Globalizing Tyrannies

Globalization is a system based on mutual trust, on granting and receiving mutual benefits, and refraining from violence. Its weakness is that trust can be breached and benefits enjoyed unilaterally without serious consequences, at least until someone else reacts. Low-level violence can be used to good advantage by those ready to bend or break the rules. Two powerful countries are now engaged in an unashamed exploitation abroad of the freedoms offered by globalization, while themselves denying others similar freedoms on their own territories.

The rise of authoritarian China and the recuperation of an aggressive Russia are prominent facts of the present world. The rise of China was widely anticipated, the Russian restoration less so, but both changes have been facilitated and vastly accelerated by globalization. Globalization has long been criticized by the political Center-Left. It is high time its drawbacks were recognized by the Center- Right as well.

One thing I learned from my early studies of international political economy (on international shipping, and foreign direct investment) was that most national governments at that time (post-WWII) were being used - or let themselves be used - as vehicles to promote particular interests, in competition with other economic interests within their own country, and competing with the interests championed by other national governments. The national interests of a country at that time were (to put it a bit crudely) whatever particular interests managed to hijack the government's support. And I am not talking primarily about the socialist countries of that period, or third world countries - rather, OECD countries, western industrialized countries. Of course, these governments did not primarily act in the markets as if they were companies themselves (although that also happened), but they struggled continuously to shape and reshape the rules of international markets in favor of their own chosen industries. The interests of the general public were not often mentioned. At the time I found this to be a shocking bit of evidence against the ruling norms of the "free world", supposedly the guardians of free markets and fair competition.

Having moved on from the naive views of my youth, I believe the world of global economic relations is very much the same interest-ridden complexity today, only the basic rules have changed, making it much more difficult (provided they play by the rules) for national governments to protect against foreign competition. With the lowering of national barriers and the rise of the electronic worldwide network, vast new fields of social, economic, religious and political activity have opened up. The actors have changed as well, with national governments less prominent, and international organizations and NGOs greatly expanded in functions and influence. Multinational (transnational) corporations have grown as expected since the 1970s, but have not achieved world dominance. Power is, to some extent, shared. There are multiple actors, multiple power centers, multiple possibilities. Globalization has in large part become the definition of the world scene.

Given my skeptical view of national governments as economic actors, I initially welcomed this great transition. Later I have, like others, come to doubt the wisdom of promoting such enormous change. The most obvious reason, launched by critics early on, was that globalization brings unmanageable side effects while reducing the possibility of putting on the brakes. Free movement, unfettered transnational transactions, is the main leverage for achieving globalized effects. It is also the cause of most of the trouble. It has allowed unprecedented agglomerations of money and power where there should be none - in vicious criminal networks, operating drug trafficking and human trafficking, in authoritarian regimes abusing the globalized freedoms for anti-democratic purposes, in the corruption undermining many apparently democratic governments. The undermining of governments around the world has also been facilitated by the untrammeled trade in small arms. Fanatical religion has spread and multiplied their support via global communication networks.

Ideally, the coexistence of different cultures and conflicting ideas should be at the core of globalization. A freely transacting world must come to terms with the continuing presence of widely diverse cultures. For this to happen, either one (western), secular culture must become universally accepted as a functional economic and political overlay to genuine, deep subcultures, or a truly tolerant multicultural civilization must come into being that can allow political and economic activities to proceed undisturbed. Until the failure of the "Arab spring" we could still believe in the beneficial potential of the unlimited spread of ideas - good ideas. It turned out we did not all agree on what were the good ideas. Multiculturalism became impossible when violence to "non-believers" was sanctioned by religious groups.

Of all these side effects, the undermining of liberal democracy and the unleashing of unabashed authoritarianism is nevertheless in my view the most serious.

In two highly readable, recent articles Michael Ignatieff points out the surprising and threatening breakthrough for authoritarianism around the world, and especially what he calls authoritarian capitalism, excelling in China and Russia, giving the lie to the old "truth" that democratic capitalism is the only workable system (see New York Review of Books, July 10 and September 25, 2014). The assertive power of these two dictatorships and the way their power is exercised - freely, brazenly - is also new, and scary. Secret illegal action is covered up with blatant lies. When violent crackdowns or other oppressive action have to be made in plain view, excuses are no longer made. Power is its own justification. And as Ignatieff also points out, it is corrupt power, a sophisticated system infused and maintained with money from secret, illicit sources.

Aggressive authoritarianism exploits globalization. This has been further facilitated by the widespread reduction of arms in the western world. The post-cold war era was the world of the "peace dividend", even in spite of the Yugoslav, Afghan and Iraqi wars. European military forces were significantly reduced. Since 1991 the response capacity of Russia's western neighbors to armed provocations has been built down to near zero, on the expectation that Russia would now be a friendly country with no reason to pick quarrels with its neighbors. It was thought a safe gamble at the time. Not today.

Recent aggressive action by Russia, and not merely in Ukraine, is quite serious. Russia is probing borders and repeatedly provoking incidents between its military aircraft and naval units and the legitimate civilian activities of other countries in their space or in international waters, from the Baltic and Barents Seas to the Bering Strait. Sweden presently finds itself in a bind over unexpected Russian submarine activity in the approaches to Stockholm. Sweden, Finland and the Baltic states have been challenged numerous times during the past year by Russian air force units.

In similar activities China has been harassing its neighbors to the south for decades in the waters of the South China Sea, which it ludicrously claims in its entirety, contrary to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (to which China is a party - see my blog on the South China Sea, June 30, 2011). The South China Sea, sectors of which are legitimately claimed by the littoral states, also is the main shipping route for trade between China, the Middle East and Europe. To keep that traffic lane free and open is obviously a vital Chinese interest, as it is a vital interest of the other littoral states and the international community at large. But having a vital interest does not allow China to arrogate the whole sea to itself.

In sum, playing at geopolitics has become simpler as borders have become porous and global transaction rules have been standardized. Given the unavoidable presence in the future of these and other similarly unscrupulous actors, a measured retreat from the current wide open version of globalization to something more reliant on nation-state actors would seem to be necessary. Ironically, in the internet world this is clearly something both China and Russia have long been seeking, in order better to control their own populations and keep foreigners out of their home space. Their provocations are bound to be temporary, but the broader effects are likely to be a less globalized world and a bigger role for closed, large markets (USA, China, EU, India). The present xenophobia of Russia will hopefully subside, but in the meantime we shall have to suffer the "gangsterous" types while waiting for wiser Russian voices to break through. They exist, I know.