|
|
楔子
這是一篇20年前的舊作。我在本城市尋找了一下，沒有找到。我正在寫一篇討論建劬兄《走出歐洲中心主義的心路歷程 -- 命運共同體 VS 文明衝突論》演講的文章；而我認為《五角大廈新地圖》是所謂「文明衝突論」的「軍--商共同體」版本；因此，重新刊登一次，免得我重複其中的部份論點。一方面也幫助大家了解：「(學院派)文明衝突論」的真正功能 -- 做為「後帝國主義」這塊狗肉的「羊頭」(或「正當性」、「理論基礎」等等)。
巴瑞特先生大作中，將全球化分成三個區塊。其中一個是他鼓吹要「縮小」的地區；此地區在他的「地圖」上相當於通稱的「中東」。
當初以「讀者投書」方式批評巴瑞特先生的大作，所以用英文書寫。寄出後沒有時間去查閱是否刊登。我相信沒有必要把它翻譯成中文；所以附錄了一篇當時發表在【知識和社會廣場】部落格的文章(附錄1)，和一篇發表在本城市的文章；幫助網友們了解我在下文中關於「全球化」的論點。 -- 10/2023
On "The Pentagon's New Map"
This is a brief commentary on Mr. Barnett's troubling article - 'The Pentagon's New Map' (Barnett, 2003).
The word "globalization" was used 26 times in Mr. Barnett's paper, "globalizing" twice just for the record, without in a single instance elucidating or explaining the concept. I am sure it is a household term in a globalizing period. However, if one is going to base his or her whole "theory" on a single word, it is an advantageous practice for that person to grasp the idea in a clear and distinct manner, let alone as a good will gesture toward the uninitiated and the to be damned.
After looking into his 'dividing line' carefully, anyone will want to know how did Mr. Barnett apply his classification schemata. Was he using an 'us-them' scheme, or was he using a 'submissive-assertive' (relative to the U. S.) scheme？or if he had one at all？
Mr. Barnett lamented " too many experts treat it (globalization) as a binary outcome". Yet, right after that comment, Mr. Barnett himself presented his 'theory' in a 'binary' map, a 'global' map to boot. May be I should call it a "tertiary" map counting the 'seam states'. But will one extra pole render Mr. Barnett's a thicker 'theory'?
Secondly, the phenomenon of 'globalization' was treated as a single, homogeneous, omni-benevolent concept. The purpose, function, and the obvious polarizing-characteristics of 'globalization' was never analyzed or even mentioned. As if he has never heard of the proverbial "one person's meat is another's poison."
Globalization is the ideology, with the WTO playing the role of the Trojan horse, used by the developed nations, the "Core" in Mr. Barnett's terminology, to battle and circumvent the theory and practice of using tariff to keep unwanted products out of the poor countries, the "Gap" in Mr. Barnett's terminology. The latter cannot afford these products in the first place, and worse, they are draining the capital crucially needed for gaining the entry into the globalization game, shall we call it the 'globalizability'? In addition to capital, a state of course also needs technologies and products to play the game. Which means education, research and development, management skill, to name just a few.
With this understanding, we can state in binary fashion that there are two opposing teams in the globalization game: the globalizing one and the globalized one. By the way, I do not claim to have read all books on the big G theory. I have yet to see anyone to make the distinction in the way presented here.
Let us pause for a moment to consider, if globalization is such a glamorous and enchanting game as Mr. Barnett made it out to be, how did some states always get to be in the 'doing' team, and the other always get to be in the 'done' team for as long as we remember？ Historically, we all know how the West Europeans robbed and butchered their way to get qualified in the globalizing team. And Mr. Barnett is its self-appointed cheerleader chanting："We have not robbed and butchered enough. Go! Go! Go! It is our 'burden' and 'responsibility' to kill them all! Glo! Glo! Glo!" May be this is Darwinian, but in a civilized world, it sure sounds awfully like someone who has just lost his or her shingle somewhere.
To his credit, Mr. Barnett did use the word 'aid' once in the entire paper, the handout connotation not withstanding. The 'Shrinking the Gap' mentality (it sounds like 'Nuke the Gap' to me) is truly amazing and befuddling, not to say horrifying, in light of his awareness of the 'historically' edifying Vietnam experience and familiarity with such smooth and state-of-the-art terms like 'thin', 'thick', 'Darwinian', 'paradigm', 'disconnectedness', 'historical process', etc. God bless America!
Reference:
Barnett, T. B., 2003, 'The Pentagon's New Map', 'Esquire', March 2003 issue.
附錄 1
在國家層次，經濟活動是國力的基礎。在國際層次，國力是經濟活動的前鋒。「全球化」的意思是：「我要到你家後院擺個攤子，促銷(強迫中獎？)給你不是生活必需的產品」。美國、歐盟(的大財團)推動全球化的原因，目的要擴張它們奇技淫巧的市場。第三世界反對全球化，就是怕辛辛苦苦賺來的血汗錢被吸光。換句話說，「全球化」是「帝國主義」財團對抗關稅政策的意識型態。WTO則是「帝國主義」財團消滅保護關稅的木馬。此地的政客在台灣政府沒有長期政策、產業/學術界沒有尖端技術、企業界沒有獨家產品的情況下，還要掛著「全球化」的羊頭侈言「發展經濟」，台灣很快就會淪為「消費殖民地」(或「後關稅殖民地」)這塊「狗肉」。
(摘錄自: 《評親民黨主席宋楚瑜先生的《建構台灣未來的願景》》)
附錄 2
加入 WTO後，「政府」官僚在保護國內企業和上述產業升級的職責功能，更形重要。談判不當，就造成「全球化」時代的「割地賠款」。這種「協商代表」及其主管政務官稱之為「賣台集團」絕不為過。「智財權」的協商就是當前的例子。立法院也必須負擔把關的任務(相關法案的審議)。這是民主制度的好處。一個「賣台集團」還不一定能成交，要兩個「賣台集團」狼狽為奸才行。(摘錄自: 《什麼是政策？》)
本文於 修改第 5 次
|
本城市首頁
等級：8
