Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Defining Globalization The Growing Challenge to Internationalism
By J. Orstrom Moller
Futurist
March 1, 1999The world's elite have led the march toward globalism, but millions of people see themselves as losers when national barriers fall. Tensions are building up around the world over the internationalization of the world's economy. There may soon be a clash between the continued drive for internationalism - favored by the elite in countries everywhere - and the growing feeling of ordinary people that internationalism lets them down and fails to provide an answer to the problems they face. If such a clash really happens - and the risks that it will are larger than most people like to think - we will have to go back to the drawing board to redesign our basic models for future economic progress. A clash will also pose an acute security problem because it will rip apart the basic fabric of society, letting loose all the emotions that traditionally lead to war and conflict. It will be a major trend shift - one of the largest and most important in many decades.
We have all grown accustomed to internationalism, and we now take it for granted. Since the end of the Second World War, all major changes have gone in the same direction - more and more internationalism, including increasing trade, capital flows, investment, research and development, dissemination of knowledge, and persons moving across the borders, working and attending universities in other nations. It has been taken for granted for so long that nobody seems to notice the gradually increasing signals that we may be in for a major shift in the trend. Waning support for internationalism may lead not only to a halt in further internationalization but a pull back toward nationalism.
The Rise of Internationalism
What has happened to the world in the last 50 years can be ranked as one of the great revolutions. The world has managed to live without major wars, and, at the same time, it has succeeded in building a sophisticated and effective political framework at the international level. These achievements resulted from an alliance between the elite and the rest of the population in the various countries. The elite pointed the way. It persuaded the people to follow, regardless of the doubts that surfaced. The population went along, not because they shared the long-term political objectives, but because the new division of labor (and other factors) brought about a higher standard of living. The economic integration of Europe took place in the midst of an almost unprecedented economic upswing, which increased people's standard of living year after year. The Asian miracle did the same, first in Japan, later in the Tiger economies, and finally in China. People everywhere assented to internationalism because it was so obvious that everybody was better off. Or, to be more precise, the old prescription of an increase in welfare proved valid: Those who benefited could pay for benefits to those who did not benefit and still be better off themselves.
As the basic economic factors such as trade and capital movement ascended from the national to the international level, the legislative framework to control the basic economic factors followed, albeit with a time lag. The Europeans set up the European Economic Community, which later became the European Union. In North America, a similar development resulted in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). None of these institutions would have been created without a genuine and strong demand for international institutions to replace national institutions obviously incapable of delivering solutions to an international world. But now a new shift is occurring: Around the world, ordinary people - not the political and intellectual elite - are asking whether the international system really delivers the goods. Are we better off participating in that system or would it be preferable to turn around and begin a nationalistic policy? This questioning of the predominantly Western international system often arises among ethnic or religious groups inside a nation that is fully participating in the international model and the international world.
Internationalism's Losers
The international world is highly competitive. Those who still gain from internationalism are the strongest and most-competitive people. Those who lose are the weakest and least competitive. The situation becomes particularly dangerous in cases where the dividing line between those who benefit from and support internationalization and those who do not tends to follow ethnic and/or religious divisions. In Europe, immigrants - often from Muslim countries - compete for lower-paid jobs with native residents who are sometimes described as potential social losers. The two distinct groups are set against each other. In Asia, for instance, Chinese minorities in countries like Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia control a large part of the economy and may be resented by their non-Chinese neighbors.
To make matters worse, the international decision-making process is becoming more and more remote from the ordinary citizen. The elite may still follow what is going on and even take part in many of the decisions made on an international basis. But ordinary people recognize that they have little influence over decisions affecting their lives. They do not understand why the decisions are made or how they are made - that is, by whom and for whom - or when the decisions will affect ordinary individuals like themselves.
The audience of people ready to listen to criticisms of the international model is growing. In Europe, well-known politicians of the far right in France, Germany, and Austria are getting around 10% of the vote. In Australia, the One Nation party is imitating the European far-right parties. In Malaysia, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad echoes the same nationalistic trend by blaming the West for the financial crisis. These politicians find an audience only because it is no longer obvious that people are better off inside than outside the international system, and because people do not understand the reasoning behind many of the decisions that apparently cost them their jobs. Many people feel that economic and monetary development has escaped the control that the nation-states once exercised. The market has taken over, and the market produces profits by cutting jobs in multinational enterprises. Meanwhile, small wars and conflicts make the world seem increasingly dangerous, even though the risk of a major world war has been reduced.
The Ugly Internationalists
Supranational enterprises, which are becoming larger and larger, represent internationalism for many people. The fact that the large enterprises operate internationally means that they do not assume as much responsibility toward local communities as do the people living there. Furthermore, there is no channel for communication between the local people and the management of the large enterprises.
The supranational enterprises may also exhibit economic disparity and nontransparency, which are regarded by many as inevitable consequences of internationalism. On one page of a business paper there may be a story about the CEO of a supranational enterprise earning $ 25 million. On the next page there may be a story about the same enterprise laying off 8,000 workers. For many people this is unacceptable. It strengthens their belief that the elite takes care of itself and is totally unconcerned by what happens to the rest of the people. Anger is provoked further when, after thousands of layoffs, the plant is moved to another nation.
The rise of large, cross-border regions in Europe, in North America, and in Asia has exactly the same consequence. These regions do attract enterprises and undoubtedly contribute to a higher standard of living, but they operate according to the rule of the market and without a political framework. Economic integration presents a similar picture. The procedures of the European Union are not transparent, and there is little or no accountability. This is one of the most important problems for the future development of the EU.
The market possesses enormous forces that can quickly outflank established policies. In 1997, the market overruled exchange-rate policies in the Far East, just as it had done earlier in Europe. There is growing disparity among many of the countries that have shifted from more or less national economic policies to join the international economy. Cases in point include Russia and Indonesia. No one knows whether the collapses in these nations are due to internationalism or not, but the people in these countries believe that to be the case. They blame internationalism for having disrupted a social model that, while far from perfect, they could live with. Now they have a competitive international model that they do not understand and cannot live with.
A Russian or an Indonesian minister can negotiate with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) but for many ordinary people it seems to be wrong. They ask, What is the IMF? And to whom are the IMF staff accountable? There may be an answer - maybe even a good one - but people in a country like Russia or Indonesia do not know it. On television, they see mysterious people in dark suits being flown in and leaving a couple of days later, and then they read in the newspapers that these fellows have dictated this or that policy, with the implication that rice or bread will cost two or three times more. Internationalism in such cases appears at its worst.
Besides economic disparities, social disparities are growing for several reasons: First, the elite in each country prefers to communicate with the elite in other countries instead of communicating with nonelite elements in their own country. As a result, the nonelite part of the population feels rejected or forgotten. Second, the communication channels increase the division between those who follow international news and those who watch their local or national TV channels, which in turn causes the channels themselves to focus more on local and national news. Third, many elite universities are increasingly recruiting from elite schools whose students come from elite homes. The result is an exclusive world, since only elite parents can afford to pay the costs, especially the cost of sending a son or daughter to an elite university in another country. The result is a cultural and mental fault line that divides the elite from the nonelite and leaves little or no hope that the gap can be bridged.
Security Fears
Many people feel that the insecurity following the end of the Cold War is worse than the military standoff between the two major blocs. For one thing, ethnic and religious conflicts are growing within nations. A minority group revolting against the majority in a nation does not constitute a movement against internationalism. In fact, a minority will often look to the international community for help to loosen the political and cultural ties imposed upon them from the central government. However, that is not the end result. The process continues with three results:
First, the majority in a nation feels - quite rightly - that the international community takes the side of the minority. So the majority becomes anti-international and more and more nationalistic in its attitude. This is what happened in the former Yugoslavia.
Second, the minority finds that the international community is ready to speak loudly but carries a very small stick. So the minority will feel let down by internationalism, because it failed to provide the firepower for their drive toward freedom. The minority ends up more or less like the majority; that is, feeling very nationalistic.
Third, the international community may send soldiers to maintain peace, but only so long as it does not lead to casualties. If casualties result, emotions may run high against a venture that costs the lives of our sons. So the bottom line is that ethnic and religious conflicts that could and should lead toward more internationalism often tend to produce its opposite.
Terrorism and Immigration
Besides ethnic and religious conflicts, terrorism - state-sponsored and otherwise - is growing and constitutes a major threat to stability around the world. The ease with which terrorists can cross borders raises the question: Why are we being forced to open our borders so that these people can enter? For many, the answer is internationalism, so nationalism comes to be viewed as a way to protect us against acts of terror.
Immigration is also viewed as a threat. Large parts of the native population of a nation feel threatened by immigration and want the foreigners to go away. In France and Britain, sentiment against Muslims is strong in certain segments of society.
What these three themes - ethnic/religious conflicts, terrorism, and immigration - have in common for the citizen is that what is coming from the outside is dangerous, wrong, and a threat to ordinary citizens' everyday lives. When we combine that feeling with the uneasiness flowing from international trade and investment, we arrive at the uncomfortable conclusion that the international society and the internationalist model is not regarded as a model leading to stability, prosperity, and security. Rather, internationalism is seen as a model that may produce a higher level of total production but only at the cost of insecurity, social imbalance, and instability.
Looking to the future, a growing number of people seem to be concluding that it is preferable to have a lower living standard inside a cultural framework established by the nation-state without annoying minorities - in short, a life and a workplace that are foreseeable and understandable instead of a higher living standard in a multicultural world based upon internationalism accompanied by changes, challenges, and risks - a life where you must compete to find a suitable place for your talents.
Thus it appears to many people today that in the good old days we had political control and it worked - not perfectly, but it did work. Now, there is no political control; the market, with tycoons such as Ruppert Murdoch and Bill Gates calling the tune, and unknown civil servants in the IMF are the ones dictating economic and social terms.
Paradoxically, it is rising nationalism that prevents international institutions from getting the political control needed to avert many unwanted outcomes. Another dilemma is that the domestic political process tends to become distorted: The elite, who want internationalism, pay for social welfare. The nonelite, who want nationalism, benefit from the social welfare. But how can a nation go on with a political majority imposing upon those who pay a political model that they do not want? Probably not for long.
Politics now blurs who is actually responsible for decisions. People sense this and realize that the world has gradually slid into a system where accountability for political decisions seems to disappear in mist, and the transparency of the political process is lost in haze. This may not lead us toward dictatorship of the kind George Orwell envisioned in 1984, but it may carry us toward some kind of nongovernance, even chaos, where the only stable factor in people's lives is some form of nationalism - ethnic, linguistic, religious, or even tribal.
The Risks Ahead
The world is still moving toward internationalism, since the elite are still leading the way. But there is increased grumbling on the lower decks. People are not necessarily questioning where the elite is taking the ship, but they are demanding that the crew know where the ship is heading. Unless the elite manages to achieve much improved communications plus a return to economic prosperity, the odds will increase that the majority of the world's people will reject internationalism. Since the elite will probably still hold on to the international model, there will be a clash between the international-minded elite and the nationalistic majorities within nations. It is not likely that the elite will win such a clash. And if it comes after a period of suppressed nationalism, chances are that the nationalism that emerges will be strong and ugly.
More Information on Defining Globalization
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C ß 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
