The Dubai Port Fiasco

Instead of talking about various other concepts of the umbrella term "globalization", I would rather respond to ES's initial example of the Dubai Port Fiasco.


(...)"The Dubai port fiasco illustrates that the American populace does not understand or care to understand what globalization is"

I think that the Dubai Port Fiasco is a fine example of how we tend to use the term globalization, trying to explain certain events with a global dimension, which we find extremely difficult to classify. For me, the Dubai Port Fiasco is not about how Americans perceive and react to globalization, but how the term is used as an disguise for hiding the trend of a general rejection of foreign investments in the US.
I figure that by talking about globalization in general and about the failed takeover in particular, one should firstly not forget that neither the concept of globalization, nor the concept of misinterpreted anti-globalization sentimets are rather new. I call it a "misinterpreted anti-globalization sentiment", because for me the failed takeover has nothing to do with anti-globalization at all. My argument is based on Dr. Jens van Scherpenberg article"Economic Nationalism: Foreign Direct Investment in the USA after the Dubai Port Fiasco", from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (Article).
In this article, Scherpenberg, among other things, argues that back in the 80s the US had already experienced the same wave of "Economic Nationalism", meaning a rejection of foreign investments, a "national reflex" against the "sellout of national resources", when Japanese investors tookover American companies; The same reaction as in the 2006 Dubai Port Fiasco.

Hence I argue that the Dubai Port Fiasco needs to be understood and identified as an example of a widespread distrust in Arab states and enterprises as a result of the 9/11 aftermath and is therefore not appropriate to qualify the American perception of globalization...

Globalization, whatever it is, inextricably links and shapes the world we live in. It often seems that people are unable to comprehend what exactly it is. The Dubai port fiasco illustrates that the American populace does not understand or care to understand what globalization is. Instead of knowing that it would only change the management of the ports rather then the actual workers in them; politicians and citizens alike reacted with a jingoistc fever over the idea of an Arab country running American ports. The more logical response that would have illustrated the ability of the citizenry to accept globalization would have been to demand that all port owners, foreign or domestic would adhere to high standards regarding container and shipping security.
This may seem overly critical in light of the negative effects of globalization. However, I feel the dichotomy presented between fanatical anti-global advocates and that of the cold, calculating, and evil businessman is wrong. It reminds me of Thomas Friedman's book The Lexus and The Olive Tree. While Friedman is understandably a Liberal (not in the common US term), he makes a good point when he argued that for a state to survive, a balance must be sought between taking care of home (The Olive Tree) and working towards profit (The Lexus). Within this mindset he also illustrates globalization as a "Golden Straight Jacket" in which the State can lessen or heighten the negative effects of globalization to ensure its profits.
Now I have wondered aimlessly enough. What the readings did to bring up the ports and Friedman was remind me of the wide theoretical divide/expanse that exists in dealing with globalization. If it only exists for a world system under Wallerstein, then there can be no room for understanding any other possible interaction in the current world. There also is the end game view of those such as Huntington. If globalization is only bringing us closer together with the result of creating a mass conflict, then it is easy to understand the current crisis in the Middle East. For me it means that the US could be possibly preempting the advance of China, its main cultural and henceforth economic enemy.
I think article fourteen presented the best reading and conclusion of how to approach globalization. Instead of the class-only, world system view, Ulf Hannerz writes about what he calls "The Global Ecumene". He uses Nigeria as an example of how globalization does not inherently ruin all countries in the Global South. Instead he shows how while the North does hold the upper hand, those in the South learn to adopt and eventually begin to survive by combing the rules/culture/national ideals of their own with that of the West/North. His last line is illustrative of the fact the globalization is something we must learn to live with and live within. "Toward the end of the twentieth century, and during the the twenty-first, it would seem to be through our grasp of the flux of the global ecumene that we can best make sense of Homo sapiens."
With this idea globalization becomes tangible. It is not an overarching force that leaves no room for personal or state autonomy. Instead it is a powerful force that is often oppressive and destructive. Despite this, there can exist the possibility that through learning what constitutes globalization and what we as a citizenry want out of it; could make globalization a controllable force instead of a run-away behemoth.

Hello All,
The History 433 Blog is now started. Best of luck for fruitful dialogue.