E-Kantipur

World Trade Organization Director-General, Pascal Lamy in his speech “Whither Globalisation” at the Council of United States and Italy Conference in Venice on June  4 gave an impression that he has realised the importance of the values enshrined in ‘fair trade.’ He accepted the legitimacy of concerns and questions raised against a ‘one-sided’ view of globalisation forwarded by neo-liberals. However, he still seems to be hesitant in accepting the importance of national interest; thereby placing the agenda of reforming international systems and practices as a panacea to a nation’s liberation and prosperity.  The purpose of the present article is to argue that globalisation is a multi-faceted issue and has deeper and wider repercussions’ on any nation state.  Focusing only on reforming the international system without taking stock of national issues as put forth by neo-liberals, cannot uproot the negative repercussions of globalisation. The shrinking of time and space and the fluid borders is not a new and planned process as put forth by anti-globalists, but a natural process of human civilisation which can serve the values enshrined in humanism. This is provided that globalisation is localised to fit the interest of local contexts.   

Gabriel Wolter, a young university student who participated in the International Summer School organised by Kassal University and Friedrich Ebert Stiftung with me, said: “Germany has achieved the zenith of development, but our society is fragmented. There is a dilemma and inter-generational disconnection. We young people do not exchange and interact with our elder generation. There are indeed benefit packages for the deprived ones, but fewer people exploit the opportunity as those who claim the benefit packages are considered failures and are looked upon as ‘societal waste’. New technologies and development have connected us far and wide, and yet we live an isolated and fragmented life failing to live life in its totality.” Gabriel’s statement aptly captures the larger picture of globalisation and suggests that growth oriented development and distribution that merely provides a welfare scheme to the deprived class does not necessarily connect them with wider society. There is a need to reflect on the economy based on the theory of greed and extra maximisation and accumulation of wealth at all costs. Classic economy has come to a point of exhaustion and there is a need to reexamine the issue while being sensitive towards the entire system.

As put forth by Ludwig Feurbach, there is a need to transform the concept of ‘human-being’ to the ‘species-being’ where it is necessary to visualise that the collective emancipation of species can only guarantee the liberation of human beings. Equally there is a danger in viewing and analysing the issue from a particular disciplinary approach as it confines and limits understanding. This does not however, necessarily mean that an issue can be analysed outside of a specific framework. Without a larger framework that takes gender, society, ecology, economy and politics into consideration, analysis is likely to undermine the natural foundation of life, where all species are interconnected with each other for survival and prosperity. Hence, reforming the international system as proposed by Pascal Lamy without taking national interest into consideration is not likely to reshape globalisation, but would rather create more crisis in the international system. This is because questions will arise which will be severely contested: Who defines the international system? What values and ethics does a nation have to compromise in order to ‘catch-up’ with the international system? What if the procedures, norms, values and ethics prescribed by the international system directly collide with communities and national identity?  To sum up the argument against Pascal Lamy, it is important to remember what a German economist, Friedrich List said in the nineteenth century: “it is very common clever device that when anyone has attained, the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder by which he has climbed up in order to deprive others of the means of climbing up after him.”

On the other hand there are anti-globalists who view globalisation as a planned and new phenomenon which began alongside global democratisation and further believe that mere distribution of wealth can guarantee prosperity for all. This would be an equally naïve view. New imaginations, new inventions and wealth brought forth by globalisation have transformed the capacity of the nation state to negotiate their national interests at the global level. This can be seen in the cases of China, India and Brazil.

Furthermore, globalisation is not a planned process; it is not a process injected by the fist world countries to capitalise on the wealth of the third world countries. Indeed modern economic globalisation took place with the vested interest of wealth maximisation at the cost of other countries. For example, the Britain gave up its deplorable agricultural protection (the Corn Law) and other remnants of old mercantilist protectionist measures in 1846. Neverthless, the transfer of culture, religion and civilisation dates centuries back and has not always been synonymous to vested personal interests. In the case of Nepal, transfer of religion, culture and migration began two thousand years ago when migrants from both north and south travelled and settled in Nepal not only to expand their vested interests, but to help emancipate common miseries with culture and religion.

Thus, on the one hand there is a need to realise the positive aspects of globalization. On the other, globalization needs to be reshaped to be workable for all. A synergy needs to be built between wealth and other facets brought forth by the friction between localisation and globalisation. And for social democrats, it is important to realise that wealth is just one means of achieving the end. However, there still remains a large challenge in defining what it really means to achieve the end. Debate on the reshaping

of globalisation once again must be centred on questions— What is my end? And where is my end? And what are essential features of our lives that entail our end?

sharmasumit77@gmail.com

Post Your Comment

Please note that all the fields marked * are mandatory.
* Full Name
* Address
* Email Address
* Comment
* Captcha	Get another CAPTCHA code
Note:	Comments containing abusive words or slander shall not be published.