Log In | Register
HYPER-CONFLICTT: GLOBALIZATION AND INSECURITY
James H. Mittelman is University Professor of International Affairs at American University. He is an outstanding critical scholar of globalization. He specializes in global political economy with special emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia. His publications have appeared in 10 languages, and include Ideology and Politics in Uganda, 1975; Underdevelopment and the Transition to Socialism: Mozambique and Tanzania, 1981, Out from Underdevelopment: Prospects for the Third World, 1988; Innovation and Transformation in International Studies, 1997.
Mittelman is also the author and editor of a series of books on globalization, Globalization: Critical Reflections, 1996 and The Globalization Syndrome: Transformation and Resistance, 2000, with translations in Chinese, Japanese, Spanish, and Vietnamese. His book Capturing Globalization, 2001, was awarded the Gold Medal as the best book in the social sciences at the National University of Malaysia. He also authored famous book Whither Globalization? The Vortex of Knowledge and Ideology, 2004; with Japanese translation.
I have selected his most recent book, Hyper-conflict: Globalization and Insecurity, (Stanford security studies, 2010) for review. In this book, he examines the social and political conflict and widespread insecurity aroused by globalization and the changing macro dynamics of peace and conflict. His rigorous approach is inspired by his direct experience of the struggles of people in Africa (Rwandan Genocide) and conflicts in parts of Asia (Vietnam War) as well as his familiarity with European and American thinking.
Mittelman identifies systemic drivers of global security and insecurity and demonstrates how the intense interaction between them heightens insecurity at a world level. He says “hyperpower” is causing “hypercompetition” and the emergent confluence he labels as ‘hyperconflict”—a structure characterized by a reorganization of political violence, a growing climate of fear, and increasing instability at a global level. Ultimately, his assessment offers an “early warning” to enable prevention of a gathering storm of hyperconflict, and the establishment of enduring peace. This is the main theme of the book. Mittleman frequent use of three terms, hyperpower, hypercompetition and hyperconflict, all with out hyphen have broader sense and implications in contrast to those who had coined these terms earlier.
Mittleman say USA is “hyperpower” because it holds sway over the world as no empire has ever done before in the entire history of humankind. It dominates in every sphere: political, economic, military, technological, and cultural. United States is indeed alone in its class. Its dominance, which seemed so fragile to so many in the late 1980s, seems undisputed today; both the capacity and the willingness of the government in Washington to shape world politics in ways that are fundamentally consonant with American definitions of interest. USA includes a vast net work of military bases and private security contractors, a long economic reach, dominance in the knowledge industry, technology prowess, and widespread cultural diffusion, with the propagation of Americans version of English language as its most apparent signs. This argument does not however, underestimate the extent to which the United States as the lead power has profound difficulty effectively using the means at its disposal.
Hypercompetition is the new form of competition. Firms are uncertain, insecure and desperate to make money and yet are making huge money. Different firms are using the language of war. Just look at the slogan Honda used in its motorcycle war with Yamaha: Yamaha o tsubusu! (Annihilate, destroy, and crush Yamaha!). Or consider tractor-maker Komatsu’s motto: Maru C (Encircle Caterpillar). Clearly, in business, chivalry is dead.
Who is shaping this environment? As per Mittleman, it is hyperpower, USA, creating hypercompetition with the help of her International Financial Institutions, IMF, WTO and World Bank which are named as ”financial weapons of mass destruction” by American billionaire investor and philanthropist Warren buffet (Warren:2008).
Although the holders of state power doggedly try to monopolize the legitimate use of force, or to authorize their agents to employ it, they encounter several forms of resistance from non-state actors and gradually suffer a loss of control. In the quest for national security, a double gap emerges in security and credibility. To fill it, heads of state attempt to reassert sovereign power. But how can statesmen and stateswomen restrain opponents whose threats do not conform to their logic and who challenge the state system itself?
While much of this argument hidden beneath academic citations and reviews of past works, it is at its core a compelling one: politics, economics and security are linked on a global scale that is so different from the conflicts of the past that it requires a whole new vocabulary; and may be termed as hyperconflict. Mittleman argues
Hyperpower + Hypercometition Hyperconflict
Mittleman, while proving his thesis highlights few global conflicts which are affecting world peace and causing insecurity. First on the list is establishment of WTO, Multilateral Agreement on Investment signed on 1 Jan 1995.This was an effort to write the “constitution of a single global economy”. It gave new vision of “global governance” and new regime for global trade and finance which ultimately extended to the basic rules of world order. Second conflict was, Asian Debacle, the crash of Asians economies in 1997. Free movement of short-term capital bears the risk of destabilization. Lack of sufficient financial regulation a cause of instability. Standard prescription by US, one size-fits-all approach also leads to insecurity. And most importantly what PM Mahathir learnt which he also stridently complained about; currency speculation and absence of “court of last resort” to address such issues. Rising China and Japan both tried to find a solution by establishing AMF (Asian Monetary Fund) an Asians system operated by Asians themselves. The objective was regional self-protection against disruptive currency fluctuation and volatile transnational capital movements to build economic security and reduce uncertainty. Washington ensured that it does not happen and insisted IMF primacy in all such matters. Third major global conflict is battle of Seattle. The phrase first employed in year 1856 by admiral Phelps who anchored his warship at Decatur to provide military support to village of Seattle against possible native Americans. He described an event in his diary, [a day long skirmish that reportedly took the lives of two white settlers and one hundred “Savage –Indians” and called it the battle of Seattle.] The battle of Seattle metaphore is thus not simply an innocent description; rather it is a historical practice that engraves a divide between “We” and “They”.
Yash Tandon, a Ugandan policy maker while representing International south group at Seattle at WTO NGO symposium said; multilateralism enshrine “rule of the jungle” and support a “democratic and ethical deficit” between rich and poor people and regions of the world. Later Tandon appealed to his listeners “to monitor your government who are imposing agreements on our weak government that are iniquitous, illegitimate and forced by means of bribes, threats and decisions reached in ‘green room’ secretive talks.”
Fourth major conflict which erupted on world political scene and changed the dimensions of security and threat perceptions is “9/11 and The Global War on Terror”. The very words used to mark this phenomenon- “War” and “Terror” are an aspect of inter- subjectivity that places people in categories. For neoconservatives the war is the ultimate way to force change. It is a mean to impose the hegemony of values and, especially after 9/11 defines relations amongst people.
"To hell with international law," and then threatening the ambassador by saying: "You've got a choice to make: you're either with us or against us, and I only hope for your sake that you make the right decision." The arrogance, rudeness, and self-indulgence of members of Congress towards the international system are hardly new: history is littered with examples of such behavior. As in case of Pakistan, President George W. Bush fillips for endless war “Either you are with us, or you are with terrorists” This framing is the mode of constituting hyperconflict. Thus in the same speech, President Bush declared, “ Our War on terror… will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated” (US President 2001)
Comments
Hyper-conflict is an interesting read. It amply clarifies how the policies of hyperpower, USA are short-sighted and causing global insecurity. I support the views of James H. Mittleman that USA is hyperpower despite its increasing debts and falling number of noble prizes and top line PhD papers. Even today only a few governments are willing to try and oppose the United States on issues that the government in Washington deems important. On the contrary, they might make an effort to change the minds of American officials, but other governments will virtually always choose to fold in the face of sustained American pressure rather than run the risk of souring (much less breaking) relations with the United States. I do not agree with Huntington who sees the United States as a "lonely superpower" destined to decline; to be one of "ordinary" major powers in the future or to say world order is, in a process of transition. I think, absent a major and devastating catastrophe that affects only the United States and no one else, we are unlikely to see Huntington's prediction becoming true any time soon.
Although China is ascending in world affairs, it is not near to commanding hyperpower. China does not presently qualify for this position because hyper power involves substantially more than a lead state. As we have seen , it draws on web like a structure, including a net of oversees military bases, a clutch of elites, aspects of ideological appeal and an educational system that widely propagate values.
There are severe weaknesses at the moment in China‘s economy and grave uncertainties about how an authoritarian regime will adjust to changing world order. Her one source of vulnerability stems from demographics. With an aging population and longer life expectancy (from 35 years, an average in 1949 to more than 73 in 2008), Chine shall face heighten labor costs. Second, given a high level of internal migration and world wide economics restructuring is causing more layoff in China factories and unemployment in on the rise. Third China’s weak social security net must cope with escalating expenditure for elderly care and public health. Fourth political unrest reportedly more than 90 thousand protests annually indicate that China is runner up but too behind from leading player.
Hypercompetition, a new form of compettion in which firms are confronted. It continuously generates new competitive spirit that destroys, make obsolete, or neutralizes the industry leader’s advantages. James H. Mittleman point of view that hyperpower and it manipulative International Financial Institutions are solely responsible for shaping such an environment is partly true. Hyperpowers and it allies are falling entry barriers, both those around nations and those around industries. WTO, global trade, regional blocs and end of communism, have caused barriers around nations to fall. McDonalds in Moscow was unthinkable just a few years ago. Now the question is how many franchises the Moscow market can support. Secondly many Western firms receive government subsidies, just as their Japanese counterparts do. Thus, the battle between firms has escalated to battles between Alliances, like the Axis versus the Allies in World War II. These supposedly “Cooperative” alliance agreements have not defused hypercompetition. Quite the contrary, they have escalated the “war” to global proportions.
However, there are few other realities which are adding intensity of hyper competition. Today consumers expect a great deal of more value in the products they buy. They are no longer content to get what they pay for. Even well-recognized and well-respected brand-name products cannot escape the pressure. Marlboro, Kraft, Gerber, Tampax, and many other world-renowned brands have fallen victim to lower-priced, private-label goods of equal quality. Today’s world is a buyer’s market. Another fundamental driving force is technology. Technological revolutions have caused paradigm shifts affecting almost every industry. In computers, for example, the power of new microprocessors has caused the whole industry to “reconstruct.” Personal computers have the power of yesterday’s mainframes, opening the door to a new social order among computer makers. IBM has lost its leadership. Software designers and chip manufacturers captured most of the value IBM once offered, forcing Big Blue to look for a major new strategic direction to recapture its former dominant position.
Nevertheless, hyperconflict which is product of hypercompetition and interaction of hyperpower is a new, highly complex and unusual conflict both in scope and intensity. Ever rising economic instability and social insecurity will lead to violence in the world because it is impossible to separate economic issues from social and political issues. If the future is ever to see the chain of hyperconflict broken, dramatic steps must be taken. Concepts of global security need to be revisited. USA should close military bases abroad, detach globalization from a neo-liberal frame work and IFIs, “financial weapons of mass destruction” be defused.
In short, Hyper-conflict: Globalization and Insecurity, is well intentioned and a must read for all who want to contribute, in any manner, prevention of a gathering storm of hyperconflict, and the establishment of enduring peace.
And lastly, Mittleman warnings have made me even more curious to find out what would be the out come of emerging hyperconflict in the end.
Author is student of M Phil International Relations at NDU Islamabad.
He can be reached at: attarasul@hotmail.com
