immoral -- circumstances & needs determine survival of 'humankind's' 'moral compass' comment:  looks like there's plenty of underlying assumptions there:  eg. humans one mass lump totality & the very existence of a 'moral compass' --  and, if so, whose morality? appears to in favour of a world dictatorship wherein the above supposedly has, according to Wikipedia entry: profound implications for the re-ordering of governance mechanisms         -- at all levels         -- with strong emphasis on the role of society         -- strong emphasis on a global system re:             -- stability             -- security             -- peace             -- cooperation             -- justice             -- human security             -- identity construction             -- transcultural relations             -- conflict             -- ethnocentrism             -- xenophobia             -- morality             -- global governance            -- 2007:  Nayef Al-Rodhan published 'symbiotic realism' theory of international relations -- said to best fit:  'connected', 'interdependent', 'globalised' world -- involves expansion of number of 'unitary' actors  in global politics - beyond state & non-state actors -- [supposedly] allows for 'non-conflictual' competition / allowing also 'absolute gain' in symbiotic yet 'realist' framework comment:  *Jesus, I'm suffocating just reading this 'symbiotic' manifesto outline of what's probably an American Big 'Mamma' taking over the world -- bet it's a proposal for world domination in the guise of global 'governance' in the interests of the globalist-pushing imperialist agenda serving paradigm of 'mankind', based on the presumption of a 'collective', where no such collective exists in fact -- the sell appears to be:  'non-conflictual competition'  ... yeah, right  LOL -- in this 'symbiotic realism' theory -- 'international peace' can *only* be attained through governance structure that ensures mutually beneficial -- *symbiotic* coexistence for various actors & fulfilment of *human needs EVERYWHERE* comment:   once again, guessing this is some 'idealistic' US hegemony expansionist promoting crapolla book: "Symbiotic realism : a theory of international relations in an instant and an interdependent world" Author:     Nayef R F Al-Rodhan; Lisa Watanabe Symbiotic Realism -- theory of relations in 'globally-anarchic' world of instant 'connectivity' & 'interdependence' -- framework for understanding character of relations -- generated by x4 interlocking facets of global system:     1.  neurobioligical substrates of human nature     2.  global anarchy     3.  instant connectivity     4.  interdependence    --  explains how 'myriad of actors' including:     -- states     -- transnational corporations     -- women     -- biosphere (earth /environment, where living organisms exist)     -- civilizations        -- shape & are shaped by:  the 'global system'    -- manifesto re moving from present 'limits' of:     -- structure of the 'global system'; and     -- 'political organisation'     -- of the 'global system'        -- to:  a more 'just' and 'peaceful' GLOBAL ORDER http://www.worldcat.org/title/symbiotic-realism-a-theory-of-international-relations-in-an-instant-and-an-interdependent-world/oclc/185032421 'Symbiotic realism' "Symbiotic realism argues that synergy should be the guiding principle in the search for better ways to manage culturally pluralistic societies and relations between cultures."   more: LINK | here Trans-cultural security: "The Role of the Arab-Islamic World in the Rise of the West" (2012) -- exploration of Arab-Islamic world role in rise of West -- challenging 'common Eurocentric interpretation' that modern Europe has emerged as result of unique progressive trajectory:     -- Antiquity     -- feudalism     -- Renaissance     -- capitalism -- Saudi Arabian author argues 'Arab-Islamic world' part contribution to rise of West -- seeks to improve contemporary political & trans-cultural relations b/w West & Arab-Islamic world -- by highlighting 'our collective history' -- comment:  what, struggle against conquest?    more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayef_Al-Rodhan 'transhumanism' --  belief that humans should strive to transcend     -- physical limitations of the mind & body     -- by technological means http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transhumanism Paul Kennedy British historian doctorate - St. Antony's College, Oxford Yale University speciality:  history of international relations, economic power & grand strategy -- published books re history of British foreign policy & Great Power struggles -- emphasises changing economic power base -- argues:  declining economic power leads to:  reduced military & diplomatic weight -- various fellowships Media -- has written for:     -- The New York Times     -- The Atlantic     -- many foreign-language newspapers & magazines Los Angeles Times -- monthly column on current global issue Honours: -- Commander of the Order of the British Empire (2001) -- US naval college 'Hattendorf Prize' Laureate (2014) -- Department for Business, Innovation and Skills     - UK govt. ministerial dept. funds:     - Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)     - which funds 'British Academy'     -- UK 'national academy' for humanities & social sciences     -- recognises high scholarly distinction in humanities & social sciences - published     -- funding schemes & support / scholarships UK & abroad     -- public lectures program    -- Paul Kennedy elected fellow of the above 'British Academy' Academic Journals --  on the editorial board of numerous scholarly journals Most famous book: "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" --- other:  book on WWI comment:  sounds like it ought to come with a warning re possible ideological bias ... Wikipedia entry re WWI book: "Kennedy (1980) recognised it was critical for war that Germany become economically more powerful than Britain, but he downplays the disputes over economic trade imperialism ..." [1] Russians say that: Britain started WWI with the aim of protecting its ruling oligarchy's threatened world hegemony as a global imperialist power (or something like that) I'm inclined to believe the Russians ... LOL [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kennedy COMMENT Above looks like a recipe for how to stop globalisation ... ie in terms of what to oppose, what to campaign against ... however lame that is. Judging by the above statement re economic 'interdependence' momentum in the inter-war years, it looks like there was a push for globalisation before WWII? I've not double-checked this to make sure I've properly understood everything -- so it's probably best to read the original.  Chances that I might have missed something entirely.  Came across this interesting article during my travels: 'Wars & Empire' (2006) Yet to read this.  But it looks like it could be interesting. On the to-do list is an exploration of 'Symbiotic Realism' - here: "I am under no illusion that morality and peace are possible without an overarching central and  just authority or a benevolent hegemon." [ibid / here] OMG, how can one not read that -- it sounds ... so warped.  ;) ** I'm never going to catch up with everything I want to read.