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?
Answer by 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 Filipinos? 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.