Friedman may well have hit the nail right on the head. I doff my hat to him, yet I beg to differ in some respects. The issues of inequalities and inequities remaining to plague some developing countries, and the contrast with developed countries of the world, are surely going to make the world economic equation seem to be hanging "as a spider's web"a lure in the form of fabulous dreams about globalization. Is the web really a gateway for opportunities and progress for all?

It is generally agreed that the majority of the world's poorest people are all in the so called third world. If Bill Gates and his wife, alone, could give ten million dollars for research on reproductive health, that should be a huge challenge to institutions like the World Bank and other donor nations throughout the world to fund the solution of other problems. In my mind, no part of the world "succeeds," as far as "globalization" is concerned, if some parts are left behind. As long as three billion people live in absolute poverty < http://www.who.org/19990616 >, progress in the direction of globalization will remain utopian for those people. Do we want globalization to be an act of eliminating the poorest parts of the world, and the remaining nations joining the global bandwagon? I do not think so. I deduce there is the factor of shared responsibility missing in the formula for globalization that Friedman describes. If parts of the world unfairly dictate terms of agreement on trade, education and allied important features of human development, then I am afraid globalization is a far removed idea for the developing world. We need to take a fresh look at the "over- consumption" versus "underconsumption" dichotomy in our common world. It seems to me that our priorities are wrong. If the child (developing poor nations) can not sleep, the parents (developed nations) cannot sleep either. I am positing this as the kind of relationship we have succeeded in building up throughout human history. Progress for one should attempt to be progress for all.

One billion people lack adequate water supplies. Three billion people lack proper and hygienic sanitation facilities. Lack of access to safe water and sanitation are key risk factors for diarrheal diseases, which remain one of the major killers of children in the developing world. Education is a vital spoke in the wheel of development, and that is the bottom line. I think that major efforts in education can see us (all nations) lined up to catch the "fast" bus of globalization. If parts of the world are sinking under the burden of disease, poverty, etc., the rest might surely be dragged down. The present ratio of rich to the poor suggests that globalization is a misnomer. The current state of many in the world is marked by gloom, representative of countries being labeled as Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs). The present world needs to start on a clean slate. The chalkboard of existence should provide for some form of equity and equality for human dignity and integrity. Clearly, no one wants to be in debt. Poverty, it is claimed, is no crime, but deep in the human mind it carries no happy feeling. Hardly would a criminal be found clearly exhibiting pride by sticking his/her chest out. An arrested criminal is certainly going to be dragged along, facedown, in shame. Such is the feeling of shame in a debtor, or a debtor nation. So being in debt, and for that matter being poor, could be considered a crime. I think this could be a flaw in Friedman's notion of "globalization." There are circumstances, the explanation of which lies beyond the scope of this review, that have pushed some countries into this awkward state of indebtedness.

Some debtor countries, especially in Africa, are so pushed to the wall as to be in dire need of compassionate and charitable endeavors of individuals and/or organizations, such as Jubilee 2000, to have their debts canceled. This is an innovative and commendable effort. One would like to read about this and similar efforts in The Lexus and the Olive Tree.

As we enter another millennium, globalization" and such related ideas are as brilliant and imperative as they are humane. I dare say that "globalization' can hardly ignore the gap between the rich and the poor, because it is so wide and intractable that it threatens to bring down the world system of human survival, including trade, commerce, politics, efficient use of resources, and progress. The debt relief lexicon is replete with phrases such as "take action today to cancel third world debt." The power behind these and other slogans should be included in works such as The Lexus and the Olive Tree. All that I see being preached by The Lexus and the Olive Tree is that you are either eliminated or join the bandwagon-hook line and sinker!