A Counter Globalisation Force - Essay Example

Contemporary Regionalisation: A Counter Globalisation Force? Undoubtedly, globalisation is a reality for us and the times we live in (Kennedy, 1993). At the same time, experts have pointed towards other sources which suggest that nationalism or more importantly regionalism could be counter force to the negative influence of globalisation and global culture (Haass & Lian, 1998). While the fact of regionalisation being a counter force to globalisation is not disputed, the effect of this phenomenon has been questioned. It is important for us to understand and discuss this because regionalism and globalization are directly connected with our geopolitics, economies, and civilization as a whole. Of course before a discussion on regionalisation and globalisation can be undertaken, we need to have definitions for both of these items. The more complex of the two has always been globalisation since it has been defined by many different scientists and thinkers in many different ways. Kacowicz (1999) gives an extensive definition of the word and covers a lot of ground by calling it an ideology, a myth, a phenomenon as well as a catchall phrase to mean colossal cultural, technological, economic and ideological changes. There are subsidiary aspects of globalisation as well. For instance, economic globalisation refers to the international system of production and manufacture along with the interdependence of states for their economies (Cho, 1995). At the same time, the Ideological side of globalisation refers to the liberalisation and privatisation of certain trades and industries e.g. in sectors like power development and distribution which was once considered a singularly governmental exercise (Kacowicz, 1999). There is also the case of technological globalisation which represents how technology and information can now be shared across the world through the wonder of computers and the internet. It can be both positive and negative since information sharing can help create the latest breakthrough in medicine or help transfer nuclear technology from one country to another. However, perhaps the most discussed about type of globalisation is the cultural one, which shows that the world is coming to a unified standard of civilization with a concordance of tastes and demands. At the same time, regionalisation can be thought of as growing social integration between countries in a give region. Nation-states which are bound by cultural facts, geographic features, defence pacts or economic ties may choose to cooperate with each other on a deeper level going towards eventual overall political cooperation as in the case of the European Union (Kacowicz, 1999). Once regionalisation is present, the concept of regionalism becomes active by which governments can pool resources for collective arrangements. Like globalisation, the regional forces in the zone may come to a point where they have certain common fundamental values, interdependent economies, similarities in culture and more or less the same level of technology (Kacowicz, 1999). The speed with which regionalisation occurs is much faster and more public than globalisation since regionalisation has several examples which are presented to the public by the media on a daily basis. The case of EU being just one of the cases of regional cooperation overtaking globalisation influences. Kacowicz (1999) suggests that the interactions between the forces of regionalism and globalisation can be studied in three different ways. The first is to see these forces as converging forces i.e. regionalism is a part of the process of globalisation and the trends of both these forces are in the same direction. The second is to see them as overlapping forces and the third and final aspect is to see them as opposites to each other. To see globalisation and regionalism as cooperative forces may perhaps go against the very topic of discussion but it can be seen as an important aspect of the relationship between the phenomenons. In this situation, regionalism is simply a part of the globalisation process (Mittelman, 1996). This is because the end result of extensive regionalism will eventually be a unified global structure where there are no regions left to merge. Mittelman (1996) holds the opinion that regionalism today is simply a compressed form of globalisation and is simply a milestone on the road to a unified world. Once regions have formed loosely bound confederations, they can and will enter the global markets with more confidence but to remain competitive and keep their advantages they will have to in cooperative relationships with other regional powers which will lead to generally cooperative world environment regardless of the sphere of discussion. It seems as it states themselves will vanish to be replaced by regional cooperative bodies which play on a global scale (Evans, 1997). Even though this view can be seen as overly optimistic, there are already hints of this structure taking place especially when we consider the regional cooperation the EU has given to its long time partner, the United States in terms of global security. Although individual countries in the EU may not be entirely supportive of the methods and means employed by America, it can be seen that the European Union as a whole does give support to the war on terror as well as economic cooperation for the development of Iraq. The second viewpoint of taking regionalism and globalisation as parallels has several issues associated with it (Gamble & Payne, 1996). The first assumption we need to make is to see major regions in the world as being economically tied together i.e. America, Europe and Asia. Secondly, there is an element of shared security which comes into play and both these assumptions must be true for globalisation and regionalism to be parallel forces. However, this is difficult to swallow since this idea ignores mineral rich, but otherwise poor, regions like Africa and the Middle-East. Secondly, interdependence in terms of security is also difficult to accept since the two major players in this setup (China and America) are hesitant towards military cooperation even though they are economically connected to each other in significant ways. Seeing regionalization as a challenge to globalization is possibly the best viewpoint for the coming years since that is the trend the world seems to be going towards. The simple fact of the matter is that regionalisation is seen as a positive thing with many benefits for the countries involved while globalisation is seen as American hegemony (Maershall, 1998). While the countries of the world realise that to remain competitive they have to play on the global level, they might find it difficult to compete without being in a cooperative system with other countries in the region which might be able to offset their own disadvantages (Drucker, 1997). This is another advantage which makes states prefer a regionalist outlook more than a global viewpoint. Additionally, while globalisation may seem to be forced on a country or a nation, regionalism is simply a relatively small extension of the ideology upheld by a nationalistic population. It is much easier to accept your neighbour as a friend and support their political agenda as your own than it is to accept and support a country which may be far removed in terms of culture, language, common interests and common ideas. The case of globalisation is not helped by the fact that it is often seen as contrary to the principles of democracy, detrimental to indigenous culture, and bad for the economy (Haass & Lian, 1998). The identity of a country within a region also plays a strong part in resisting globalisation and moving towards regionalism since countries with stronger identities can resist attempts to be a part of the global scheme due to the call of nationalistic interest (Franck, 1997). There are even more severe examples where states do not cooperate even regionally due to the traditions of hatred between neighbours. The case of India and Pakistan comes to mind since these countries could gain a lot by cooperating with each other yet they prefer to have other trade partners. In conclusion, while globalisation and regionalism are counter forces, the effect of regionalism appears to be present for only the short term. I believe that in the longer view of civilization, it will make more sense to live as one nation rather than many countries with differences and petty squabbles. However, I do not think that this change will come overnight nor do I assume that the reasons for that will be social revolution or human acceptance of differences; rather, the motivating factor for such a union would probably be economics. Works Cited Cho, G.1995. Trade, Aid and Global Interdependence, Routledge. Drucker, P. 1997. ‘The Global Economy and the Nation-State’ Foreign Affairs, no. 5, p. 159. Evans, P. 1997. ‘The Eclipse of the State? Reflections on Stateness in an Era of Globalization’, World Politics, no. 1, p. 64. Franck, T. 1997, ‘Tribe, Nation, World: Self-Identification in the Evolving International System’, Ethics and International Affairs, no. 11, p. 151. Gamble, A. and Payne, A. 1996, Regionalism and World Order, Macmillan Haass, R. and Lian, R. 1998, ‘Globalization and Its Discontents’, Foreign Affairs, no. 3, p. 6. Kacowicz, A. 1999, ‘Regionalization, globalization, and nationalism: Convergent, divergent, or overlapping?’ Social Transformation & Humane Governance, no. 4, p. 527. Kennedy, P. 1993. Preparing for the Twenty-First Century. Random House. Maershall, D. 1998. ‘NAFTA/FTAA Recolonisation or Structural Opportunity, Third World Quarterly, no. 19, p. 673. Mittelman, J. H. 1996, ‘Rethinking the New Regionalism in the Context of Globalization’, Global Governance, no. 2, p. 197. Read More