Flat Thinking In 3 Dimensions
On Slate, Robert Wright wrote about Friedman’s book “The World is Flat.” I have not read it, so I’m responding only to Wright.

Globalization is great if we mean an increase in world-centric values (think globally, act locally). But the idea that Friedman supports economic freedom and other liberals don't is a spurious notion. Liberals are not against freedom per se. A progressive liberal (as opposed to a "classical liberal" what is now called "libertarian") does not assume that capitalism is the absolute best system, or that the free market is entirely free. Global capitalism certainly had advantages over old-school colonialism. Governments and NGO’s have systems in place to expose human rights abuses. We even have a global court to persecute the worst violators, however ineffective these structures are. These mores did not seem to be relevent in the age of exploration, when fascination with foreign lands became exotic and chic (in addition to the usual reasons for travel - war, trade, and conquest). Travel is no longer just an idle curiosity, a pastime of the rich or adventurous, but a normal part of an increasingly complex world. People move wherever there are jobs (Americans will just have to get over their isolation as the economy changes. In the past century, increased emigration to America became normal, and Americans will eventually learn that it's OK for them to emigrate too). While all this moving about threatens our sense of rootedness, and tradition, it also challenges us to find ways of preserving tradition in new contexts (and sharing them).

What we should be wary of, as I'm fond of pointing out, is hegemony. Globalization doesn't look like "in varietate concordia" (unity-in-diversity). Globalization looks more like a bland, uniform, suburbanization of the world with a McDonalds and strip mall every 10 miles. Perhaps sharing and spreading on an equal footing is unrealistic, but it's still sad to view old cultures getting wiped out before we stop to ask whether this is a good idea.

Whether globalization economically benefits all is debatable (consult an economist, I don't know). But surely it’s not all bad. I’m not against Indians getting more computer jobs. They work really hard for less money, and their educations need to amount to something. People in other countries deserve the same opportunities as Americans. Some would argue they could get that by immigrating to our country, but not everyone can do that. Some might like to stay home and improve their own country (globalization critics might argue the opposite - people don't have to come to America to be assimilated. The ways things are going, everyone will end up working for America).

Labor statements that others are "taking" our jobs sound rather xenophobic. If Friedman's flatworld means there’s an equal trade-offs of jobs, great. If unemployment is really declining and the purchasing power of the lower and middle classes are really increasing, wonderful. Even according to Marx, capitalism is not totally bad. It’s an improvement over feudalism and monarchy, for example. I say we need some new ideas beyond capitalism and socialism. We need to think outside the box, like PR Sarkar’s Prout (Progressive Utilization Theory). Win-win thinking, as Wright puts it, non-zero-sum.

Another hotbed issue is the democratization of the Middle East, and economic development in the Muslim World en toto.

Wright asserts that Iraq war opponents didn’t take into account that a prosperous, free market in places like Iraq reduces terrorism (though like me, he thinks war was the wrong way to go about it). But let’s not forget that Iraqis actually benefited from some Ba’athist policies. (I know I’ll get slammed for that, so let me state for the record that I condemn Ba'athist pogroms, and terrorism against Israel, in the strongest terms possible). It’s not like Iraq has never known advancement. The base is already there (one good outcome of this war was the removal sanctions) and Iraq could prosper again. Is Iraq the domino that will change the whole landscape of the Middle East?

It seems right now the monarchies in the Middle East are the most progressive, I'm not sure why. Jordan is a modern, liberal state (though they have not done enough to address women’s rights issues like honor killings). Bahrain and UAE are like futuristic cities that landed in an ancient desert.

Saudi Arabia needs to change the most. The modernization developments started by the recently deceased King Fahd (and his half brother Prince Abdullah) has angered fanatics. Coupled with the US military presence in Saudi Arabia, this spawned groups like al Qaeda. While there is genuine corruption in the house of Saud, at least King Fahd supported projects other Muslims benefited from. He supported health care for all of his citizens. He gave over 5% of GDP to development projects. The problem now is that too much Saudi charity goes, advertently or inadvertently, to fund terrorism and radical madrassahs.

There is a growing rift of unemployed youth in the Saudi peninsula. If you combine free time, radical ideologies, and wounded pride, you have a recipe for disaster.

As for the rest of the Muslim world - Iran needs a secular government, with the elite clergy separate from government. Pakistan needs to settle the Kashmir issue once and for all, reduce its military budget, improve public education, and crack down on radical madrassahs. African countries need to clean up corruption and tackle poverty. The recent aid and debt relief is a start, but there's a lot more things that need to be done. Syria needs to get out of Lebanon, which won’t happen as long as Hezbollah holds sway (and gets funding from Iran). Hezbollah will remain in Lebanon as long as the Israel/Palestine issue is yet to be resolved. After Saudi Arabia, Israel/Palestine is the next big domino that needs to fall in place. With the recent Gaza pullout, it looks like the road map might actually begin to actualize, but both sides have reason to be skeptical.

But I think Israel gets too much attention. Surely, the Kashmir issue is just as dangerous. Elsewhere, Indonesia is an unstable Republic dealing with the aftermath of US supported dictator Suharto. Like many post-colonial nations, it's rife with ethnic conflict and guerilla movements. Chechnya needs independence, as do the Kurds. Malaysia is doing really well, but some fanatics have even lodged there. The Muslim world has a lot of challenges, to say the least.

This leads to questions about UN reform and the need for global government, but I won't go into that now. How do we unite a single world, when it's divided into a first, second, and third? Do we flatten it?