Dear Tarit, the reason why you advocate for Globalism is understandable, but there are a few things to consider:
1) GLOBALIZATION, EUROPE and DEVELOPING COUNTRIES ISSUES – In Europe and in the US the solution to fix the market and boost our democracies is not having more globalization (global socialism) but less globalization. Globalization makes few very rich, many very poor and impoverishes others while destroys our natural resources, tramples underfoot our democracies and spread corruption. In Europe and the US we already have enough resources and human capital; we just have to fix a couple of problems mainly linked to wrong and obsolete philosophical views and to differentiate our energy supply. In your opinion the “real problem is the imperfection in the market, state and civil administration which has buried universal definition of democracy for, of and by the people”. As I said, the European problem can be solved implementing precise economic reforms at local level, hence the debate about the Euro and euro-regulation, and about immigration. Our democracy is troubled but not in danger; we have to make use of our legal means to fix a couple of things and this is doable. We need our companies to take back home the production to boost again our economy, we need the state to stop blocking the internal market dynamism with hyper-regulations (France, Italy), we need to be better represented in political terms on crucial issues such us: energy, immigration, economy. On the contrary the problem for emerging economies like China, which depends heavily on exports of goods and imports of oil and other raw materials from Africa, India which depends on services they provide to the Us and also from imports of raw materials from abroad, or many Muslim countries is that less globalization for them means less jobs, and less jobs means spreading of poverty and internal political instability. A full democracy is yet to be improved in these countries; with different intensity analphabetism, hunger, discrimination, poverty, political oppression and misrepresentation etc. are still present. And these are internal endemic problems that can be solved by the good will of their politicians. It is about time that every nation improves by itself a stable democratic system and to create its own internal market, help its people enjoy liberty and exit poverty, exploit its resources and be able to make a fair trade with the rest of the world.
2) GLOBALIZATION, MIGRATIONS, CULTURAL RELATIVISM, GLOBAL SOCIALISM – there is no contradiction here, on the contrary. Follow my reasoning: Globalization is that process that allows a few capitalists to get richer and richer making others poorer. Look, I am all pro private enterprise, and capitalism is also ok, but I am against brutal massive exploitation practices such as Globalization.
Globalization pushes jobless people from underdeveloped countries to move legally and mostly illegally to Europe, and pushes jobless educated Europeans to move also in Europe or to go abroad (Canada, US).
But many Europeans don’t want to leave their country and also oppose to massive immigration because, you know, they also care about their traditions, their home, and most of all about their jobs. How to prolong then the agonizing socialistic structures that still keep in power the same old guys? How to convince Europeans that “they absolutely need” more immigrants otherwise the State won’t have money for their retirements and social health care, because the birth rate is dropping and educated Europeans don’t want to do ‘certain jobs’ (and the birth rate is dropping because they killed the market and people can’t buy a house or raise a family)? It’s easy: from the Us and the British ‘Liberal Arts departments’ the advocates of globalism found a way to enforce their agenda by appealing to European naïf leftists implementing affirmative action, political correctness, promote cultural relativism and also, very important, a hatred toward Christianity and Judaism to led Europeans to despise their our traditions in order to welcome with ‘open borders’ people coming from Muslim countries, especially from North Africa and from all over the underdeveloped world. Globalist ideologist find particularly appealing Islamic socialism, whose means perfectly suits their needs. This is how they thought they could successfully implement ‘integration’ in Europe. But most of all in order to exist, western European socialism needs a mass of people that work for nothing, exauthorated of their democratic rights, rights that they acquire being born in a country. That is why I disagree with you when you say that:“Any state shall not maintain dual policies: one for the original citizens and the other for the migrants, maintaining dual policies will cause problem in the society”. “Open borders” theory it’s a utopist illusion. A society cannot change because some politician decided that it has to be changed nor can open its borders to accommodate everyone without explaining why and having an agreement with its citizens. By the way, each country already offers legal paths to citizenships for those who qualify. Obtaining the citizenship of another country is always a “concession”, not a “right”.
3) IMMIGRATION – This is not about racism as you see. If you ask me: “Could you please tell me where lies the differences between you and me as human being. Blood group, complexion, and then what else?”. Tarit, If you introduce the ‘racist’ card pretending to have misunderstood my point, it implies that you’re trying to sell out a worldview already widely rejected in many parts of the world. Again, this is not about racism. The debate around immigration in Europe focuses rather on these two issues: 1) whether we shall apply the Canadian way of ‘immigration choisie’, or rather apply the ‘American way’. The Canadian way says that people with a certain cultural background are more welcomed then others as they bring “added value” to the economy and the society, as they’ll probably be more willing or capable of sharing their ‘diversity’ and integrate without necessarily turn to be a menace to “us” and our values. Culture is a crucial factor to assure integration; 2) Europe (Western and Eastern) is pretty crowded already and there is a huge mass of unemployed Europeans (also with Phds) ready to take almost whatever jobs; there is no reason nor possibility to keep the “borders open” to extra-EU citizens unless we lack highly specialized figures. You would be more than welcome in Europe Tarit, but please remind that the era of globalization is kind of over and emigration to Europe, Us, Canada and Australia will become more and more difficult.
4) MARY KALDOR HYPOTESIS ON GLOBAL GOVERNANCE – You quoted “Mary Kaldor hypothesis on Integrated Relations among Global Governance, Global Civil Society and Human Security Is Complete Life ”; I saw her in a video on YouTube and I am not surprised to see that she’s one of those theorist of Globalization (she is professor of ‘Global Governance’, a word that sound very frightening to me, at the LSE). This is ‘THE enemy’ we are fighting around the world: globalization and socialism. Namely the false believe that these ideologies once applied could bring benefit to all ‘humanity’. First of all, this mindset is already depreciable as it’s a ‘deterministic and totalitarian’ thought (Marxist determinism). The same word ‘humanity’ stands for “masses” in the mind of eminent professors and economists and is used by the establishment to sell us the fairy tale of the “innumerable benefits” the “humanity” will have by embracing some sort of “Global Governance”, and to cover the rapacity of “entities” such as corporations, WTO, IMF, and useless and expensive global political entities such as UN. The abuses of globalism, affirmative action, political correctness etc, that originated and spread from the Us and Uk Liberal Arts departments is huge, but the good news is that: we finally got the trick and things will hopefully change. As for the “Imperfections in the market, state and civil administration which has buried universal definition of democracy” as our bigger problem, I don’t agree with it either as it implies again a ‘global’ view on humanity and implies that ‘someone’, usually an ‘economist’, knows what is good or bad for all the people. On the contrary as Thomas Jefferson said I think that: “democracy should never be practiced outside the limits of a town“.