Cultures in collision: the future of globalization

Non-fiction
Excerpts and adaptation from The extreme future: The top trends that will reshape the world in the next 20 years
By: James Canton

When some people talk about globalization, they take a narrow view and act as though the concept is nothing more than the ability to produce and sell goods and services across national borders. Globalization means far more than that.

Top 10 globalization trends:

1. linkage of nations' economies into one vibrant, prosperous and interconnected global network economy is the endgame of globalization.
2. Sustainable globalization could be a central force in supporting democratic reforms, reducing terrorism, promoting social progress and narrowing uneven development in the world.
3. promises to increase global trade, standard of living and quality of life
4. it is a powerful force against terrorist recruiters (snippet seamstress: or does it help support? will it be hijacked? more later..) as it develops free minds and creates higher standard of living, poverty reduction, improved health care and education (snippet seamstress: what about those that are unable to gain access? Will they be further polarised?)
5. catalyst for universal human rights as democractic reforms and free trade empower individual self-reliance
6. rise of telecommunications help facilitate global trade, open markets and free enterprise (e.g. TNCs, on-line businesses etc)
7. maybe hijacked by despots, criminals, extremists and terrorists
8. economies of China and India will be positively transformed by globalisation and will offer constructive examples for the developing world (snippet seamstress: 'positively' - a narrow reference to economic advantages? what about environmental impact? China is predicted to be the world's largest polluter in less than a decade time if nothing is done to alleviate it)
9. US will benefit from being an advocate of globalization but must continue to support innovation, global democracy and free trade.
10. help to increase cross-cultural understanding, breaking down barriers among people of different nations as trade alliances grow across borders.

Would globalization serve to unite or seperate nations?

Would it make countries more vulnerable?

The term global business has taken on a higher meaning beyond enterprise. It is now the global business of all countries to ensure world sustainability through transborder cooperation.

Hence, globalization is a new synthesis of ideas, trade, communications and collaboration that should promote future global prosperity, freedom and opportunity. It is the transformation of economies, culture, innovation and trade into a new conversation about how our civilization might evolve for the better.

It is about sustainable globalization. Globalization that is good for business, good for individuals, good for free markets and productive for both the developing and developed nations of the world.

The Snippet Seamstress:

The word 'sustainable' gain popularity or (notoriety?) after the Brundtland Report of 1985. It is now tagged to a whole lot of areas - ranging from sustainable transport, sustainable environment, sustainable agriculature, sustainable energy etc. It is an eclectic concept that remains weakly defined and contains a large amount of debate as to its precise definition.

1. 
   In your own opinion, has the term been overused, abused and devoid of meaning? Is it just rhetoric?


2. 
   
   Or, has it been meaningful? Has it encouraged constructive applications in different fields to ensure the continuity of mankind? To what extent have they been sucessful? How far are we from actualizing the ideology?

Globalization - a double-aged sword: who benefits and who gets left behind?
Increases in trade lead directly to increases is prosperity and standards of living, which in turn lead to democractic reforms and a reduction in conflict, war and terrorism. This is the big idea and is a preferred future for globalization that would bring together the mutual interests and needs of all nations. The developed world must figure out a new way to invest in the developing world, not just give aid and go away. (Interesting point!)

There is more than a global village. Terrorists just live minutes away. The future of globalization will either be postive, hopeful and peaceful, or pockmarked by seperate fortress island states of prosperity and poverty, hijacked by extremists, terrorists, criminals and tyrants. These are each the possible future of globalization.

The preferable future of globalization will not come easy. It will have to overcome dynamic differences both here and abroad. Some still support protectionist policies that will block open trade. This will backfire. the west access information from digital, even wireless sources while much of the rest of the world rely on newspapers or stories head in the local market, sermons of clergy or government-censored media channels. It is a world of differences that one thing - technology - will change faster than any other force?

At the same time, globalization is feared by nations that feel impotent in the face of more powerful nations' resources. Nations fear globalization are concerned about the inability of their local industries to survive global competition. Often, MNCs that have invested in innovation, outsourcing or have access to large amounts of capital and labour pools are viewed by less fortunate nations as having an unfair advantage. In the world of increased globalization, there is a new generation of haves and have-nots which increases global tensions.

In the U.S, there are deep concerns among business leaders about globalization. Many industries are reeling from the changes. The Chinese seem to be at the heart of many of these concerns. The same issues that smaller local companies may have in India or Mexico are shared by US small businesses. Can companies from developed nations compete in the future against companies in China that have access to much deeper resources than I do? In all fairness, there are many nations fearful of the US and Europe, they are concerned about competition and survival.

Globalization: an opportunity or calamity?

Poverty will kill globalization
Poor countries are generally weak in law enforcement. Without being competent to meets their citizens' basic needs, they are easy prey for extreme religious groups and terrorists. They also become havens for international crime. Afganistan is an example. There was a time not too long ago when you could enter a bazaar, an open air market, and buy any type of weapon or explosive made in the world. Afghanistan was central to the global arms trade due to the poverty and lawlessness of the nation. Of course, it was also a nation that produced and still produces much of the world's opiumm for making heroin.

So, in one location, with the convenience of one-stop shopping, criminals or terrorists were able to buy tanks, explosives, rockets and guns - enough to fuel any rougue enterprise. And as a side order, they could profit by buying heroin in bulk then reselling it to drug users in Western democracies.

Numerous studies have shown that poverty drives conflict. It is not much of a leap to conclude that poverty will not just encourage war but doom globalisation unless it is dealt with. The link between poverty and crime and poverty and terrorism is well established.

The Snippet Seamstress:

It is also important for developed and 'democratic' nations to take close look at their immigration and racial policies. The onus should not only be on people from poorer and less developed nations. This view is way too arrogant and ethnocentric. Rather, some questions to ponder:

1. Have enough emphasis been given to create sound immigration and racial policies that seek justice and equality, regardless of race, language and religion? (This, taken from my national pledge now means so much more to me in the current climate. :))


2. Have concrete steps been taken to ensure that migrants are integrated well into their society?


3. Or, have migrants been treated as part of the 'others', as 'pests' to society and deprived of jobs and education?


4. How can patriotism (to their adopted country) be infused?

Terrorism is a terrible act and should never be condoned. It should never be used an convenient excuse in the fight for rights and justice. To sacrifice lives unneccessarily and cause suffering to others in a horrible deed and mistake.

But yet,

1. Is terrorism, for some, a loud, desperate yet ironically simple cry for help and attention?


2. Some terrorists are found to be citizens from 'democratic, developed' nations. What pushed them to join the ranks? Are they sympathizers or part of the marginalized?

The world needs deep reflection.