Has the idealism of Globalization enabled the cause of geopolitical tensions?

[Carringbush2010]

Yesterday I watched as I usually do an episode of Insiders, in short a bit of geopolitical summary.

Insiders: Simon Birmingham - Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister (20/11/2022)

David Speers, Stan Grant, Annika Smethurst and Greg Sheridan discuss Australia-China relations after Albanese met Xi Jinping, APEC, Sean Turnell released from a Myanmar jail, unemployment fell to 3.4% and Victoria's election.

iview.abc.net.au

The discussions about:

• Albo repairing relations with Xi
• and standing up for our (western liberal) 'values' in the same meeting,
• Human rights violations
• Taiwan
• Myanmar and the release of economist Sean Turnell
• The protests in Iran and how we must 'call it out'
• The MH 17 conviction and how it's only a 'symbolism' victory
• Qatar and the underlying human rights theme again.
• Sanctions including sanctions against individuals - not state and how some are only 'symbolism'
• Ukraine war, the links of Putin and Xi and how it effects the west.

There were some key points from Greg Sheridan and Stan Grant,

Sheridan did mention (paraphrased), 'China thinks it's doing the right thing, regardless of what we think'

Grant did mention (paraphrased), 'China regardless of how we value their world view, can't be ignored'

He also alluded that the rise of China is more about 'the wreckage within' i:e pointing to the west and in particular the US '20 years of getting bogged down in conflict and having a choice between Biden and possibly Trump' i:e 'what does that say?!'

The point I'm getting at is that ideally globalization is not just about trade but the whole world singing kumbaya around the campfire - that's seems the narrative, but is highly utopian in thinking and ultimately impossible.

If world powers with widely opposing world views continue to 'try to get along' well we're gonna get conflict, because the 'west' views what is 'right' is certainly different from those not of liberal democratic views.

For example, the protests in Iran about how the female citizens are treated as a lower class and are subject to rather theocratic laws.

I'm sure given the chance the US would like to storm in and wave the finger 'Yeah nah, you live and treat your populace this way, not the way you want' and Iran might rightly say 'Yeah nah, how about you * off and mind your own business'

I say 'rightly' because their world view in particular around women, they think is correct, as odd as that sounds. Would be better off providing refuge for those citizens that want out rather than try and convince a society with theocratic views not to be theocratic anymore. I:e try to enforce a different world view to a society that does not want to change its world view.

Fact of the matter is, globalization, originally by and large was targeted as a trade common view (or at least it should be), now it's got to a point of world powers sticking their nose in and criticizing other world powers views - namely the liberal democracies of the west.

Whereas those non democratic states just want to carry on doing what they think is right and what we think is abhorrent and let the west carry on with what they view as abhorrent and stay in their lane.

Get back to the trade table and 'how much for x product' and avoid the 'you can't treat your citizens like that, we're gonna do sumthin aboud it'.

 

[ibd77]

Nah, I think humans have reached peak evolution and now we are on the sliding slope to extinction. Enjoy the ride everybody.

 

[Cap]

Globalisation of trade and trying to progress Human Rights (yes I'm aware, loose term) are pretty different things.

Where that line is drawn? Well yeah the $ seems to be the line.

 

[faible]

If world powers with widely opposing world views continue to 'try to get along' well we're gonna get conflict, because the 'west' views what is 'right' is certainly different from those not of liberal democratic views.

Having those world powers with wildly opposing views trying to get along in the name of essential trade is IMO a large part of why we haven't had a large scale global conflict for ~ 80 years now.

For example, the protests in Iran about how the female citizens are treated as a lower class and are subject to rather theocratic laws.

So the citizens of Iran are protesting against a tyrannical government? I'm not sure you've quite picked the example you should have.

I say 'rightly' because their world view in particular around women, they think is correct

They think it gives them power. I doubt that's necessarily the same as it being 'correct' in the sense many of us would take the word to mean. The men exploit the views because they can leverage it to control the women in their lives, to their benefit.

Would be better off providing refuge for those citizens that want out

In theory, yes, but in practice it's very difficult for those citizens (largely female citizens) to actually get out.

try and convince a society with theocratic views not to be theocratic anymore

It's not a 'society with theocratic' views that's the problems. It's a society that deliberately and willfully ignores what ~ 50% of the population (women) want, restricting access to education because educated women are dangerous to the control of society by men, for men, and having no real democratic system to allow the will of the people to play out.

If society had theocratic views, but the people (all of them) had full and complete ability to vote for who and what they wanted and they chose the form of laws and government they were getting, then I doubt anyone would care all that deeply.

Globalisation has been a very large part of why the world has been (relatively) stable for a long time now, because it's not beneficial for global powers to actively go to war with one another in the way we once did. Instead we see proxy wars fought at regional levels and trade wars, neither of which are good, but aren't as horrendous as a WW3 scenario.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Having those world powers with wildly opposing views trying to get along in the name of essential trade is IMO a large part of why we haven't had a large scale global conflict for ~ 80 years now.

If every world power just stuck to trading there'd probably less conflict.

So the citizens of Iran are protesting against a tyrannical government? I'm not sure you've quite picked the example you should have.

That tyrannical government doesn't see itself as tyrannical.

They think it gives them power. I doubt that's necessarily the same as it being 'correct' in the sense many of us would take the word to mean. The men exploit the views because they can leverage it to control the women in their lives, to their benefit.

This is not new, the ideology of states like Iran is that the common belief is that women are a lesser class. So they believe this is correct.

In theory, yes, but in practice it's very difficult for those citizens (largely female citizens) to actually get out.

No one is arguing that it's not difficult to leave, people have been leaving such regimes since forever. People that have been born and raised there.

That shouldn't equate to the US or any power of the day waltzing in, waving the finger and 'hey you all now become a democracy, coz we said so'

It's not a 'society with theocratic' views that's the problems. It's a society that deliberately and willfully ignores what ~ 50% of the population (women) want, restricting access to education because educated women are dangerous to the control of society by men, for men, and having no real democratic system to allow the will of the people to play out.

They don't have a democratic system coz it's not a democracy, afaik never has been. Of course they willfully ignore what 50% of the population want, that's what they've been doing since day dot.

The problem is it's not a democracy, again that shouldn't equate to the west just walking up and demanding they change what they believe, coz guess what you'll get conflict.

Globalization was incepted as a result of trading, little if any problems, it's when world powers that disagree with other 'ways of living' and start demanding / enforcing a change is when you get geo political tensions and conflict.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Globalisation of trade and trying to progress Human Rights (yes I'm aware, loose term) are pretty different things.

Where that line is drawn? Well yeah the $ seems to be the line.

Your first sentence is pretty much what I'm getting, the problem is those societies that don't want to progress human rights, coz that's been there way of life and beliefs since who knows.

Then liberal democracies wanna step in change those societies belief systems, and those in power in those societies get their back up. Surprise surprise.

How much the lure of $ is anyone's guess and would vary.

I guess my point is, apart from trade, there are wildly varying beliefs and values between trading partners and it is probably utopian thinking that everyone can just 'get along'

 

[faible]

If every world power just stuck to trading there'd probably less conflict.

That tyrannical government doesn't see itself as tyrannical.

This is not new, the ideology of states like Iran is that the common belief is that women are a lesser class. So they believe this is correct.

No one is arguing that it's not difficult to leave, people have been leaving such regimes since forever. People that have been born and raised there.

That shouldn't equate to the US or any power of the day waltzing in, waving the finger and 'hey you all now become a democracy, coz we said so'

They don't have a democratic system coz it's not a democracy, afaik never has been. Of course they willfully ignore what 50% of the population want, that's what they've been doing since day dot.

The problem is it's not a democracy, again that shouldn't equate to the west just walking up and demanding they change what they believe, coz guess what you'll get conflict.

Globalization was incepted as a result of trading, little if any problems, it's when world powers that disagree with other 'ways of living' and start demanding / enforcing a change is when you get geo political tensions and conflict.

Why shouldn't we be free to criticise countries that want to do business with us?

It's not about whether 'the west' is right, there's of course other ways to live and run a country, the US form of democracy is different to Australia's, is different to Switzerland's so even within 'democracy' there's an array of ways to go about it.

But having half the population being violently attacked, unable to speak out, and watching the human rights of women in Iran being destroyed in real-time isn't something that we should be wanting other countries to shut up and look the other way about.

This idea that globalisation was initially a trading arrangement doesn't mean that it forever remains a trading arrangement whilst we turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. The idea that we should simply accept that another country has half their population forcibly restricted from participating in some of the most basic aspects of life because 'that's their belief' is incredibly flawed.

The world has changed a lot since the WW2, people who were previously stuck under authoritarian regimes with no way to speak out now have a way to make their causes heard, and people in countries that previously would never really have known what was going on elsewhere can now watch things unfolding in real-time.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Why shouldn't we be free to criticise countries that want to do business with us?

We are and we do, however those *we criticise (*democracies) are going to defend their 'ways'

But having half the population being violently attacked, unable to speak out, and watching the human rights of women in Iran being destroyed in real-time isn't something that we should be wanting other countries to shut up and look the other way about.

Again, that's their belief system and has been since who knows.

This idea that globalisation was initially a trading arrangement doesn't mean that it forever remains a trading arrangement whilst we turn a blind eye to human rights abuses. The idea that we should simply accept that another country has half their population forcibly restricted from participating in some of the most basic aspects of life because 'that's their belief' is incredibly flawed.

Not saying we should just accept it, just saying expecting kumbya around the campfire with all and sundry is highly utopian thinking.

The world has changed a lot since the WW2, people who were previously stuck under authoritarian regimes with no way to speak out now have a way to make their causes heard, and people in countries that previously would never really have known what was going on elsewhere can now watch things unfolding in real-time.

In other news, water is wet.

Look I'm not barracking for looking the other way, what I'm saying is intervening in what *we (*democracies) find wrong with societies of different beliefs is obviously going to cause conflict.

The ideal is Globalization is 'the world coming together and agreeing on everything'. I'm just pointing out that is not possible because of wildly different beliefs and values.

What we have right now with Vlad, Xi etc. is a reflection of reality and no amount of 'convincing of their wrong doings' is going to change their (and their societies by and large) belief systems.

 

[Cap]

Your first sentence is pretty much what I'm getting, the problem is those societies that don't want to progress human rights, coz that's been there way of life and beliefs since who knows.

Then liberal democracies wanna step in change those societies belief systems, and those in power in those societies get their back up. Surprise surprise.

How much the lure of $ is anyone's guess and would vary.

I guess my point is, apart from trade, there are wildly varying beliefs and values between trading partners and it is probably utopian thinking that everyone can just 'get along'

I have trouble that root of your argument is people who have overcome tyranny - like the West in removing King and Queens and establishing Democracies wouldn't want to see their fellow humans also released from the same bondage .

The reason those power structures you allude to get so upset is that they know full well that if their people had choice, the power structure most likely wouldn't be what it is.

But you only need to look at MAGA republicans to see that democracy isn't a universal Western belief, they are more than willing to sacrifice democracy so that the bloke they like is in charge, it's just the majority don't want that. So the fight for democracy is always ongoing and that does upset some people who don't want it.

 

[faible]

We are and we do, however those *we criticise (*democracies) are going to defend their 'ways'

Again, that's their belief system and has been since who knows.

Not saying we should just accept it, just saying expecting kumbya around the campfire with all and sundry is highly utopian thinking.



In other news, water is wet.

Look I'm not barracking for looking the other way, what I'm saying is intervening in what *we (*democracies) find wrong with societies of different beliefs is obviously going to cause conflict.

The ideal is Globalization is 'the world coming together and agreeing on everything'. I'm just pointing out that is not possible because of wildly different beliefs and values.

What we have right now with Vlad, Xi etc. is a reflection of reality and no amount of 'convincing of their wrong doings' is going to change their (and their societies by and large) belief systems.

I'm not sure what you think you're arguing?

I don't think anyone really expects the whole world to get along without any form of disagreement or conflict.

Most people would expect that different countries will do things in different ways, and that where countries do things that are considered crossing a line, the trade levers can be used to exert pressure on those countries.

Sure, it might appear like 'the west' is ganging up on other counties telling them they need to live our way, but plenty of the west once lived under monarchies or dictatorships. We've been there, done that, seen that it's better on the other side.

Is your argument that 'oh well Iran has always been shit to women so we should just accept that and let it be'?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I have trouble that root of your argument is people who have overcome tyranny - like the West in removing King and Queens and establishing Democracies wouldn't want to see their fellow humans also released from the same bondage .

The reason those power structures you allude to get so upset is that they know full well that if their people had choice, the power structure most likely wouldn't be what it is.

But you only need to look at MAGA republicans to see that democracy isn't a universal Western belief, they are more than willing to sacrifice democracy so that the bloke they like is in charge, it's just the majority don't want that. So the fight for democracy is always ongoing and that does upset some people who don't want it.

To be clear, I'm not advocating for a do nothing approach.

I'm suggesting that opposing (depending on the 'measure' of that opposition) what democracies believe is wrong is going to invite conflict, not the ideal narrative of opposing all the globe's societies powers havin a phat time with each other around the camp fire.

So the question still begs, has the 'ideal' enabled geopolitical tensions?

 

[Carringbush2010]

I don't think anyone really expects the whole world to get along without any form of disagreement or conflict.

Willing to bet you'd find many with a utopian view that the whole world can harmonious, that's the idealism that some would believe.

Is your argument that 'oh well Iran has always been s**t to women so we should just accept that and let it be'?

Certainly not!

Merely pointing out that opposing (depending on the measure of that opposition) such abhorrent belief systems may invite conflict.

Sure, it might appear like 'the west' is ganging up on other counties telling them they need to live our way, but plenty of the west once lived under monarchies or dictatorships. We've been there, done that, seen that it's better on the other side.

And that may invite conflict.

Again, I'm not advocating for turning a blind eye for what we find oppressive. I've clearly stated that.

 

[faible]

Willing to bet you'd find many with a utopian view that the whole world can harmonious, that's the idealism that some would believe.

Certainly not!

Merely pointing out that opposing (depending on the measure of that opposition) such abhorrent belief systems may invite conflict.


And that may invite conflict.

Again, I'm not advocating for turning a blind eye for what we find oppressive. I've clearly stated that.

Ideally it would be harmonious, without tyrannical dictatorships and with each citizens of each country able to choose how they wish to govern their own country.

This comes across as a western democracy versus the world type scenario, when really, it's a human rights versus the world scenario.

 

[Cap]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for a do nothing approach.

I'm suggesting that opposing (depending on the 'measure' of that opposition) what democracies believe is wrong is going to invite conflict, not the ideal narrative of opposing all the globe's societies powers havin a phat time with each other around the camp fire.

So the question still begs, has the 'ideal' enabled geopolitical tensions?

Of course it has and always will. Those with power do not like the idea of losing it.

Putin directly invaded Ukraine because it was not acceptable to him that his people saw their neighbour moving to a free democracy.

The question always falls back to is the cost worth the ideal, currently Ukraine think it does...assuming when they come out of this they are a free democracy.

Edit - you'll note globalisation causes tension within countries, the rise of the far right can almost directly be attributed to the feeling of loss of power.

 

[Gethelred]

Well, this will be interesting, won't it?

 

[Cap]

I find this interesting, this soccer player has witnessed what the 'West'has to offer and is sympathising with protesters.

So as the West, do we not allow people from Iran to see what the West is like to ensure we don't cause geopolitical tensions ?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Ideally it would be harmonious, without tyrannical dictatorships and with each citizens of each country able to choose how they wish to govern their own country.

This comes across as a western democracy versus the world type scenario, when really, it's a human rights versus the world scenario.

This thread is not intended to be a west v world scenario, it's intended to point out that we shouldn't expect the ideal.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Of course it has and always will. Those with power do not like the idea of losing it.

Putin directly invaded Ukraine because it was not acceptable to him that his people saw their neighbour moving to a free democracy.

The question always falls back to is the cost worth the ideal, currently Ukraine think it does...assuming when they come out of this they are a free democracy.

Edit - you'll note globalisation causes tension within countries, the rise of the far right can almost directly be attributed to the feeling of loss of power.

I think this is a better question than the thread title.

Thanks Cap!

 

[Carringbush2010]

So as the West, do we not allow people from Iran to see what the West is like to ensure we don't cause geopolitical tensions ?

We should and we do.

Allowing Iranian citizens to experience a democracy isn't necessarily going to halt geopolitical tensions, IMHO.

 

[Cap]

We should and we do.

Allowing Iranian citizens to experience a democracy isn't necessarily going to halt geopolitical tensions, IMHO.

But will it make it worse, if we are trying to stop that of course

 

[Carringbush2010]

But will it make it worse, if we are trying to stop that of course

No I don't think it'd make it worse.

 

[dewcefault]

I think as you debate this topic, particularly in relation to Iran it might be worth looking a little in to the history of Iran, the role of democracy and the overthrowing of it (hint: UK and US after a decision by the government to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian oil company aka BP). Here's a wiki link to get you started:

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That was the starting point to the theocracy we see in Iran today.

Even today in Iran they have elections, it's just that the candidates go through a strict vetting process which is what makes it undemocratic. As more people want more freedom they crack down harder on who is eligible to run.
Very different society to what you get in the Arab world and very different cultural evolution.

I think you'll find that most regular Iranians men and women would replace the government tomorrow and this is the closest the country has come since the revolution in 79, whether it happens or not is another thing.
One thing that the Iranian government has done very well is infiltrate all aspects of the country and economy in a way that makes it very difficult to overthrow them without burning the whole place down. They also have lined the pockets of everyone important (see Putin) and then have enough people who believe everything they say & that they're anointed by God to rule (the equivalent of Trump supporters in the US)

The overarching theme across a lot of wars and powerplays is money and power... the idea that any other nation will solely do something for the good of the people is laughable... a lot of good come from the simple removing of sanctions that impact everyday Iranians and just focusing on targeting those in power. The current sanctions systems means that people struggle to get medicines & basic essentials but the suffering of the general populace is by design. Same with reducing their ability to travel via challenges in getting visas.

Lastly, Iran in it's current state is more useful to the western world than in another form which is why there hasn't been any real movement towards helping people on the ground. If Iran turned 'good' then there's really no need for the rest of the middle east to stock up on very expensive weapons systems or for a significant military presence in the ME.

 

[Present Not Past]

This is a thread not so much about globalisation, but a thread about democracy.
Democracy can't be taken for granted.
What we saw in the USA in 2020 can happen anywhere as long as the poison of the Murdoch media is allowed to exist.

 

[Cap]

This is a thread not so much about globalisation, but a thread about democracy.
Democracy can't be taken for granted.
What we saw in the USA in 2020 can happen anywhere as long as the poison of the Murdoch media is allowed to exist.

And in Brazil

Bolonsoaro challenging the election.

I'm not sure who is more pathetic, him or his supporters

 

[Carringbush2010]

This is a thread not so much about globalisation, but a thread about democracy.
Democracy can't be taken for granted.
What we saw in the USA in 2020 can happen anywhere as long as the poison of the Murdoch media is allowed to exist.

I posted this thread for the intention to gauge everyone's view on how possible (or at what cost as Cap put it) is the ideal achieved, and not just for the purposes of trade (how globalization began in the first place) but for Xi, Joe, Kim, Vlad the ME to all share a beer around the campfire - that'd be the ideal. This is obviously utopian and unrealistic.

And in Brazil

Bolonsoaro challenging the election.

I'm not sure who is more pathetic, him or his supporters

Bolsonaro is the anti democratic, South America's version of Trump. *These types will / do serve nothing for the interest of global harmony as they're only interest is self. They're antithetic to ANY societal model (or any good one anyway)

*This is the only relevance I can think of in regards to globalization (or the ideal of).