Possibilities for action within the process of globalisation
8. Do you think the process of globalisation is naturally neutral or should we interfere in this process? If so, to what extent should we actually interfere?
Jana Hybášková:
Globalization is naturally neutral. As much as it brings opportunities, it causes harms. We clearly should not allow for globalization causing world damages and crises.
Important is to see, if the world has taken financial and housing crises as an opportunities for improvement. So far, at least from what we know from new US and EU regulation package, it goes in right direction: risks should be covered properly. Off shores should be stopped or controlled. Early warning mechanisms, mainly signaling new risks, as new financial derivates, should operate. EU central banks should have more horizontal control functioning systems. The role of EU central bank as controller, not only inflation matcher should be enhanced. The big pubic deficits should be lowered. All these measures, if applied will make global finances more stable, secure and sustainable.
The other example is clime. With all global warming, EU leaders came to understanding that we should make a deal: limit our greenhouse for 20 % to the year 20, bringing 20 % alternative and 20 % savings. 20 20 20 is great European achievement. We have good partner, asking even more – Japan. With Obama, US is on board. The issue now, and this is globalization issue, is the third world and BRICS. Will we be able to share their costs? How much can we influence China and India to make their development more environmentally sustainable? How much they can share costs of least developed countries? With clime, we started to manage globalization disaster. With financial package of different G-groups we started to manage financial disaster. The issue is can we make an opportunity out of this management? This will be proved in future.
Yes, we have to try to manage global consequences of our global acting. The main aim is its sustainability. Sustainable development is connected to stability. Without stability, we can hardly hope for sustainability. Stable are only inclusive, not divisive processes. So we have to try to make globalization as inclusive as possible, as stable and sustainable as possible.
These days we have great new tool: Lisbon Treaty. Treaty makes us Europe much more important globalization player. EU gained legal personality. We are legal unit in WTO and other organizations. We base our foreign policy on the rule of law, democracy, free market economy a human rights. If nothing else, Treaty became functioning body; we will have better managerial position towards globalization. Why not to ask our trade and development partners more clearly: how the law functions in your country? How is the corruption? What about impunity? How do you stick to basic human rights? Are economic chances in your country really equal? Do you really apply all ILO measures? What about your exploitation of timber? Closing eyes - it is not management. It is conceptual bribery. Will EU treaty help us to stop/not apply arms licensing? To control money laundering? Will we stay blind to genocide in Eastern Congo? Or massive killings in Philippines? Or Darfur? Or Eritrea? If we our selves stick to our own laws and rules with responsibility, we can manage globalization as a world opportunity. Our governments should not be lying to us first; we should be active citizens, ourselves we have enough power to ask for trade controls, goods embargos, arms controls, ILO standards. The argument of unemployment and crises in our own countries should never be misused. Then others, who could fall victim to our conceptual bribery, can follow us.
Jule Kathinka Plawitzki
Hey there,
To the answer of the ... question: Jana made clear that we have to be careful and differ in globalization and industrial modernization and to be very careful with discussion about globalization enhancing terrorism. She gave us lots of examples not supporting this theory. But I thought about the cultural globalization going on. Jana pointed out that globalization as an abstract construct is neutral- but in the reality there is mainly a (youth-) cultural one-way- homogenization, dominated by the western lifestyle, supported by the media. Maybe that’s a typical female, not scientific, example and of course you can discuss about these examples as well: The “global” ideal of beauty: Asian girls want to have “western-eyes”, even through plastic surgery and black women try to become brighter through dangerous crèmes. My point is that this, maybe in theory neutral, globalization in reality is dominated by a mainstream western culture- to be chargeable to other cultures adopting it. Personal, I think that is a huge loss… And isn’t this fact maybe enhancing terrorism (of course, there must be different circumstances as well) or enhance the conflict between Christians and Muslims? I mean in the way that facing this western cultural globalization, feeling powerlessness in maintain the own culture and own values, fear, desperation and in some cases hate as well? I know I have to be very careful with statements like this. I just think that is a thought, focussing on the economic dimension of globalization, we should not forget about.What do you think about this?
Saturday, 5 December
Jana Hybášková
Throughout my own experience I must admit I disagree with cultural globalization. I have pictures of my blond mother driving Volkswagen Beat to Jasmine beach near Madraque, 20 km far from Algiers. Myself, I was baptized in Notre Dame d Afrique. Try to wear minijupe and go pray there...The same holds true for ladies on water skis in Kuwait city. Where are they gone? Where is my secretary Liala s face, which came 12th of September 2001 fully veiled and never took her veil off?
Young Asian ladies believe in main stream, while young Americans die to go bio, never eating burgers, and never tanning their bodies. Main stream in your understanding has a connection to globalization: till we can buy the same tea shirt by Paul Frank in London and Tokyo, why not to do so. Till we buy the same Rihana song we will do so. The same happened already in the end of the WWII. Where ever there was English used and comprehend, people listened to pop culture. Only in our eastern European case we came to read Jack Kerouac twenty years after his death, as much as we started to admire Bill Viola twenty years later, than US youngsters. I am not aware of the fact, that we already overcame this generation gap between US, UK and central and Eastern Europe. Name Paris TOP ten s, unless you live there, it is not part of your cultural mainstream. The fact, that we buy the same tee shirt, can not be called cultural globalization. It is globalization of the world price.
Monday, 7 December 2009
Svea Marie Wehling
First of all, thank you very much for the detailed answers.
To be honest I can't see why we still look at possible solutions from the national point of view. Obviously, there we can't be all winners of the globalisation, since we profit from each other and I can't think of any really strong trade bond between two or more countries within a closed economic trade system. Therefore I can't quite understand, why we can't get used to the idea of actual losers of the globalisation (which now strongly refers to my essay). The EU-trade controls themselve have huge impact on the competitiveness of other countries. I don't think we need to open the discussion about the destruction of 3rd world local markets because of European trade conventions. So, I am sorry, I'm getting angry, though, when reading about.
Secondly, in the intoductry paragraph I read: "For many traditional pre-industrial societies, or harmed post conflict areas, without strong financial, energy resources, distant from global trade routs globalization leads to further marginalization. Exclusion leads to frustration, anger, and extremism. The step towards terror is clear." I read from this, that globalisation stlll in some way enhances terror, however I can't find this in the answer in question two.
Another very basic question comes to my mind: How are we supposed to know that a process will be neutral in the end? Based on what indicators do we know? And besides my objection, that I definitely don't think that the LDCs are our major climate problem, I do not know whether a economic union is ought to have a personality, since the European Union not only regulates necessary but also superfluous conditions. From my point of view, a regulation for radio wavelengths is irrelevant in regards to the success of Europe being a global actor. All in all, I can't even link the answer including all these information about the Lisbon Contract with the question. Since the process is ought to be neutral? Why interfere at all? From my personal point of view, I can't see at all how we are supposed to know that there are as many risks as oppertunities resulting from the globalisation.
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Corinna Lohrengel
"If we our selves stick to our own laws and rules with responsibility, we can manage globalization as a world opportunity."
In the answer of question 8, this sentence attracted all my attention. In my opinion, it is the antipode of what you, Jana, wrote right at the beginning of your answer: "Globalization is naturally neutral. As much as it brings opportunities, it causes harms." You described globalization as a neutral process and that's what it is in my opinion. Every benefit also has a disadvantage, there's no positive or negative aspect that prevails. And from my point of view, that's also the case even if we "stick to our laws and rules with responsibility", to quote Jana. Of course globalization is an opportunity for everyone and every country, but it also causes harm and strengthens differences concerning competitiveness. Maybe we diminish the negative effects but nevertheless, the effects won't disappear. Globalization is a chance for the industrialized countries and a risk for the developing countries - and will always be. Globalization is an independent process that'll continue even if we try to stop it. Just the way "once began-never stop". Even our laws and rules can't change this fact.
Friday, 11 December 2009
Jana Hybášková
Dear Corinna,
In it´s sum globalization is neutral. I disagree with Globalization is a chance for the industrialized countries and a risk for the developing countries. Chance for industrialized countries it is, because they have better legal system. The key issue is free market, which in legal terms means equal economic chances. If : the rights of small shareholders are protected equally, if the right for excess to information is equal, if corruption is strictly limited, if there is no money laundering and cross financing to bad frauds and lawns, if any citizen has the same excess to loan, if public tender is really public, if there is a functioning public prosecution, if there is no impunity, if organized crime is marginalized, if the financial market works openly, and is not speculation based, if the access to energy and strategic market is opened to public…if all these ifs are fulfilled globalization is win win situation. The trouble with developing countries is not in their financial and economic capacities, it lays in their legal weakness. If they can limit all above mentioned ifs, they can be winners! By the way, great example is last week´s Iraqi oil field bids! Iraq displayed its ability to be part of developed world, independent on big bidders! No major stakes done by Chevron or Exxon, the winner is Petronas and Lukoil!
Monday, 14 December 2009
Jana Hybášková
Dear Corinna, I do not agree with you that internet and TV are outcomes of globalisation. They are outcomes of modernisation, industrial and information revolutions, but not globalisation. Internet, if I am not mistaken, was very much function of internal need of US defense system, TV developed exactly in the years, when the first round of globalisation was rapidly decreasign.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Svea Marie Wehling
Serioursly, I still don't get why in the world the globalisation process is supposed to be neutral... Too bad I can't work it out due to a response.
And once again, I have to add that the desastrous legal systems in LDCs are not the only reason for their economic deadlock, I already mentioned my aversion to the glorification of the EU-trade agreements. Yes, they are good for us - they definitely do destroy other markets, though. There is no way a market could possibly develop when EU-subsidised products overstock a developing market!!! And, after all, the Asian Tigers are not really famous for their brilliant and exemplary legal system, ae? Or is it just me, who didn't notice the low rate of corruption in these countries?
Tuesday, 15 December 2009
Julia Wolter
Even that I'm very late I like to say Thanks aswell for this great opportunity to get in touch with Jana! (to apologise: First I was really ill, then there is very much trouble to get into the database the last weeks..)
The 7th question was very interesting for me and I was headnodding while reading the answer from Jana.
"...Why not to ask our trade and development partners more clearly: how the law functions in your country? How is the corruption? What about impunity? How do you stick to basic human rights? Are economic chances in your country really equal? Do you really apply all ILO measures? What about your exploitation of timber? Closing eyes - it is not management. It is conceptual bribery."
This part I felt very in agreement. Everything seems to be very good observed and controlled an in best order, there are a lot of onlooking organizations and so on... but I feel like everything is just organised to cover the briberies and other crimes which are going on by world trading. By reading the answer I couldn't resist the impression that the only question is always about the prices - not about circumstances, or even people...
Well, GREAT END OF THE YEAR EVERYBODY!!!! Julia
Thursday, 31 December 2009
Svea Marie Wehling
Very true indeed. What a pity, we haven't asked other countries yet, otherwise Akmal S. or some of the other (only official) 500 convicts might still be alive... I don't want to judge other ideas of justice, being murdered because of nonviolent crimes is not allegeable for me, though.
Thursday, 31 December 2009