Understanding the complexity of globalization

Aziz, Kuala Kencana, Papua

The wave of globalization challenges the mind-set that assumes that simply by being a citizen of a nation or nation-state one will have a specific, definitive identity. What made a nation united was common history but what is encountered now is problems of the present and future, which may render historical ties obsolete.

Lee Hsien Loong, leader of Singapore, a nation with high per capita income and highly educated citizens, in an interview with Channel News Asia, expressed his concern that Singaporeans must not lose their identity as they progress to a knowledge-based society driven by open information from Internet technology, i.e. globalization.

This anxiety of lost identity was pervasive worldwide after the collapse of the Soviet Union, leaving the U.S. as the "sole" superpower in world affairs. Politically and militarily, U.S. troops have demonstrated their force in practically every corner of the world, either through multilateral or unilateral action.

McDonald's and Coca-Cola are symbols, perhaps the only symbols, of a modern, global diet. The domination of Hollywood movies, plus international TV stations CNN and MTV has produced a love-hate relationship for the world audience.

The U.S. has produced software providers (Microsoft, Apple) and hardware manufacturers (Dell, Apple etc). All this imminent penetration creates anxiety, primarily because the pace is too fast to digest, leaving many nations or people feeling unprepared to deal with the penetration on their own terms.

On the other hand, the videotape of the killing (beheading) of hostages broadcast via the Internet recently by terror groups was also made possible by the globalization of information.

While the U.S. still dominates world affairs, China, Russia and India have consolidated their potential to catch up. Also, regionalism has entered the game of power consolidation. The fifth enlargement of the European Union bravely included states with lower income levels and different political and cultural systems compared with those of existing members.

Although one might perceive the EU to be a counterbalance for U.S. domination, the EU's enlargement heralds its stronger position in world affairs. The decision to widen the participation of the EU undoubtedly inspired and encouraged other regional communities to look into the possibility of stronger ties and cohesion of the regional member countries.

Asian leaders in the 2004 Future of Asia Conference passionately voiced their desire to form an East Asian union. The Asian leaders expected that this union would facilitate a grand scale of political and economic power through the integration of China, Japan, South Korea and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

But globalization also questions the status of a government as the sole representative of a nation-state. The open access to information through telecommunications, microcomputers and Internet technology has stimulated the globalization of other civil society elements like non-governmental organizations (NGOs).

For example, the World Economic Forum, attended by leaders of governments is in competition with the World Social Forum, attended by NGO leaders and members. Now, more than ever, before we talk about a nation-state, we have to carefully distinguish between the people and government of a nation.

Hence we see how Jusuf Wanandi regretted the government's decision to expel Sidney Jones from Indonesia and warned of the damaging impact of the decision in the era of globalization (The Sidney Jones case and the presidency of Megawati, The Jakarta Post, June 28, 2004).

The U.S. invaded Iraq, but there are many elements within the U.S. that rallied, demonstrated and campaigned against the war. Other demonstrations around the world protested against the decision to wage war, mostly organized by NGOs and political parties.

The dissenting voice, either in the opposition or through NGOs, is not new. What is new is how the interconnectedness of people's interests goes beyond territorial borders. What many tend to overlook is that international NGOs may now have the same size as a transnational corporation in terms of the number of operational sites, the magnitude of assets and social, economic and political influence.

Somewhat surprisingly, although America is the major "exporter" of globalization, growing anxiety also finds a home with the American people. Thomas L. Friedman, in his book The Lexus and Olive Tree, argued that no state or institution could control globalization, not even America. Therefore, conspiracy theories, as advocated by Mahathir Muhammad when he made accusations about the root problem of the Asian financial crisis (1997 to 1998) were not valid.

Friedman has further argued that globalization is the replacement of the Cold War system. It is not just a phenomenon or passing trend. Globalization is the integration of capital, technology and information across national borders, in a way that creates a single global market and, to some degree, a global village.

The complexity of globalization is that the process involves paradoxes like growing localism and regionalism, as well as globalism, increased diversity as well as homogeneity, fragmentation as well as integration. There is a good side and bad side and something in between. No wonder this turbulence confuses many people, regardless of their awareness level.

Freedom is the major product that globalization offers. But freedom condemns man, Jean Paul Sartre said. We do not know what we want, yet we are responsible for what we are, the philosopher further observed.

In the globalization era, if you do not know what you want, somebody else will dictate what you want and how to get it, or worse, how not to get it. At the end of the day, globalization is just another game: Survival. If you play the game well there is a chance that you will win, but if you do not play well or do not play at all you will certainly lose.

The author, a freelance writer, can be reached at aziz@fmi.com