I don't think massification and globalization and all those other 'izations' are necessarily hostile to regionalism.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In this day and age, the U.S. and Europe do not have the luxury of focusing solely on a single region.
In a typically contradictory move, globalisation, while promoting economic integration among elites, has exacerbated sectarianism everywhere else.
The 'anti-globalisation movement' is the most significant proponent of globalisation - but in the interests of people, not concentrations of state-private power.
Globalization, far from putting an end to power diplomacy between States, has, on the contrary, intensified it.
So is it always nationalist to resist US globalization? The US thinks it is, and wants you to agree; and, moreover, to consider US interests as being universal ones.
I give lectures on globalization. I have lived on three continents. I have no quarrel with a global consciousness.
Imperialism or globalization - I don't have to care what it's called to hate it.
That's what I think regions are about, making central government more accountable and fairer.
If we have major geographic areas within our continent that have a tremendous lack of economic opportunity, we found that that is going to produce instability _ economic, political and social.
Geography has no bearing on it, nor have the interests of the community in which I work.