ANALYSIS: ATTACKS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH CONSIDERED TO BE POSSIBLE ATTACKS ON GLOBALIZATION

December 14, 2001 on National Public Radio's All Things Considered

LINDA WERTHEIMER, host: Many Europeans died in the attacks of September 11th. In total, citizens of 86 nations were killed, according to Attorney General John Ashcroft. The World Trade Center was perhaps the world's most visible symbol of the connectedness of the global economy and of globalization. Many specialists believe the attacks of September 11th were in some sense an attack on globalization and could very well slow down the process of integrating the global economy. NPR's Mike Shuster has a report.

MIKE SHUSTER reporting:

Last month, an Arab columnist contributing to the Web site Islam Online from the Persian Gulf state of Qatar wrote, `Globalization is a cheap, artificially intelligent form of occupation; and if, by some misfortune, someone decides to stand up to this bloodless globalized occupation, the haves have an alternative to deal with these uncivilized, ungrateful beasts. It's called global bombazation(ph).' Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state, now director of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, says feelings like this run deep in some parts of the world and provide a backdrop for the attacks of September 11th.

Mr. STROBE TALBOTT (Director, Yale Center for the Study of Globalization): We're moving into an era when the great divide, in some ways, is going to be between those who feel like winners in and of the process of globalization and those who feel like losers. And I think that people like Osama bin Laden and forces like al-Qaeda play upon the frustrations and the resentments of those who feel like losers in the process.

SHUSTER: Opposition to globalization is nothing new. It has existed around the world and within the United States for several years. Many governments continue to resist opening up their societies to free trade, to the Internet and to the infusion of American and Western cultural products that have flooded much of the world.

Why nations resist globalization is complex. In some, undemocratic governments fear economic openness will lead to a political challenge to their authority. In others, the opposition comes from civil society when ostentatious consumption and extreme poverty live side by side, breeding explosive discontent. In still others, the sexual content of American movies and music challenges notions about the role of women in traditional societies.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most resistant nations, combining all these factors. Saudi society created Osama bin Laden and most of the participants in the September 11th attacks. Thomas Barnett, a professor at the Naval War College in Rhode Island, agrees that the battle over globalization is emerging as the great geopolitical division of the near future, much as the communist-capitalist schism dominated world affairs for most of the 20th century.

Professor THOMAS BARNETT (Naval War College): If you look around the world and you ask yourself, `Who's doing OK with globalization?' meaning they're not fighting to keep globalization out. It doesn't mean they're not having a hard time dealing with the social and economic and political ramifications of it. But if they're not fighting to keep globalization out, I think that part of the world should not be considered a potential enemy.

SHUSTER: Now in the aftermath of September 11th, Barnett argues, the United States may begin to identify its potential enemies by their resistance to globalization.

Prof. BARNETT: There is a big chunk of the world, in effect, being concentrated around the Middle East where there is a lot of fear and dread with regard to growing connectivity and the kind of cultural content that comes with it. That part of the world is where I think you find the ideologies of the strongest sort that not only fear globalization but want to reject it.

SHUSTER: Although Osama bin Laden has employed vague language to outline his political goals, they are usually understood to include the toppling of governments in Saudi Arabia and Egypt which he views as corrupt puppets of the United States. He has often demanded the withdrawal of American military forces from the Persian Gulf and from Saudi Arabia in particular. And, more broadly, he has expressed the desire to cleanse Muslim societies of American and Western cultural and economic influences. These broader goals are certainly linked to the globalizing trends of recent years, and it is for this reason that some analysts describe bin Laden and his sympathizers as the most extreme wing of the anti-globalization movement.

President Bush and the top people in his administration insist the terrorists will not achieve their goals. But Robert Reich, former secretary of Labor, now a professor at Brandeis University, fears that globalization is already under threat as a result of the September 11th attacks.

Professor ROBERT REICH (Brandeis University): Wittingly or unwittingly, it is very possible that what happened on September 11th may cause the United States to retreat somewhat from globalization.

SHUSTER: What happened on September 11th has certainly caused some of globalization's advocates to begin reconsidering its effects in some parts of the world. Its most fervent adherents--President Clinton was perhaps the most passionate--believe that in the long run globalization is the only force that will lift all nations and societies. But many now concede the process in the 1990s was excessive--that it went too far too fast. Jeffrey Garten, former undersecretary of Commerce, now dean of the Yale School of Management, says September 11th changed the entire framework for globalization.

Mr. JEFFREY GARTEN (Dean, Yale School of Management): There was an underlying mind-set that globalization really translated into more openness in the world economy: the lowering of trade barriers, expansion of deregulation everywhere, a decline in the role of the state, a vast increase in the power of free markets. And I think a lot of that now has to be re-examined because fundamentally the role of government is coming back very strong.

SHUSTER: Garten cites many examples of this since September 11th: the closer monitoring of financial flows and tougher laws against money laundering; a more cautious approach to immigration; tighter customs controls; more monitoring of international airline travel; more controls on the flow of information in cyberspace. Garten believes greater government regulation of international trade is coming, especially in high technology and in food, which could be used as a target of biological or chemical attack. Robert Reich agrees.

Prof. REICH: All of that makes it more difficult to be part of a world trading system. American companies that, because of just-in-time inventories, had outsourced a lot of their production to the rest of the world now find that they can't get reliable deliveries because there are so many inspections at the borders of cargoes. They are outsourcing to American firms here in the United States. That means less global trade, less global integration.

SHUSTER: In the aftermath of September 11th, there's a growing sense in the United States of the dangers that come with globalization and a newfound focus on protection, says Jeffrey Garten.

Mr. GARTEN: In the '90s, the watchword was `opportunity.' How do we open up new opportunities for producers and consumers around the world? Now the watchword is `vulnerability.' How do we protect ourselves against this global open society where virtually anything can be transmitted, both good and bad, very, very quickly.

SHUSTER: This shift in attitude is dramatic and could very well contribute to a global economic slowdown, but the repercussions could go beyond the economic. The costs of American homeland defense will be large. In the current context of recession and renewed federal budget deficits, those costs could encroach on other priority spending areas. If there are more terrorist attacks with mass casualties, Americans, some analysts worry, may come to see the US economic and military presence around the world as too much of a liability. Given hard choices, Americans could say, `Let's spend on homeland defense and bring the American military back to defend the local, not distant, shores.' Strobe Talbott believes that would be disastrous.

Mr. TALBOTT: The danger is real, and the consequences of that danger coming about would be vast. We would, in effect, be abandoning the field internationally to our enemies; and not only would our interests suffer, but so would the many people caught in between. It would include a lot of our friends and allies.

SHUSTER: All of the experts interviewed for this report do not favor such an outcome, but they do express concerns that such an outcome is possible. They agree, though, that the world changed on September 11th not just for the United States but for the integration of the global economy as well. Mike Shuster, NPR News, Los Angeles.