Globalization is without a doubt the most important issue in international affairs, and has been for quite a while. Kennedy spoke about it in his inaugural speech:
JFK said:
And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.
Bush right after the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the first Gulf War:
Bush Sr. said:
Until now, the world weve known has been a world divided a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.
And Clinton all the time:
Slick Willy said:
Communications and commerce are global; investment is mobile; technology is almost magical; and ambition for a better life is now universal. We earn our livelihood in peaceful competition with people all across the earth. 12
Profound and powerful forces are shaking and remaking our world, and the urgent question of our time is whether we can make change our friend and not our enemy..... Today, as an old order passes, the new world is more free but less stable. Communism's collapse has called forth old animosities and new dangers. Clearly America must continue to lead the world we did so much to make.
We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Some forward thinkers down in DC came to the realization that in order to ensure that this "new world order" is sucessful, we must stablilize the unstable parts of the globe, particularly those regions with the natural resources so essential in the growth and prosperity of that globalized new world order. Iraq was definitely the most Western leaning country in the middle east, which is why we invaded it, hoping to make an example of democracy in the middle east for others to follow , creating a stable and friendly Middle East which would gladly give us access to their natural resources. Unfortunately, it backfired, and we weren't greeted with cheers and bouquets of flowers. But globalization was most definitely the motivation for the invasion of Iraq, and globalization is also the goal of this country, and the European Union. Thus far, it looks like they will be sucessful in achieving it.
As I said, I don't feel thats necesarilya bad thing. Because its a one world government doesnt mean its going to become some sort of Orwellian totalitatian empire. However, a free and open democracy on such a scale would be difficult to achieve. Economically speaking, it opens all markets to trade, and we all know that an economy can only grow if it has more markets open to it.
But, we'll see what happens. We're definitely on that path now, but as the fiasco in Iraq and the Middle East shows, its not that easy.