Managing Globalization: The integrated economy as a cause of war.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAltman d\u00e9bat de ce qui devrait \u00eatre une \u00e9vidence, qui est une \u00e9vidence pour l’esprit de bon sens : la globalisation, avec les \u00e9normes tensions et les in\u00e9galit\u00e9s qu’elle apporte est une cause potentielle \u00e9vidente de guerre. Pourtant, cette affirmation d’\u00e9vidence doit \u00eatre appr\u00e9ci\u00e9e comme un \u00e9v\u00e9nement tr\u00e8s inhabituel, justement signe de cette crise que nous mentionnons. Finalement, ce n’est pas la globalisation qui est en crise, pour \u00e9viter une tautologie, parce que la globalisation est une crise en soi<\/strong> ; c’est la perception que nous en avons, c’est le concept qui est en crise. La force de cette crise est telle qu’elle fait reculer d\u00e9cisivement le conformisme.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tAltman mesure lui-m\u00eame son audace avec ses deux premiers paragraphes :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abIn countries around the world, globalization has been blamed for increasing inequality, extinguishing local culture, enabling transnational crime and a host of other evils with varying degrees of justification. But could globalization be a cause for another ill wind, that of war itself?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbTo answer yes’ would be to discredit a broad current of 20th century political-economic theory.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t Et pourtant, oui, la r\u00e9ponse est oui.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tPour clore, quelques r\u00e9flexions qui rel\u00e8vent de l’\u00e9vidence propre au bon sens. Ceci compte surtout, r\u00e9p\u00e9tons-nous : qu’on accorde cette place au bon sens est r\u00e9volutionnaire.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\t\u00abPeace, after all, was the original motivation for the economic integration of France, Germany and the rest of continental Europe. And the desire to avoid conflict still encourages countries to build commercial ties, as the United States is now doing, regularly and at the highest levels, with China.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbYet yes’ may still be the right answer in many cases. Globalization can be a motivation for war, and it can also add fuel to war’s bonfires.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIt is said that when there are economic interdependences between nations, the potential of conflicts is reduced, said Jacques Fontanel, a professor of economics at the Pierre-Mend\u00e8s- France University in Grenoble, in an e-mailed response to questions.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIn fact, he said, war depends on religious and economic conditions of people. If globalization gives more and more money to the owners and less and less to the workers, more and more for some nations and less and less (relatively) to others, the occasions of conflict grow: social conflicts and political conflicts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbFontanel said that the rapid growth of economies like the United States, aided by globalization, could also contribute to conflict if demand for raw materials increased faster than supply. There is a new scarcity and scarcity is always a cause of conflicts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe very interconnectedness of the global economy can be another source of rancor, according to Martha Crenshaw, a professor of government at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. The stronger powers can be held responsible for local grievances, she said. This is not unlike the era of colonialism.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 21 f\u00e9vrier 2007 \u00e0 07H35<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
La crise de la globalisation se trouve d’abord, dans cette \u00e9poque absolument conditionn\u00e9e par la communication de l’information et ses effets sur la psychologie, au niveau de la perception de ce concept. Le concept de globalisation est formidablement soutenu par le conformisme qui conditionne la politique mondiale et l’id\u00e9ologie qui la soutient. Parmi l’arsenal moralisant… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3011,3878,3228,2632,2645,6088],"class_list":["post-68550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-bon","tag-conformisme","tag-crise","tag-globalisation","tag-guerre","tag-sens"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68550\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}