LO AND BEHOLD! Washington stands “isolated” in President Bush’s ill-advised description of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as an “axis of evil”.

As Washington appears isolated amongst the comity of its own supporting nations, the president of the USA appears to be lacking the support of his own administration and advisers who are attempting to water down the above strong rhetoric in what is otherwise supposed to be a highly intellectual annual address from the most influential office of the world. Conclusions about unilateralism would, therefore, need to be revisited!

Not only has this description been received skeptically by the NATO itself, the European Union (EU) has challenged it more strongly than could be imagined. Even more redeeming is the fact that the US administration is itself trying to tone it down as the much-awaited and the august State of the Union address lacked necessary intellectual inputs from within the network of the US advisers to the President. So, barring a few hawkish supportive Republican Congressmen, the world is generally dismayed at the above categorisation of countries whose developing relationship with the USA would be a subject to be dealt with by students in International Relations.

In this development, though, there certainly is a silver lining, the domestic and international opposition to the pronouncement from the world’s most prestigious and powerful office clearly shows the triumph of some values. These values revolving around justice and fairplay have gained universal acceptance or have globalized as these appear to have been well internalized by the world. If that be the case, then the September 11, 2001 events have certainly not rolled back the process of globalization. Rather, the world might well be on its way to true universaliztion or globalization which concept is much more broad-based and all-encompassing as compared to the narrow meaning in which it is currently understood—limited international economic integration. So, to speculate on the reversal or the arrest of the tide of globalization, understood only as economic integration, might also be premature as this piece would attempt to examine later.

This sad but, in a sense, eye-opening development also serves to reveal a basic founding principle of the united States itself. That diverse people seldom coalesce around a goal unless it is based on principles of justice and goodwill. so, while there was an actual and a virtual (with the USA’s adversaries too) coalition following the events of September 11, 2001; there is likely to be none around the declaration of a certain “axis of evil” ala forces from outside the USA itself. For, this second attempt targeting Iran, Iraq, and North Korea is found to be unjust and unfair by a wide cross-section of nations cutting across religious and racial lines. So, the earlier fears that the US-Afghan conflict might degenerate into a worldwide religious conflict might be allayed too, at least, in the foreseeable future.

If the world is thus choosing to uphold the principles of justice and fairplay, then this is a major step towards globalization which term, as said earlier, carries a meaning broader than merely in a limited economic sense. For, globalizing influences did not emanate in the last quarter of the 20th century. To “globalize” is to make global or to establish universally. So, globalizing influences are as old as human history. These commenced with the Divine Revelations as the earliest enlightening and most powerful universalizing influences. An unprecedented momentum was gathered in human history in the last quarter of the 20th century following the revolutions in the wake of the 17th/18th century reawakening in human thought and innovations in the modes of production, distribution, and communication bringing the world closer, at least, for those who steer its destiny by virtue of their power and privilege.

Since globalization came to be understood not because of its origins embedded deep in religious philosophic thought but rather in its various manifestations that feature in technological developments, it was the economic integration and communications’ revolution end-20th century that helped explain the power of globalizing influences better to humankind always in search of evidence. Consequently, the term neo-globalization can be used to describe the end-20th century global integration which helped the world see globalizing influences better than they could ever be seen before. Since the world could exchange and communicate better and faster than ever before, those within this net believed to have been brought into the folds of a global village.

This global village view had a major downside too as was always articulately pointed out more prominently by former President Clinton and less prominently but originally by scores of other scholars and writers throughout the world. As is obvious from the above, emphasis has been on integration of world trade, commerce and communication which integrates a small percentage of the world population and pushes the majority of the rest on to the fringes of the world’s economic and communications system. The underlying reason being that globalization, understood from neo-globalization, is believed to be more material in nature. Its more sublime meaning and context is not as well-internalized as it ought to have been. However, the more sublime meaning keeps getting thrown up on the surface off and on. The most recent example is the rejection of the “axis of evil” far and wide in a world of diverse religions, cultures, and races. In this rejection is the evidence of the universalization of the values of justice and fair play. The event, therefore, marks a watershed in the history of globalization.

The skeptics and cynics might, however, have difficulty accepting the above view because of the simultaneous widespread injustices that dot the landscape of the world. It is these injustices that the scholars, the writers, and the world’s civil society have been drawing the attention of the world to. For, neo-globalization, in its most materialistic manifestations, has bypassed the majority of the global population. So, as the popular modes of production, distribution, communications, and entertainment got globalized; so did deprivation, poverty, disease, hunger (for many), illiteracy, and other manifestations of socio-economic and political underdevelopment. As globalization of underdevelopment grew in sync with the more materialistic forms of globalization integrating the developed parts of the world, there rose in parallel a deep sense of awareness and anguish about economic as well as political deprivation.

The former US President Clinton lost no time in spotting some of these pernicious trends as he spoke loudly and vehemently against the negative externalities that the process of neo-globalization had been generating. As goods, services, capital, and information flowed freely across geographical boundaries; so did the danger of a free flow of drugs, arms, disease, poverty, pollution, cyber attacks and terrorism across national boundaries. While the flow of former group was legalized, the latter group would certainly not have the sanction of the legal system. However, the legal system too did not have power enough to arrest the rising tide of the universal flow of negative externalities generated by a formal system engaged in production, distribution, and communication for the few within the formal net.

The upshot has been that we are caught in a situation where globalization of underdevelopment has grown in parallel with the globalization of trade and communications. underdevelopment is globalized with all its manifestations including what the privileged view as terrorism. For the latter term turned out to be a form of expression by those who felt terrorized as the developed marginalized them on to the fringes of the cities and the world in which they lived. While acts of terrorism per se would have no rationale or sanction of any religion, the reality does exist whose causes need to be traced so as to arrest the tide of terrorism instead of focusing perennially only on the symptoms. This is not to say that the malignant symptoms ought not to have been addressed; however, after taking care of the malignancy, the sources and the causes ought to be traced so as to root out the scourge.

One key intermediate source identified is extremism that continues to throw a spanner into the efforts for peace. However, even while the supply side of extremism is targeted so as to pave the way for peace, eyes need to be set on the goal rather than on potential or perhaps non-existent symptoms that would only dissipate the energies that should be channelized single-mindedly towards peace. Otherwise, the vision for peace will be made blurry with non-issues that will only create a demand for more extremism in self-defence this time around when the need of the hour is to reduce the demand for extremism.

And, if the world remains bogged down only in managing the supply-demand situation of extremism, then all efforts towards peace made thus far or ever will have been in vain. It is statements like the “axis of evil” that will neither help stem the supply of extremism nor would it reduce the demand for the same. It is, however, time for the world leadership to factor in the axis of economic underdevelopment as well as that of political underdevelopment, as in Palestine and Kashmir, to make a departure from a mindset that appears phobic after September 11, 2001.

The World Economic Forum as well as the G-8 have duly recognized the axis of underdevelopment not only on grounds of morality and responsibility to world population but without which an enabling environment for the process of globalization itself would be difficult to maintain. While the globalization process is certainly not possible to roll back due to the formidable corporate power driving it ferociously, the most self-assured of the world need to facilitate it politically. Phobic statements emanating from corporate America are certainly not a sign of the most self-assured of the world who hitherto provided sanctuary to the deprived, the oppressed, the tired, and the huddled “masses” of the world “yearning to breathe free”. To resume its great and commendable role, the USA needs to guard against infiltration into its most august State of the Union address that is much awaited far and wide. Otherwise, thee is a likelihood of “intellectual” terrorism creeping in and bringing it down like the tall trade centre whose damage is eclipsed by the damage that an infiltrated State of the Union address can make to world peace, stability, and prosperity owed to all.