shuja article - coping with global is at ion

8/3/2019 Shuja Article - Coping With Global is at Ion

1/4

1

Article 111

Coping with globalisationby Sharif M. Shuja

THE world was undergoing tremendous change even be-fore the horrors of 11 September. Both democracy and themarket economy have proliferated globally since the col-lapse of communism, and revolutionary developments incommunication and information technology have helpedtrigger an increasing interdependence between countriesat an unprecedented pace. Further, the end of the Cold

War signalled the displacement of ideological obstinacyin favour of a heated pursuit towards economic advance-ment and competition for resources and technology. Eco-nomic statecraft, whereby nations use trade, loans, grantsand investment to influence the action of other states, isnow becoming more important.

Globalisation and the triumph of the market are theeconomic consequences of the victory of democracy. Theglobal market will give economic freedom to billions ofconsumers and producers in the same way that politicalfreedom has given millions of individuals new rights.And it is tempting to see nationalism, ethnicity, fragmen-tation, and now terrorism as obstacles to that bright glo-bal future.

The dynamic transfer of people, information, capitaland goods is progressing on a worldwide scale. Globali-sation and an expansion of information technology havegiven rise to a new wave of changes in international rela-tions. In this global era, people from numerous countriesand civilizations will be blessed with the opportunity towork together.

Globalisation thus offers opportunities for interna-tional and competitive economies, but also brings chal-lenges for political and economic management. It hasprofound implications for trade and economic policy. It

blurs the division between foreign and domestic policy,increases competitive pressures in markets, and makesglobally-based trade rules and disciplines even moreimportant.

On the one hand the impact of globalisation is forcingvulnerable states to become more transparent in theirpolitical and economic habits, hence potentially relievingthe stresses of crony capitalism and undemocratic prac-tices; on the other, individual efforts are also required tomaintain an ethical universe. Greater cooperation be-tween nation states, multi-national corporations, the in-ternational institutions, the global business community

and the NGOs are now needed to maintain the world or-der values, such as peace, economic equity, ecologicalbalances, democratic participation, utilization of knowl-edge etc. More than ever, world problems require carefulthinking, creative research, fresh ideas, and practical ap-proaches, if they are to be solved.

Globalisation and Americanisation

The global economy can work only if the world is a pre-dictable place in which individuals and corporationsknow their rights and can enforce them. In other words,the apolitical world of globalisation can prosper only un-der the aegis of a political entity, its guarantor, the UnitedStates. That is why globalisation is increasingly under-stood to be a synonym of Americanisation. The attack onthe World Trade Center was an attack on what was asymbol of that globalisation.

This identification between globalisation and Ameri-

canisation deserves further analysis because it is a sourceof ambiguities, misunderstandings, and resentment.What is globalisation, and is it really global? Does itmean that globalisation is an instrument of U.S. power, anew ideology that supports an imperial design, just ascommunism supported Soviet ambitions?

In developing countries, as well as in a rich countrylike France, many people harbour this suspicion, and theyresent what they see as a U.S. imperialism that threatensthe identity of existing communities. The Americanisa-tion of the world often seems to result from a reaction toexternal events or a spillover of domestic forces rather

than a projection of power and political will.It is important to discover that the American empire

depends upon the support of its citizens, and that sup-port, when it is forthcoming, is given for very domesticreasons, because the United States, having become an em-pire unknowingly, does not see itself as an empire. Actu-ally its foreign policy looks increasingly like the sum ofthe special interests promoted by specific internal groups,and the transnational nature of its influence and powermeans that its links with the rest of the world are increas-ingly formed through those particular groups. This maystrengthen these links and prevent U.S. isolation, but it


2/4

Article 111. Coping with globalisation

2

also presents an obstacle to any global vision. Washing-ton may be the capital of a global empire, but it is an em-pire without an emperor.

Yet much of the rest of the world perceives that anAmerican empire is indeed being built, and watches itwith a mixture of envy and resentment. These feelings ex-ist in spite of the absence of any grand design on the partof the United States. How can one reconcile the fact of glo-

balisation, which ignores borders and destroys the old so-cial structures that mediate between the individual andthe global marketplace, with this other reality, the Amer-ican nation, which seems to resist globalisation betterthan most communities? The answer probably lies in theunique history of the United States, which sees itself notas an inherited community but as a community of choice,built on a contract.

The Asia Pacific region is undergoing extensive andunprecedented change and the trend today is towardsgreater integration, democratization, and deregulation.Owing to the development of economic and trade ties,

connections between countries have become closer andcloser. But because of the different interests of variouscountries and the existence of a Cold War mentality, in-ternational relations have worsened from time to time, af-fecting the international situation. Market forces havebecome the instruments of change and transformation ininternational relations and nowhere more so today thanin the Asia Pacific region. The forces for global change areeconomic in origin, but they operate within particular po-litical systems and deeply rooted cultures that will mod-ify and condition their effect. The impact of global changeupon the many disparate cultures and political systems of

the Asia Pacific region is one of the most important issuesof international relations today. Is globalisation a set ofprocesses dominated by Western countries to their ownadvantage? This question is not easy to answer, but theimplication is that globalisation refers to a complex ofchanges rather than a single one. No single country, orgroup of countries, controls any one of them. Economicglobalisation, of course, has been and is shaped by U.S.foreign and domestic policy. Globalisation will not havethe same effect in the Asia Pacific region as in NorthAmerica or Europe, and it would be senseless to imaginethat the impact would be similar, or that the results of glo-balisation would be uniform and comparable for all re-

gions and cultures, as Leszek Buszynski, Dean of theGraduate School of International Relations at the Interna-tional University of Japan, put it. At this stage we need tolook at this globalisation issue more closely.

Globalisation and the Knowledge Divide

There is every indication that globalisation will increase.Western powers and the Western-based NGOs are likelyto continue to promote the universalisation of values,rules and institutions. However, the pressure for ho-

mogenisation will intensify the struggle for diversity, au-tonomy and heterogeneity. Dr Samuel M. Makinda ofMurdoch Universitys School of International Politics inCurrent Affairs Bulletin (April/May 1998) argues:

The question of how to reconcile differenceswith uniformity, universalism with particular-ism, and globalisation with fragmentation, willremain central to policy makers at the national,regional and global levels. Political leaders willcontinue to determine policies that facilitate orfrustrate globalisation, taking into account do-mestic and external pressures. But, at the sametime, transnational forces will continue to lobbythe states, regional organisations and the UN totry to influence those policies. It is this inter-sub- jective relationship between the policy-makersand the transnational forces that determines thecharacter of globalisation.

However, the assumption that the real driving forces

are the markets suits many political leaders. Governmentofficials will, often try to blame globalisation for theirpolicy failures. They will claim that they were powerlessto do much for their countries in the face of globalisingforces. But, as always, they will claim credit for any posi-tive results from globalisation.

In an interview withAsia Week on 24 November 2000,South Korean President, Kim Dae Jung, who won the No-bel Peace Prize recently, said:

Globalisation is a historically inevitable path.The entire world will become one market, andnations will cooperate while competing. Eco-

nomic activities of all nations will be aimed atproducing the best but cheapest goods and ser-vices and supplying them to the rest of theworld, while buying the best and cheapest prod-ucts from other countries. Any nation will facedefeat if it goes against globalisation.

Globalisation, no doubt, brings us into contact withone another, but it also strengthens profound divisionsand fractures in terms of societies and income, and mostimportantly in our capacity to generate and utilizeknowledge. There is a real risk of two civilizations emerg-ing, with two ways of viewing and relating to the world:

one based on the capacity to generate and utilize knowl-edge; the other passively receiving knowledge fromabroad and deprived of the ability to modify it. The worldnow faces the prospect of this Knowledge Divide.

The huge income gap between rich and poor is beingexacerbated by a North-South digital divide betweenthose who have access to computers and the Internet andthose who do not. Although there have been tremendousadvances in science and technology over the last few de-cades, the developing world is still far behind in the tech-nological race. The world has seen a revolution, the thirdindustrial revolution in technological know-how during


3/4

ANNUAL EDITIONS

3

the last thirty years, which has raised peoples expecta-tions to new levels. This revolution, based on the informa-tion age and the rapid introduction of new technologyinto all facets of human life, is changing the world into aglobal one.

Paradoxically, this globalisation, far from creating ahomogeneous global society, is subjecting societies to alogic of disintegration. It has created growing gaps and

antagonisms between the rich and poor, and dominantand oppressed ethnicities.

Now that globalisation has reached the furthest cor-ners of the planet, the world is said to have been globa-lised either for better, as some argue, or for worseaccording to the critics. The age of globalisation is in factan age of information. Enormous wealth is being created.However, most benefits are enjoyed by advanced nations.The globalisation of information must be linked to theglobalisation of benefits. Otherwise, world peace will suf-fer, and rampant and indiscriminate development in poornations will damage the environment.

Many view globalisation as a technology-driven globalorder that has led to an intensification of interconnected-ness among nations. This, however, is merely one facet ofglobalisation, and does not presuppose the ideologicalhomogenisation or the rapid retrenchment of the welfarestate that is currently underway. As Professor KidaneMengisteab of Pennsylvania State University put it:

The dispute over globalisation is not about theintensification of global interconnectedness.Rather, it is over the vision of the global systemthat globalisation projects. This vision entails a

global economic system with identifiable rules ofbehaviour in trade, finance, taxation, investmentpolicy, intellectual property rights, and currencyconvertibility, all of which are crafted along neo-liberal principles with minimal governmentalregulation.

As the political economist Ellen Wood perceptivelynotes, this vision of a global system represents a new phaseof capitalism which is more universal, more unchallenged,more pure and more unadulterated than ever before.

For many critics, globalisation is essentially an anti-democratic process that excludes the interests of a wide

range of groups. But the process is not shaped by marketforces alone. Governments in developing countries are of-ten said to be unable to stand up to globalisation withoutincurring severe costs. The government of Pakistan, for ex-ample, could be punished by capital flight if it insists onimplementing its agenda of social reform. The masses ofPakistan, however, are likely to sustain heavier costs if thegovernment abandons its reforming mandate. Faced withsuch a dilemma, governments have generally selected theside of capital for a simple reason: as the economist PaulKrugman has noted, the collapse of communism has takenthe heart out of opposition to capitalism.

The list of problems caused by globalisation is long. Inlow-income countries, the peoples plight has been partic-ularly severe. Opponents of globalisation are addressinggenuine problems. But it is uncertain whether they willsucceed in reversing globalisation or even in mitigatingits adverse impacts.

Globalisation has become thus a battle ground for tworadically opposed groups. There are the anti-globalists

who fear globalisation and seek therefore powerful inter-ventions aimed at taming it. Then there are the globalistswho celebrate globalisation instead, emphasise its up-side, while seeking only to ensure that its few roughedges be handled through appropriate policies that serveto make globalisation yet more attractive.

A leading international trade theorist, ProfessorJagdish Bhagcoati of Columbia University, in an article inThe UNESCO Courier (September 2000) argues that freemarkets and integration into the world economy are keyto making a dent on poverty. He comments:

As for inequality among nations, it is precisely

those countries that embraced integration intothe world economy, i.e. the Far Eastern Four andthen the ASEAN countries, which raced aheadwith dramatic growth rates whereas severalcountries of Africa, Latin America and Asia thatlooked inwards failed to deliver growth and alsomade little dent on poverty.

The anti-globalists however have created a kind of in-ternational opposition movement made up of previouslyfragmented groups. Though their backgrounds, demandsand actions are radically different, these critics, includingU.S. environmental activists, Philippine and other ethnicminorities and indigenous groups in Ecuador, havejoined to attack the same targets and support the same as-piration: a new notion of citizenship that balances themight of business with a much stronger political realm.Sharing experience and capitalising on knowledge havethus become key elements in their strategy.

British historian Professor Paul Kennedy, in his contri-bution to the 21st Century Talks in Paris on 6 November1999 said:

If we want to work towards a knowledge-basedsociety in the coming century, over at least the

next ten years, we need to make a concerted ef-fort to bring poorer societies into the system ofelectronic communication. If we do nothing,then the growing gap between haves and have-nots will lead to widespread discontent andthreaten any prospect of global harmony and in-ternational understanding. That is the most sig-nificant challenge we face.

The most obvious example is the wild scenes thaterupted in Seattle, Melbourne and Davos. Anger wasdemonstrated by thousands of protesters. Similar ugly in-cidents also erupted in the Czech capital during the re-


4/4

Article 111. Coping with globalisation

4

cent meetings by the G-7 ministers, World Bank and theTMF and at the G-8 meeting in a strongly policed Genoa.

The Internet gives users immediate and huge access toknowledge, and the knowledge explosion is at the heartof the modernization and globalisation of world society.The Internet may have more influence than any singlemedium upon global educational and cultural develop-ments in this century.

According to a recent UN Human Development Re-port, industrialised countries, with only 15 per cent of theworlds population, are home to 88 per cent of all Internetusers. South Asia, with 23 per cent of the worlds popula-tion, has less than 1 per cent of the worlds Internet users.In Southeast Asia, only one person in 200 is linked to theInternet. In the Arab states, only one person in 500 has In-ternet access. The situation is even worse in Africa. With739 million people, there are only 14 million phone lines.Thats fewer than in places such as Manhattan or Tokyo.But moves now are underway to put high-tech to use forthe worlds poor.

But awareness of these problems has sharpened andsolutions exist. We need the international community toreturn to the basic principles of international cooperationand introduce the idea that a minimum level of scienceand technological capability, including access to the Inter-net, is an absolute necessity for developing countries, andshould be the subject of international solidarity. Andgreater co-operation between nation states, multinationalcorporations, the NGOs and the global business commu-nity is needed in meeting these challenges. Unless this oc-curs, we may all end up living in an increasingly denudedand unnatural world, a world of irresponsible pragmatism

and expediency, a world where the quality of human life isunduly subordinated to the chimera of economic growth.

Territorial containment becomes meaningless in theworld of globalisation. Diseases, weapons, and peoplecan move freely. We will find relatively high-tech weap-onry in low-tech countries and low-tech poor people inhigh-tech countries. Furthermore, the globalisation of in-formation means that we can no longer pretend to ignore

what is happening in those areas of anarchy.Yet the events of 11 September will have a great impact

at least in the short term on globalisation. As one promi-nent Wall Street analyst said, Globalisation is going to beat a standstill for a while until this high level of uncer-tainty diminishes (The New York Times, 14 November).

Especially in this time of crisis the more advancedparts of the world must be proactive if the dynamics ofglobalisation and fragmentation are to be managed in apositive way. The risks of such proactive policies will beaccepted only if they are broadly shared. A truly multipo-lar but integrated system would be able to accommodate

differences and varying degrees of involvement amongits component parts. But this useful diversity must find itslimits in the understanding that all actors share some fun-damental interests, and thus should engage in an orga-nized and continuous negotiation and abstain fromunilateral actions. This would require political habitsrooted in a tradition of cooperation that has to be builtgradually over time.

Sharif M. Shuja is an academic staff member of the Asian studies depart-ment at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia.

From Contemporary Review, November 2001. Copyright 2001 by Contemporary Review Company Ltd. Reprinted with permission.

shuja article - coping with global is at ion

Documents