I guess when you think about it, meaning the globalization of the world, it seems scary. The case has been made, and just within the first two chapters, that the world is beginning to look drastically different. How we discuss global issues can no longer be just lateral, but bi-lateral, or even multi-lateral (which was the word thrown around a lot). The emotion of fear, however, seemingly begins to fade the more I think about this gradual change, or might I say, paradigm shift. It is modernity turned upside down, with all the blood instantly rushing into its head. Look at the language that is being represented here on pg. 85… “The contemporary world order is best understood as a highly complex, contested and interconnected world order in which the interstate system is increasingly embedded within evolving regional and global political networks. The latter are the basis in and through which political authority and mechanisms of governance are being articulated and rearticulated. To refer to the contemporary world order as a complex, contested, interconnected order is to acknowledge the ‘messy appearances’ which define global politics at the end of the new millennium”. Further on, on the same page, its says that “All these developments illuminate a shift away from a purely state-centric politics to a new more complex form of multilayered governance.”
In light of our conversations involving powers, it is detrimental to our view of War/Militarism/Terrorism to make connections with this type of thinking. The decisions that are made within the U.S. are going to have significant impacts on the rest of the world. There are no simple decisions based on War anymore. When we chose to wage war the effects are similar to the Matt Damon speech in Good Will Hunting, on whether or not he will work for military intelligence. He equated working with this particular company to directly contributing to his best friend losing his job while having shrapnel in his buttocks. The actions and choices we make as a country effect those around us. The rallying cry of many pro war patriots seem merely to be for the security and welfare of our good nation.
I see hope in light of the reading and the discussion which might succeed it. The conversation is moving rapidly towards a global outlook, not merely a nationalistic pursuit of welfare. “Military power has been fundamental to the evolution and institutional form of the modern sovereign, territorial nation-state. The independent capacity to defend national territorial space by military means is at the heart of the modern conception of the institution of sovereign statehood. But, as discussed here, contemporary military globalization poses quite profound questions about the meaning and practice of state sovereignty and autonomy. For in the contemporary age, the traditionally presumed correspondence between the special organization of military power and the territorial nation-state appears to be changing.” (143) The move towards a more inclusive global worldview is one that we should start to embrace. It is a way out of the nationalism that has plagued the church over the last century or so in the U.S.
I am also beginning to recognize the move of the U.S. towards the global police outlook because it comes with the evolution of a changing global society. Where they could control various facets with strategic locations throughout the world, now they are morphing into transnational security. Yet with the apparent rise of these transnational peace movements and world affairs sanctions by groups like the U.N. maybe it needs to begin by strengthening these various organizations instead of trying to become one in itself.
It is also important to note, that this book was made in 1999, before 9/11, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq. I think that these principles are beginning to come to the head of the discussion in light of these happenings. It seems that nation-states right now are really questioning the move towards disarmament and demilitarization because of the constant threat of nuclear war. I feel that is the jobs of those committed to peace to begin to look at ways of combating this growing dissatisfaction. The alternatives to our contemporary condition must be at the forefront of our call to peace. We must begin to look at these situations with new eyes, eyes that are technologically pertinent, globally inclusive, and peacefully innovative.
