New York Times foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman has traveled the globe writing about attitudes toward the U.S. and world reactions to the war on terror. In his book, “Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11th,” he compiles his experiences and explains the many challenges facing freedom and democracy. Here's an excerpt:
PROLOGUE: THE SUPER-STORY
I am a big believer in the idea of the super-story, the notion that we all carry around with us a big lens, a big framework, through which we look at the world, order events, and decide what is important and what is not. The events of 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum. They happened in the context of a new international system — a system that cannot explain everything but can explain and connect more things in more places on more days than anything else. That new international system is called globalization. It came together in the late 1980s and replaced the previous international system, the cold war system, which had reigned since the end of World War II. This new system is the lens, the super-story, through which I viewed the events of 9/11.
I define globalization as the inexorable integration of markets, nation-states, and communication systems to a degree never witnessed before — in a way that is enabling corporations, nation-states, and individuals to reach around the world farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before, and in a way that is enabling the world to reach into corporations, nation-states, and individuals farther, faster, deeper, and cheaper than ever before.
There are several important features of this globalization system, different from those of the cold war system, which are quite relevant for understanding the events of 9/11. I examined them in detail in my previous book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, and want to simply high-light them here.
The cold war system was characterized by one overarching feature — and that was division. That world was a divided-up, chopped-up place, and whether you were a country or a company, your threats and opportunities in the cold war system tended to grow out of who you were divided from. Appropriately, this cold war system was symbolized by a single word — wall, the Berlin Wall. One of my favorite descriptions of that world was provided by Jack Nicholson in the movie A Few Good Men. Nicholson plays a colonel in the Marine Corps who is the commander of the U.S. base in Cuba, at Guantánamo Bay. In the climactic scene of the movie, Nicholson is pressed by Tom Cruise to explain how a certain weak solider under Nicholson’s command, Santiago, was beaten to death by his own fellow marines. “You want answers?” shouts Nicholson. “You want answers?” “I want the truth,” answers Cruise. “You can’t handle the truth,” says Nicholson. “Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? . . . I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know — that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.”
The globalization system is different. It also has one overarching feature — and that is integration. The world has become an increasingly interwoven place, and today, whether you are a company or a country, your threats and opportunities increasingly derive from who you are connected to. This globalization system is also characterized by a single word — web, the World Wide Web. So in the broadest sense we have gone from an international system built around division and walls to a system increasingly built around integration and webs. In the cold war we reached for the hotline, which was a symbol that we were all divided but at least two people were in charge — the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union. In the globalization system we reach for the Internet, which is a symbol that we are all connected and nobody is quite in charge.
Everyone in the world is directly or indirectly affected by this new system, but not everyone benefits from it, not by a long shot, which is why the more it becomes diffused, the more it also produces a backlash by people who feel overwhelmed by it, homogenized by it, or unable to keep pace with its demands.
The other key difference between the cold war system and the globalization system is how power is structured within them. The cold war system was built primarily around nation-states. You acted on the world in that system through your state. The cold war was a drama of states confronting states, balancing states, and aligning with states. And, as a system, the cold war was balanced at the center by two superstates, two superpowers: the United States and the Soviet Union.
The globalization system, by contrast, is built around three balances, which overlap and affect one another. The first is the traditional balance of power between nation-states. In the globalization system, the United States is now the sole and dominant superpower and all other nations are subordinate to it to one degree or another. The shifting balance of power between the United States and other states, or simply between other states, still very much matters for the stability of this system. And it can still explain a lot of the news you read on the front page of the paper, whether it is the containment of Iraq in the Middle East or the expansion of NATO against Russia or the rising power of China, counterbalanced by Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.
The second important power balance in the globalization system is between nation-states and global markets. These global markets are made up of millions of investors moving money around the world with the click of a mouse. I call them the Electronic Herd, and this herd gathers in key global financial centers — such as Wall Street, Hong Kong, London, and Frankfurt — which I call the Supermarkets. The attitudes and actions of the Electronic Herd and the Supermarkets can have a huge impact on nation-states today, even to the point of triggering the downfall of governments. Who ousted Suharto in Indonesia in 1998? It wasn’t another state, it was the Supermarkets, by withdrawing their support for, and confidence in, the Indonesian economy. You also will not understand the front page of the newspaper today unless you bring the Supermarkets into your analysis. Because the United States can destroy you by dropping bombs, but the Supermarkets can destroy you by downgrading your bonds. In other words, the United States is the dominant player in maintaining the globalization game board, but it is hardly alone in influencing the moves on that game board.
The third balance that you have to pay attention to — the one that is really the newest of all and the most relevant to the events of 9/11 — is the balance between individuals and nation-states. Because globalization has brought down many of the walls that limited the movement and reach of people, and because it has simultaneously wired the world into networks, it gives more power to individuals to influence both markets and nation-states than at any other time in history. Whether by enabling people to use the Internet to communicate instantly at almost no cost over vast distances, or by enabling them to use the Web to transfer money or obtain weapons designs that normally would have been controlled by states, or by enabling them to go into a hardware store now and buy a five-hundred-dollar global positioning device, connected to a satellite, that can direct a hijacked airplane — globalization can be an incredible force-multiplier for individuals. Individuals can increasingly act on the world stage directly, unmediated by a state.
So you have today not only a superpower, not only Supermarkets, but also what I call “super-empowered individuals.” Some of these super-empowered individuals are quite angry, some of them quite wonderful — but all of them are now able to act much more directly and much more powerfully on the world stage.
Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States in the late 1990s, and after he organized the bombing of two American embassies in Africa, the U.S. Air Force retaliated with a cruise missile attack on his bases in Afghanistan as though he were another nation-state. Think about that: on one day in 1998, the United States fired 75 cruise missiles at bin Laden. The United States fired 75 cruise missiles, at $1 million apiece, at a person! That was the first battle in history between a superpower and a super-empowered angry man. September 11 was just the second such battle. Jody Williams won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her contribution to the international ban on land mines. She achieved that ban not only without much government help, but in the face of opposition from all the world’s major powers. When she was asked, “How did you do that, how did you organize one thousand different human rights and arms control groups on six continents?” she had a very brief answer: “E-mail.”
Nation-states, and the American superpower in particular, are still hugely important today, but so too now are Supermarkets and super-empowered individuals. You will never understand the globalization system, or the front page of the morning paper — or 9/11 — unless you see each one as a complex interaction between all three of these actors: states bumping up against states, states bumping up against Supermarkets, and Supermarkets and states bumping up against super-empowered individuals — many of whom, unfortunately, are super-empowered angry men.
Excerpted from “Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11” by Thomas Friedman. Copyright © 2003 Thomas Friedman. Published by Farrar Straus & Giroux. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt can be used without permission of the publisher.