The Globalization Fantasy

__"Globalization and American Power" by Kenneth N. Waltz, in The National Interest (Spring 2000), 1112 16th St., N.W., Ste. 540, Washington, D.C. 20036.__

Globalization--it’s here, it’s real, and it’s won-Nations these days are more economically derful, according to New York Times columnist interdependent, economics trumps politics, Thomas Friedman and other fans. The "elec-peace’s prospects are improved, and world govtronic herd" of foreign investors, moving capital ernment is just around the corner.... Waltz, a in and out of countries, all but compels them to political scientist at Columbia University, says embrace the American way, market capitalism it’s time for a reality check. and liberal democracy, lest they be left behind. The extent of globalization is much exaggerated, he points out. Much of the globe, in fact, has been left out: "most of Africa and Latin America, Russia, all of the Middle East (except Israel), and large parts of Asia." Moreover, economic interdependence among nations today, as measured by exports as a percentage of gross domestic product, is about what it was in 1910. "What is true of trade also holds for capital flows, again as a percentage of GDP." The United States and other nations with big economies still do most business at home, and virtually all multinational corporations are "firmly anchored in their home bases."

The American way is in vogue today, but it would be rash "to conclude from a decade’s experience that the one best model has at last appeared," he says, when in decades past, others, such as "the Japanese brand of neomercantilism," have been similarly admired.

"International politics remains inter-national" rather than global, Waltz says. The sovereign state with fixed borders has proved to have no rivals when it comes to keeping domestic peace and promoting prosperity. "The most important events in international politics are explained by differences in the capabilities of states, not by economic forces operating across states or transcending them," Waltz says. Politics usually trumps economics. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia were each economically integrated, yet both disintegrated. Moreover, he observes, "national politics, not international markets, account for many international economic developments." The European Union is the result of governmental decisions; so is the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Much of what looks like globalization is merely the exercise of American power, Waltz contends. Countries abandoned by the "electronic herd," for example, often seek a U.S.organized bailout through the International Monetary Fund, widely seen as "the enforcement arm of the U.S. Treasury." Once Britain sustained the rules and institutions of the international economy; today, it is the United States. Tomorrow, it will be somebody else.