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.
