Obama on Globalization

barack obama sweatshop

Before reading Dreams From My Father, I knew that Barack Obama had a Kenyan father and an American mother, and had assumed from that that he would have thought out issues of international relations in greater depth than many American politicians. Reading his book, I was pleasantly surprised. Prior to his multiple trips to Kenya, Obama actually spent about three years living in Indonesia as a child. His time in Jakarta has, at least from some of the thoughts he included, given him a level of healthy skepticism regarding globalization and economic development. Also, for what it’s worth, his degree from Columbia was in international relations.

Based on his experience and study, I think Obama is at least more likely to understand the complexity of international economic developments. The greater question is whether a nuanced view of the effects of particular U.S. foreign policy decisions would really lead to substantively better decisions when he’s placed in a position where the accepted thing to do is to promote U.S. interests (i.e., the presidency, or the U.S. Senate).

His strong support for ethanol energy leads my thoughts in two diverging directions. One thought is that Obama recognizes our dependency on foreign oil and knows how a craving for natural resources can often overcome the best of ideological intentions in foreign policy (note our alliance with Saudi Arabia, or interventions in Ecuador). However, the stronger point that this support makes to me is less optimistic: Obama represents a state with heavy agricultural interests, and pressing for subsidies for ethanol-related agriculture seems to be an indication of self-interest for his district, the simple, unexceptional role for a politician in a regionally-based representative democracy.

Of course, politicians are most likely to act with speed and assurance when ideological/ moral and economic/ political incentives coincide. (This is the basis for making ‘good’ foreign policy decisions espoused by Robert Kaplan, author of Balkan Ghosts and other books: we should intervene when our moral and economic interests provide an unavoidable synergy).

In short, I need to read more of what Obama’s written and said on farm subsidies in relation to international development to see if his views have conveniently shifted to a more pro-U.S.-agriculture stance with his rise to political power.

Here’s what he says about economic modernization/globalization as it affects Indonesian workers:

I tried to imagine the Indonesian workers who were now making their way to the sorts of factories that had once sat along the banks of the Calumet River [in south Chicago], joining the ranks of wage labor to assemble the radios and sneakers that sold on Michigan Avenue. I imagined those same Indonesian workers ten, twenty years from now, when their factories would have closed down, a consequence of new technology or lower wages in some other part of the globe. And then the bitter discovery that their markets have vanished; that they no longer remember how to weave their own baskets or carve their own furniture or grow their own food; that even if they remember such craft, the forests that gave them wood are now owned by timber interests, the baskets they once wove have been replaced by more durable plastics. The very existence of the factories, the timber interests, the plastics manufacturer, will have rendered their culture obsolete; the values of hard work and individual initiative turnout to have depended on a system of belief that’s been scrambled by migration and urbanization and imported TV reruns. Some of them would prosper in this new order. Others would move to America. And the others, the millions left behind in Djakarta, or Lagos, or the West Bank, they would settle into their own Altgeld Gardens [the projects where Obama worked], into a deeper despair.

His other, newer book, The Audacity of Hope, has at least one section about foreign policy (I noticed while browsing in a bookstore) so I guess that’ll have to go on the reading list as well.

Advertisements

9 Responses to Obama on Globalization

  1. I think Kenya and other African countries could do with a Chinese-style “pillage and rape of our culture and economic systems”. Obama’s rendition of the “plight” of the Indonesian workers fails to acknowledge an important fact. These peoples traditional, cultural and economic systems have proven unable to deliver a modern lifestyle for them. Is it his understanding that only Americans and Europeans desire to travel, to be entertained and to enjoy a privileged lifestyle?

    Idealizing the lifestyles of the poor (i.e. they are better off staying on their farms, whiling away the hours carving their own furniture and growing their own food) is a pretext employed by those who have the most to fear from globalisation. And that’s not the poor, who are suffering anyway, but those who have benefited from the skewed nature of global trade, America and Western Europe. I am yet to hear Obama urging the residents of Manhattan to settle the prairies, weave baskets and grow their own food.

  2. Larry Jennings says:

    The problems inherent in globalization will soon be approached by levelization of all world economies. By this, I mean a redistribution of all the wealth and resources to distribute everything evenly. You know, socialism. It is obvious to anyone that this is the intent of globalization. In every socialist system there remains a wealthy elite in control. I suppose that this is all just part of some vast economic redistribution of spoils being played out on a global scale?

    It is up to the American voter to realize the dangers of globalization. The danger of giving up their sovereignty and autonomy for economic reasons, Or for reasons of peace at any cost. Socialism as a form of appeasement is unacceptable for the human race in general and for Americans in particular. Obama hasn’t asked Manhattanites to settle the praries yet, but then Stalin didn’t murder all the generals in his army until after he had seized power.

  3. Larry,
    Your interpretation of globalisation would make a socialist of Adam Smith. The fact is a fair and open trading system does not seek to redistribute wealth but rather to allocate resources more efficiently. To grow the pie rather than share out a shrinking one. In rejecting it, both you and Obama seem to be in the mold of the very mercantilists Smith was opposed to.

  4. Dimitri says:

    Globalization is such a complicated issue its not even funny. If anything its widening the gap between rich and poor. FDI is still heavily concentrated in the developed nations, as are world exports and imports. However, developing world countries, specifically the southeast asian ones, are increasing their market share of imports and FDI, from about 1/4 in 1960 to 1/3 today. Still, this only marks an increased discrepancy among developing nations, i.e. South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Hong Kong, China are all improving their quality of life, while Africa is still in the shithole (many sub-saharan african nations have actually had decreases in real dollars in terms of gdp since the 1960s). Hardly a ‘leveling of the playing field,” it may imporve conditions for newly industrialized nations, but it also widens the gap between the rich and poor countries.

    Also, fair and open policies are two different things. Open would mean Transnational corporations can take advantage of less militant labor forces and lower wage labor in order to vertically disintegrate and more efficiently produce goods. Fair trading policies are meant to make American wage labor more competitive on the global market by increasing wages elsewhere. However, it is this increase in wage labor in other countries that would discourage FDI and would discourage firms from setting up foreign branch plant industry.

    ALSO, a lot of the developing nations have outstanding debts to square. While the US’s debt has just reached 4% of its GDP, indebted countries like Jamaica’s debt are 30-130% of their GDP. This is a cycle we have yet to figure out how to fix, but it is generally agreed that open trade policies make situations in these countries better off, not worse. These three points Ive made are also just the tip of the iceberg. You should take a class on the geography of globalization somewhere (UCLA has a great one), and find out more about the subject if it interests you.

  5. JackHester says:

    I’m with Larry Jennings – at least his last paragraph. Globalism is only partly economic -it’s mostly political and designed to bring down America to africa and indian standards and do away with our sovereignty and standard of living.

    These goals are obama’s too.

    JackHester http://twitter.com/JackHester

  6. Mohan says:

    You are right. Dreams From My Father gives a glimpse into Obama’s perspectives on Globalization that he brings in with the death of experience few American, or for that matter other global leaders have.

  7. Dr. Paul Anderson says:

    If there is an doubt as to whether or not Pres. Obama
    is a proponent of “Globalization”, a search of the United Nations G-20 Summit transcripts, will eliminate all doubt.
    Since it’s inception, the United Nations ( uniting of nations ) has been engaged in uniting the nations (member states) of this world, into a Global Union.
    A Global Union or One World Goverment, referred to as: “Global Governance”.
    This Global Union is governed by: “International Law”
    (Roman Statute)under a Socialist form of goverment.
    ( Google search: Marx and Globalization )
    Keep in mind, all of Pres. Obama’s policies are specific goals established by the United Nations.
    ( Google search: United Nations 2015 Millennium Development Goals & Agenda 21 )

  8. Don Mitchel says:

    Sadly being as a registered republican who worked, to help President Obama defeat Mrs. Clinton, I believed he would curtail economic globalization by not allowing economic interest of foreign nations to destroy our environment. Obviously this is not the case if you study his ballast water approach.
    Our country is an experiment in cultural globalization that is not capable of providing jobs for its own people. The past 20 year period is not about some grand plan to pull the world up by the economic help of a global economy interacting for the common good. It is about looking the other way, on environmental destruction, compromising our core values to finance agendas, create personal prestige, and direction of revenue to political origins, all while portraying globalization as a noble vision for the common good. Economic globalization by a free market society that all people can benefit from can not be achieved by interlacing our countries economy with a communist country that controls the size of their middle class workers to benefit their currency valuation, while controlling the distribution of wealth to the privileged few. In other words they control the amount of have and have not’s in their population, so the crooks can get rich. Our country has become dependent on imports for our largest employers. We can not even act, with legislation to keep our water and air clean from foreign ships bringing in foreign manufactured goods, all at the expense of American jobs, because we are not economically free. “As the United States becomes more aware of its
    economic dependence on a global market and the impact that invasive species have in the movement of
    people, products, and supplies, so too will the role of the nation’s socio-economic well-being become a
    part of the equation in managing invasive species”. this is from (invasivespecies@doi.gov)you can e-mail them. Sadly this confirms the environment is an equation to be performed with economic dependence on a global market. The worst part is this dependence is on a communist country that dose not even share our basic human rights values. Ballast water laws affecting mostly foreign ships and the price of foreign manufactured goods would rise according to a 2009 report for congress,– but this would hurt a plan for economic globalization which will carry our country on the coat tails of a communist country until the next global crisis. Nobel winners call for tariffs to help create jobs,– report for congress says national ballast legislation to cause cost of imports to rise. It just might have same effect as tariffs without a trade war, what dose this administration do??? It offers incentives to foreign ships bringing foreign goods into our country, if they decide to volunteer to install technology to protect our water. Sadly the time has come for our country to face this piper and create protections from our own politicians or lose what freedom we still have. President Obama is far from his campaign promise. Those who care about our environment, and vote should remember his failure to address ballast water during this economic slow down of foreign ships bringing foreign manufactured goods into our country and his campaign comments about not allowing a country to have an economic advantage over another country at the expense of the environment. Please also remember the use of toxic dispersant s experimentally under water using dilution as the solution, pretty much appears to be his same plan for ballast water nationally although his military plan is non-transparent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: