the thing in parentheses is necessary. Leaving it out is silly.
...
> 1. Globalization promotes the conditions for war. Ethnic and
> religious differences mask the underlying economic causes of the more
> than 30 wars raging around the world today. Inequality, competition
> for dwindling resources, and environmental degradation are factors in
> the outbreak of armed conflict that are worsened by free trade.
It's not "free trade" that's the problem as much a free movement of capital...
> Globalization undermines the ability of governments to regulate and
> mitigate the damaging effects of the market, which leads to an
> intensification of all of the economic causes of war.
this second point is weaker. If the government can't do anything (due to globalization) it may become less of a matter for inter-ethnic conflict. BTW, multinationals don't want _open_ ethnic conflict (as in Rwanda) since it hurts business. (They may use latent conflict to divide and rule employees, but that's different.)
> 2. Globalization promotes military spending over social spending.
>
> "Security exceptions" in free trade [sic] agreements grant governments a
> free hand in military spending, but place limits on social spending.
> Thus, governments use military spending to achieve non-defense goals
> such as job creation, regional development, and subsidization of
> local corporations through defense contracts.
>
> Since the late 1990s, world military spending has been on the rise
> and is now nearly $1 trillion a year - almost half of this is by the
> United States alone.
this misses the other causes of increased military spending, such as promotion by the sellers.
> 3. Globalization requires police and military protection of corporate
> interests.
>
> Popular movements opposed to globalization's harsh economic agenda
> have been emerging around the world, especially since the famous
> protests derailed the WTO in Seattle in 1999. Police forces have
> responded with increased repression and intolerance for political
> protests. Armed with powerful new anti-terrorism laws such as the
> Patriot Act, security forces can use totalitarian-like measures to
> investigate and detain people whose only "crime" may be to advocate
> for a fair global economy that serves the interests of ordinary
> people.
we didn't have police before the current wave of capitalist globalization? and the Patriot act was encouraged by actual terrorism -- though I guess it could be argued that Osama and the boys are anti-globalists, so that the Patriot Act (an exploitation of US fears by the Bushwackers) could be seen as anti-anti-globalization.
> Meanwhile, the Pentagon is realigning and expanding its vast
> international network of bases along the frontiers of the global
> economy, such as in central Asia. And in places like Colombia, U.S.
> troops and weapons are being deployed where uprisings threaten
> corporate investments.
again, this conflates "globalization" with a lot of other things that are going on.
> 4. Globalization undermines grassroots peace work.
>
> Government and corporate interests can use trade agreements to limit
> people's ability to lobby for government policies that promote peace.
> Legislative victories by popular movements advocating economic
> sanctions or divestment campaigns against repressive states may be
> challenged and overturned by free trade regimes such as the WTO.
are such sanctions a good idea? how can a "peace movement" advocate economic sanctions, which are tantamount to war (as against Iraq or Cuba)? kicking a country out of the Olympics (as happened to South Africa under the anti-apartheid campaign) doesn't violate "free trade" agreements. Nor does divestment.
...
> 5. Globalization promotes corporate security over human security.
>
> Globalization and free trade regimes align government interests with
> corporate interests, resulting in the state increasingly assuming the
> role of promoter and defender of corporate interests at home and
> abroad....
they didn't do this before globalization? the difference is that the businesses were more local, if a country was independent.
weak!
Jim Devine