Call for papers vol 9, no. 1, 2018 is open until 30 March 2018


Attention: open in a new window. PDFPrintE-mail


actors - the US and its allies-in the globalized world. How wrongly the representatives of
global civil society misjudged the character of the „first ethical war” and its implications,
was proven by the interventions that followed, especially by the occupation of Iraq in 2003
(against which many of them raised their voices, without establishing the link between the
two interventions).
However, the obstacles to the development of a cosmopolitan project are not only rooted
in the inconsistencies produced by those aspiring to uncontested global power, by the
vested interests of the new self-proclaimed rule makers, nor in the normative illusions nurtured
by (some) representatives of the global civil society. On a more substantial level obstacles
are to be found in the dominant economic – neoliberal-paradigme, and the tensions
existing between the neoliberal and cosmopolitan project.

2. Normative paradoxes of the global era

From the mid-1970s neoliberalism emerged as an anti-Keynesian intellectual and political
program/project. In the name of greater economic efficiency and growth, the neoliberal
project vehemently argued against state interventionism (i.e. for a minimalist role of the
state), placing its full trust in the „invisible hand” of the market forces, celebrating deregulation,
trade liberalization and privatization of state and social property. Neoliberalism
gained a wide following in developed, developing, and after the fall of the Berlin wall, in exsocialist
countries,7 resulting in what, W. Robinson termed, “global neoliberal consensus”.
Taking a look at the assumptions and practical achievements of the global neoliberal project
one can explore whether it is compatible with the advocated cosmopolitan project.
Comparing the two projects from the standpoint of responsibility, one will discover that
they are rooted in two opposing logics. The neoliberal ideology/project presupposes avoidance
of social responsibility. The combination of deregulation and locally unbound capital,
i.e. free-floating capital circulating around the globe in search for maximum profits and
minimum duties, ultimately creates the basis for shedding responsibilites for the social and
environmental consequences of the interventions of global capital in the local communites,
for the daily life and needs of the citizens („the self-reproduction of the living conditions of
all”, Z. Bauman). The unbrideled („intoxicating”) freedom from territorial bounds, the
possibility of the capital to move in and out of local communities at short notice, on the
one hand, and the deconstruction of the consensus between state, capital and labour, on
the other, replace (the principle of) solidarity and social justice (the mechanisms of redistribution)
with indifference, uncertainity and social disempowerment of the majority. In con-
7 Ha-Joon Cheng (2003), Globalisation, Economic Development and the Role of the State, London, Zed Books, p.

Creative Commons License
Security Dialogues by Toni Mileski is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at

Copyright © 2012 Security Dialogues. Designed by Cube Systems