How Globalization Went Bad From Terrorism to Global Warming

Last Updated: 23 Mar 2020
Pages: 5 Views: 237

Steven Weber believes that “evils of globalization are even more dangerous than ever before. ” In his article he describes what has gone wrong, gives reasons for the instability, and provides solutions. Article 51: How Globalization went Bad From Terrorism to Global Warming In the Article “How globalization Went Bad” by Steven Weber et al. the author describes several reasons why having the United States as the single super power in this modern global market is not exactly a good thing.

Weber says that the “evils of globalization are even more dangerous than ever before…The world has more international terrorism and more nuclear proliferation today than it did in 1990. International institutions are weaker, and the threats of pandemic disease and climate change stronger. Cleavages of religious and cultural ideology are more intense, and the global financial system is more unbalanced and precarious. ” All of this is due to several key factors.

In a section called “The Dangers of Unipolarity” Weber describes three axioms that he says reveal these dangers, and he goes on to provide a solution to the United States’ burden with two strategies. a “Axiom 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. ”

Order custom essay How Globalization Went Bad From Terrorism to Global Warming with free plagiarism report

feat icon 450+ experts on 30 subjects feat icon Starting from 3 hours delivery
Get Essay Help

According to Weber “power does two things. It enhances the capability of the state to do things…and increases the number of things the state must worry about. ” Weber compares this theory to the law of iminishing returns. Because powerful nations are so influential in every corner of the world, they can do anything by using leverage resulting in the creation of massive debt. Every powerful nation has fallen to “the law of diminishing returns. ” Weber blames the fall of Byzantines and the Romans to this idea. What axiom one means is that more U. S. power is not the answer it is just a part of the problem, Weber says “a multipolar world would almost certainly manage the globes pressing problems more efficiently.

In other words spreading the power also spreads the responsibility, having a multipolar world would allow for a global system of checks and balances between nations. “Axiom 2: in an increasingly networked world, places that fall between the networks are very dangerous places - and there will be more ungoverned zones when there is only one network to join. ” Weber uses Afghanistan as an example of a place that fell between the networks. Afghanistan was a partially failed and a partially connected state, that is what made it so dangerous. It “worked through interstices of globalization using drug trade, counterfeiting and terrorism.

No single super power can monitor all of the gaps in globalization. With more pressing issues at hand problems that occur in gaps like this are often overlooked. But, with a world of many super powers a more interest-rich environment is created. Weber explains that it is harder for terrorist organizations and cartels to pop up when “the seams of globalization are held together with strong ties. ” “Axiom 3: Without a real chance to find useful allies to counter a super power, opponents will try to neutralize power by going nuclear or going ‘bad. ” Weber explains that weaker countries attempt to protect themselves by joining forces with a larger and more stable country that can provide military relief. But, when the choice of allies is limited, smaller countries turn to more unethical tactics when dealing with international problems.

With only one superpower to choose from many of these small countries are alienated. Weber says that having a multi-super power global community helps to protect smaller countries and keep the threat of war at bay. Creating more super powers is an efficient way of balancing world power, and “constraining American power. Weber provides two solutions to his three Axioms. The first is “Sharing Globalization’s Burden. ” Weber believes that the “instability created by the combination of globalization and unipolarity” is easily fixed by creating multiple superpowers. With only one superpower more nations will seek nuclear arms because they are without a superpower ally. With multiple superpowers smaller countries will have no need for nuclear capability because they are protected by a larger superpower.

“Every country having their own nuclear weapon will no longer be a necessity. In a multi-superpower world, great powers will split the responsibility of monitoring nuclear growth around the world, and be able to team up when trouble arises. Weber believes that this theory can be applied in other areas as well. Global public health will be significantly improved with a multi-super power world. “Poor countries where humans live in close proximity to farm animals are the best place to breed extremely dangerous zoonotic disease. These are often the same countries that feel threatened by American power. ” With a more health conscious global leaders, intervention in these countries will be made easier.

Weber’s second solution is “Restoring the Balance. ” Weber explains that the United States continues “dissuading potential competitors from challenging the United States, its allies and partners. ” In other words “More American power is always better. ” George Kennan brought this problem to the world’s attention in the 1940’s, when he suggested a European country rise to restrain the United States’ power. Kennan believed that too much power leads to “overreach, arrogance and insensitivity toward the concerns of others. ”

In the U. S. n anti-globalization mood is coming from both conservatives and liberals who are blaming the problems of the world on globalization. But, Weber believes that the “reconnection of societies, economies, and minds that political borders have kept apart” will only do our global community good. A change in the global balance of power will only help the United States manage some of the costs and consequences of globalization. Weber’s explanation of globalization, its problems, and his solutions are very persuading. Although I feel as though there are a few fallacies, one being that he gives two solutions they are one in the same.

His main point in both solutions is to introduce more superpowers to our global community. He failed to mention that America is no longer the potent, manufacturing-based superpower that it was when President Kennedy was in office. Instead, the America of 2010 is a frail impostor of that long lost superpower. Weber also did not mention many of the other advantages for going global. These reasons being: growth opportunities, and economies of equal scale. Weber’s argument is strong, but he also didn’t mention that the United States’ recession is cause for another superpower to rise and that they should take advantage of it as soon as possible.


Cite this Page

How Globalization Went Bad From Terrorism to Global Warming. (2017, Mar 20). Retrieved from

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Run a free check or have your essay done for you

plagiarism ruin image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you’re on board with our cookie policy

Save time and let our verified experts help you.

Hire writer