Four years ago, Joschka Fischer, the then German foreign minister told an anti-globalization rally in one of the South American countries, "If I were 20 years old, I would have joined those who opposed globalization. I exactly know what ideas I pursued as a youth and what dreams were going about in my mind. I went through many difficulties before coming to grips with realities."

I think, Dr. Sari-ol-Qalam has tried in his book, Iran and Globalization, to facilitate passing through such difficult realities for Iranian readers. He, like Fischer, believes that Iranians should come to grips with realities in order to achieve a correct understanding of interaction with the Western world, inevitable realities that can help Iran with globalization process over the next decades.

Changing concepts of time and space during concluding years of the 20th century, which have been predicted by Marshal McLuhan in 1960s, constitute the most important global changes whose dimensions are gradually becoming clear for people. Information technology and other technologies that have conquered the world, give more meaning to the idea of globalization. We must add the changing role of state powers in the process of globalization to the said factors. Three global institutions (including World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank), which as put by William K. Tab have dominated the post-war world and are playing the role of governments, enjoy all characteristics of a global government, which is serving the interests of transnational companies as well as international financial institutions.

These are coordinates of an evolving world which is pushing the traditional world back; a world which accounted for our identity over past centuries and every effort by us, Iranians, to form a new world would prove futile. The book, Iran and Globalization, intends to cut Gordian knots with which the Iranians have been grappling over the past decades and posed serious challenges to contemporary thinkers during the whole length of the 20th century.

More than concentrating on large-scale, strategic concepts, the writer has paid attention to those issues that are rooted in political and social behavior of Iranians toward themselves and the western world. It was previously assumed that confrontation between Iran and the Western world requires large-scale, strategic metamorphoses, but the writer believes that Iranians enjoy covert behaviors which prevent them from taking a correct approach to interaction with the West.

One of the important bases for understanding issues by us, Iranians, is to discover why it has always been difficult to reach a consensus about establishing systems and bringing about any kind of change in Iran? In comparison, commonalties between Westerners and the Japanese have made their decisions fruitful. Another example is that since Iranian students were sent to Western countries they have been subject to skepticism from certain parts of the society to the extent that Majd-ol-Molk called Iranian students who had studied abroad as "Iranian ostriches", and then concludes, "Since priority given to change and progress under Abbas Mirza and Amir Kabir were at odds with interests of courtiers in irregularity of political and economic activities, reforms could not be promoted as a national priority." From this viewpoint, the question is whether all pillars of a government are interested in progress according to a common logic or not? This situation has not been witnessed since the time of Safavids up to the now. The consensus reached in Japan in 1870 was repeated in China one century later in 1970. Iran is the sole ancient country, which has not yet achieved that consensus. Continuation of the situation as it was under Qajar dynasty and lack of a coherent system of government led to emergence of schools of thought which, to their own belief, tried to do away with despotism and worked toward progress of Iran.

Failure in establishing a modern government, which has been a major preoccupation for intellectuals during past 100 years, is perhaps the most awesome challenge facing contemporary thinkers as well. The tempest arising from modernity in Iran not only failed to make traditions retreat, but also led modernity to an ambiguous point where Iranians have needed to recreate concepts of modernity over past decades.

Introduction of western technology, establishment of new schools, universities and research centers, opening radio and television stations and other manifestations of the worldly civilization, did not help Iranians achieve their ends because the concept of modern government was a lost link, whose absence could not be compensated by transfer of technology or its accessories.

It is, perhaps, for this reason that Mahmoud Sari-ol-Qalam believes that "tradition of a modern government in Iran was never applied in Iran in its true sense after the rule of Safavids." Although role of individuals, pressure groups, as well as personalities and interests cannot be ignored in any government, the main issue is degree and extent of entry of such data in logical decision-makings in a country. During Qajar and Pahlavi rule, large groups of princes, relatives, dependents, and various people played a role in state processes without having clear-cut posts in the hierarchy of the government. In fact, industry, art and the complicated art of ruling a country, with modern and regular characteristics which would be in line with global developments, were absent in Iran. A writer once wrote that raising future princes and rulers was one of the main institutions of Iran’s political system, which was assured through continuation of the country’s political system. However, autocratic kings restricted those princes and members of the royal family to palaces, so as not to be a threat to their rule. The same writer quotes Jean Chardin as saying, "…Through what experience or competency will Iranian kings, who have seen nowhere and have not found an opportunity to train their interpretation abilities and learn something about the world around them, rule a country? These young kings come into being in such a way as if they have fallen down from the clouds and since they are immediately surrounded by sycophants, it is no surprise that young kings easily give in to their whims and behave despotically."

Iran and Globalization explains social and political pathology of the Iranian society, on the one hand, while on the other hand, reviews new definitions that have dominated the world during the past two decades. Speed and access to information, differences in time and space, as well as Internet-based exchange of goods and products are major characteristics of the modern world.

In the modern world, access to information is easy. The result of this important pillar of globalization is giving more information to people about conditions, facilities and opportunities outside their living frames. Access to information and new data provokes thought, growth and creativity. While it was possible in the past century for a person to live in the same geographical location all his life and remain uninformed about hundreds and thousands of developments and changes; invention of airplanes, Internet, and telephone has made Man’s mind to think in global terms while being impressed by specific culture and geographical conditions. The writer has noted that globalization has done away with the concepts of time and place. Any person in any situation is both a person and a member of human community. These conditions present a new meaning of public culture and national sovereignty and forcefully remove restrictions around those concepts. People and companies trade commodities without knowing one another or having previously become familiar. People accept invitations without having known one another beforehand. At least in economic aspects of trade, ethnic, religious as well as national prejudices are becoming lackluster. Accepting a certain level of risk, more reliance on computers and digital data, putting confidence in individuals, institutions, contracts and deadlines are all among considerable fields for cooperation and interaction that have had precedence in human history. The main point within paradox of trust and risk is that everybody knows that growth will not be possible in the absence of international interactions.

An important point which links various chapters of the book is attention to barriers to the said interaction on which the writer has put much emphasis. That interaction has gone through many ups and downs over the past century without achieving a conclusive result. Sometimes governments have tried to establish that interaction and sometimes nations have contributed to it. Experience of Pahlavi regime is a symbol of intense inclination of Pahlavi statesmen to the West. Those tendencies were forcefully rejected by the nation in the February of 1979.

The first Pahlavi king (Reza Shah) was different from Qajar kings in that he resorted to brute force for reconstruction of Iran. Those developments coincided with independence of Egypt in 1920 and establishment of a republic government in Turkey in 1924. Turkey became a role model for the Iranian statesmen under the first Pahlavi monarch and manifestations of that tendency were reflected in justice department, educational system, administrative system, army and universities. Many of those institutions followed suit with performance of Atatürk who was, in turn, inspired by the Western civilization. The first Pahlavi marked start of westernization of governmental and social system of Iran. Sending university students to other countries was another important step in getting close to the West. Upon return from the West, those students founded administrative and educational organizations of Iran. The idea of modernity was rife under Reza Shah. Modernism pioneered by Reza Shah was combined with a special type of patriotism and return to pre-Islam Iran. Persian ethnicity was pitched against other ethnos. Priority was given to purging Persian language from Arabic and replacing national and state awareness for religious, ethnic and local awareness. Intellectual orientations under the first Pahlavi king, which were associated with dependence on big powers, caused domestic rifts inside the country from two viewpoints. Firstly, modernism and westernization was reflected in the society, and secondly, the first Pahlavi rule, while being dependent on foreign powers, was a despotic regime inside the country. Continuation of that policy into the second Pahlavi rule and continued political dependence not only weakened social unity, but also led to consolidation of religious and leftist forces in the face of the dependent political regime established by the monarchial rule.

After the Islamic Revolution, though statesmen were not willing to have anything to do with the West, they made incomplete efforts to interact with Western countries. To assure immunity and avert political harm, Iranian politicians have tried to divide the above-mentioned globalization triangle and treat each of its sides in a separate manner while differentiating economic relations from cultural and political ones. At the same time, separating principles of globalization leads to inefficiency, on the one hand, and causes friction when expanding relations with major global centers. Finally it will limit the benefits of the globalization process.

That consensus was never achieved even among one of the said two entities, namely the nation or the government. The writer attributes lack of consensus to a lack of a political decision, which has other requisites. The important conclusion to be reached is that entering globalization is a political decision and is a function of power centers and power structure in that country. It needs establishment of necessary institutions, reliance on the private sector and self-confidence in power centers before a government can decide about exposing its sovereign power to possible harms from globalization.

Similarly, the higher the mental and decision-making powers, self-reliance and patience of a person; the better he/she will be able to cope with external challenges. By analogy, the more powerful and efficient a political system is, the better it will be able to cope with challenges posed by globalization. Only four months after appointment of Amir Kabir as chancellor by Nasser-ed-din Shah, the British envoy in Iran wrote, "The Shah has full confidence in Amir Nezam (a nickname for Amir Kabir), but dignitaries are against him and will spare no intrigue to prevent him." The mother of the king did his best to weaken the king’s trust in Amir Kabir, but her efforts proved in vain. Amir Kabir’s powers began dwindling when courtiers, on the one hand, as well as Russia and England, on the other hand, obstructed his efforts. Gradually, Nasser-ed-din Shah, who was an unstable man left Amir Kabir alone. The memoirs of Asadollah Alam reflect intense presence of personal matters and rivalries under the second Pahlavi king. Basically, due to predominance of sentiments, emotions and many prejudices, Iranians are incapable of overcoming personal matters when making judgments or doing analyses.

The writer is trying to compare weakness of the Iranian rulers as opposed to other countries to provide readers with a suitable criterion. "Japan made a rapid decision on the paradigm governing the world. Some Asian countries such as Malaysia, North Korean, and Singapore joined that decision after World War II while more countries followed suit after going through ideological difficulties and decided to pursue the same goals." Iran is among countries that should be studied because from the time of Fathali Shah up to the present time, it has not reached a decisive, coherent and institutionalized decision in this regard and is currently reacting to global developments. As long as a suitable solution has not been found for the issue of international environment and the West, there would be no answer to question about how we must interact with the process of globalization.

Unique internalism and coherence among the Japanese and their all-out support for one another has enabled them not only to make the most in the face of the West, but also preserve their cultural and intellectual continuity and solidarity. A long history of despotism in Iran with the Shah being axis of all social and political developments as well as injustice in the economic system have led to distrust among Iranians. Although, totalitarian governments ruled East Asian counties, existence of establishments and even performances has given rise to high status of individual vis-à-vis rulers and the government. Meanwhile, people meant nothing during the whole despotic history of Iran and were only looked upon as tools. The memoirs of the first and second Pahlavi kings are amazing evidence to the lack of status and respect for individuals and their rights, even in the modern history of Iran. A Japanese professor once drew a simple analogy between Iranians and Japanese during a scientific roundtable in Tehran, which clearly indicates the way internal and external issues are treated by the two nations. He said, "Iranian rice is like Iranian people while Japanese rice is similar to Japanese people. Iranian rice has big grains which are separate while Japanese rice enjoys small grains which stick to one another." A researcher considered growth of Iranian mysticism as a reason for anti-individual approach in the Iranian culture. He believes that the gist of mysticism is antagonism with individual and individuality, sacrificing the individual in favor of the group.