What if globalization failed?The Open Road theory [Archives:2004/734/Opinion]

By Abdullah Ali Dahy Al-Kazme
For The Yemen Times
Prior to the September 11 attacks on the U.S., and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990-1991, the world was restless towards new situations.
With the collapse of the world's equilibrium, the world held its breath and the philosophers of the new capitalism were emerging and mourning what was known as the ” End of History.”
But before they could receive condolences on the death of history, the world's silence was ruptured with the collapse of the twin towers and incidents of September 11, 2001.
The events, which turned the world upside down and the decision-makers formulated hastily political projects to coincide with size of those events. In reality, these projects were neither suitable for the new capitalism nor beneficiary of the humanitarian history.
The military preparation and the military might were diminishing before rising facts. There was no doubt that the end of history theory was nothing but a mere lie even to those propagating it before the September 11 incidents. Incidents, which provided a cover up for a comprehensive reaction considering the world is living in a state of world war.

New era
The world is standing before a new historic era where the world is before open possibilities and not the end of the road. Each road possesses enough factors for victory and success to go ahead in this open road.
Measures following the collapse of the USSR that the new dominating world was afraid of new threats. Although it did not name or characterize them, this world evading the collapse not because of its immunity, but because of the absence of a competitor, remains governed by the theory meaning,” the defeated is neither eliminated nor the triumphant is guaranteed survival.”
The so-called terrorism would not bear the imminent danger in spite of its assumed capabilities and potentials. The threats were in facing and opening new fronts before the world as choices before the peoples such as the occupation of Iraq, a member of the United Nations, especially following the tumbling of the pretexts behind the invasion, which make the world volatile before all possibilities.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, many understandings at the victorious unipolar were mixed up. It became patently clear that there are deep contradictions between what the liberal world were calling for and what the policies of big industrial countries were in one hand.
On the other hand, there were also contradictions between policy makers in the industrial countries and the will and desire of their peoples, in spite of the inability of pretexts to withstand the big facts.
Thus arising the need for dominance and the necessity for resistant, and from the principle of subjugation to the holding of identity of civilization generally controlled by religious convictions.
The solution was not in the coup against the world liberal heritage, which has won the historic battle in the previous period and it did lie in backing off from liberties for security reasons or to demand of the people concessions from the level of prosperity they have reached. But the solution lies in strengthening the liberalism heritage, which has become the possession of whole humanity, in enhancing all public freedoms without being selective and in expanding the bases of liberalism and spreading welfare and luxury to reach every human.

Liberalism
And for liberalism to benefit of criticism directed at it during its new formation just like it had benefited of criticism in the past, particularly from Karl Marx in, order to reform the existing inefficiency unlike socialism which denied the existence of inefficiency which ended up in its demise, the most effective measures are to work to halt the contradictions taking place in some industrial countries represented by the flagrant conflict between the world's liberalization heritage and the political reactions of some of these industrial countries.
The peaceful measures do not stand at the ones followed since the period of missile shield, expanding NATO eastward and dividing the world into good and evil axes. Sufficing defining terrorism and limiting it to Islamic terrorism is clearly going back to the direct colonization of sovereign countries and members of the United Nations under weak pretexts, which are not based on facts.
The most effective measures are in halting the contradictions by some industrial countries in the form of conflicts between their political policies and the world's liberalism behavior. Examples of such are the setbacks in political, social, economic and humanitarian freedoms in general because of the obsessions of security reasons.
The introducing of a new secretary of state in the US Government, Secretary of Internal Security after more than two hundred years since the foundation of the USA. The scope of work of this ministry would not be limited to curtailing the activities of terrorists as much as it would include in the future powers with political opinions different from those in the administration.
Where its principle would become, “Don't let him work, don't let him pass”, and others. Which would reflect the view of the peoples of earth towards “the American Dream” if this policy continues the American dream would become less attractive and more hostile to the USA in the future.
This in turn makes the world stands before an open road for all possibilities.
When I touch upon some issues concerning justice, freedom, implementing laws, unity and separation, ethnic, regions, veils and others, whether at the world or national levels, I do not intend to provoke or flatter anyone. When I talk about the freedom to use roads, I may not add anything new as much as I seek to treat situations and incidents taking place as a consequence.
What happened on September 11 and after that, generated a new era in the human history concerning general freedoms, not in the third world countries alone but in the so-called the free world. The most important element of the open road theory is opening the way for discussion of a number of issues, which require reconsideration.

What if globalization failed?
The open road theory is primarily based on the question, “How would the world be if the directions and understandings of globalization failed?”
We will try to focus on the most choices opened which excites the fear the USA and its allies, whether they have revealed or disguised them. Where the US based on them is seeking to build an international coalition on the obvious pretext of fighting terrorism based on the principle of George Bush, “If you are not with us, you are against us.”
Certainly there are real concerns, but as a duty, we have to put forth questions about these fears and what the reality of these fears are? Currently, the focus is merely on Islam and whether if it represents a real threat on capitalism or not.
Muslims now live in a period of austerity requiring genuine efforts to comprehend the current and future nearing situations of red lines set one hundred years ago. The use of crusade war by President Bush following the September 11 incidents brings us back to era when the heavenly and other religions were setting the stages for confrontation operations.
Will the new western era consider now its religious vision toward Christianity in order to bring hope and to eliminate fear for its people? The directions of the political administrations are materials and do not encourage or motivate the sacrifice for them.
Does the collapse of the Soviet Union as a world communist regime represent an era that is gone in the history of mankind? Or is there a possibility for a comeback in any form?
And are there any real contradictions between Islam and capitalism in terms of possession, which is the core of the problem? Islam accepts the principle of possession and capitalism.
It is known that there was a coalition between the Arabs and US during the USSR invasion of Afghanistan. Could Islam become the new ally to the capitalist strategy upon the appearance of real conflicts of the existing capitalism system?
Instead of being on the opposite end, facing dangers, which could reach the direct colonization such as in the case of Iran, Afghanistan and may be Iran and Syria in the future.

What can Muslims do?
Could the Muslims lay down a basis, based on Koran in dealing with others? Could they overcome the problems, which occurred during the Islamic history, which were obstacles for advancement and renaissance? Could the Muslims reach a mechanism to choose their leaders and determining the jurisdictions and the tenure?
Many questions remain to be answered and only the future will be able to cast some light on them.
——
[archive-e:734-v:13-y:2004-d:2004-05-03-p:opinion]