The End of Globalism
Anyone met in the street would confidently assure you that we live at times of globalism. And maybe that is indeed the fact. The question is – how long would it last? Is it possible that this universal process comes to an abrupt end?
Above all, we are all clear with the fact that globalism is a political and economical process simultaneously. Nations of better developed economies have distorted their industrial priority into political leadership of worldwide significance.
In XIX century Victorian England is “the factory of the world”, and therefore easily turns into a world empire, where the sun never sets. It produces everything and sells it to everyone. The accumulated capital is invested in the Navy, and British rules are imposed on the whole world.
A century after USA acts alike. Its well functioning economy gains advantage in political aspect, the effectively pursued external policy reflects in a subsequent economical shove. And after the end of Cold War the Americans would bear the fruit of their victory. That stands for new compulsory principles – those of “global economy”, levied over lower developed economies.
That convention supposes free movement of people, goods and capital. The presumption is that those rules would contribute towards a raise in the powerful American economy – so that Americans can operate freely with their merchandise and capital as well as supply cheap working force. All that is a fact at the start of XXI century, but….
…”but” is relevant to the two important requisites that predetermine stability of the system. One is having a single- pole of the world (not two or three), the other is that “the pole”, has to be the worlds greatest producer, exporter, capitalist, able to finance everything, everywhere, always. The point where the world’s political leader falls behind on any of the above economic criteria is where globalism looses its foundation. It is illogical for a global power to shield an economy too open, once it starts undermining its position, instead of consolidating it.
What is the current situation?
Political and military leader of the World is the USA. Although debated, their priority is so far unattainable. Nevertheless in economical aspect that is no longer the fact. USA is not and will never be the factory of the world. That role is undertaken by poor societies with numerous population, guaranteeing available cheap working force and the resulting lower production costs. Therefore that place is taken by India, China, the countries between them Indo-China. Thanks to the imposed on behalf of Americans global economical policy, those countries sell their cheap commodities everywhere almost unimpeded. In fact those poor societies have earned the most out of globalization.
As to widely proclaimed free movement of people, there is the most signifying controversy between said and done. As long as that stands for rich entrepreneurs traveling freely, doing business, with no obstacles on behalf of local governments – there is no problem. Neither when that means rich tourists visiting exotic resorts on the Southern seas.
But when it comes up to the poor, crossing countries in order t o seek a better remunerated employment - that turns into a problem. Europe is swelling with immigrants- Indian, African, Muslim; USA – with Latinos and Asian. Societies of the rich North are no longer indifferent towards that incessant human flow and put pressure over their politics in order to build solid boundaries between the First and the Third World. That will inevitably happen. And then open movement of people will simply turn into a history fact.
Talking about free movement of capital, the picture is not much different. In our eyes America appears to be the richest country but that is also past. Everyone wishes to sell his goods on the American market and it is all good to the consumers there, but that leads to a budget deficiency. USA buys more from the rest of the world than it could possibly sell. That irrelevance could only be compensated by loans from abroad. The result is selling shares, bought mainly by China. The fact that one of them is a Capitalist and the other –a Communist country, stands out for different allocation of money in the two societies. Distribution of welfare, if not more reasonable, is at least more extensive in America, while in China it is vice versa. Individuals are poor, but the country is rich.
Moreover both American and European well developed industries experience constant need of energy resources. To keep up the speed they fall hostages to countries, producing and exporting gas, petrol, etc. The very exporters also undergo changes. Some of them – Bolivia and Russia – have implicitly or evidently laid a hand over gas trade and extraction. The rest have simply considerably raised prices of “black gold” instead.
From everything said so far, it is evident that the USA is no longer economical leader of global scale. And respectively does not have particular benefit in complying military and political measures to impose a world order, that turns out to be in favor of competitive economies, like China. It is not working in their interest anymore and starts to be in their way. An objective danger of the western world flooded with foreign “people, goods and capital” exists.
There are two possible outcomes.
One is China gradually transforming its economical power into military and political predominance and becoming sovereign master of the world. That will recover single-polarity and globalization will proceed in full power, with a touch of sweet and sour taste, though.
Second is America itself, limiting the process of globalization. The developed western societies would rather impede access of cheap eastern products on its markets and hinder admittance of unwelcome immigrants from the poor South. A new form of regional protectionalism will emerge. International trade will not stop, but it will not be as free. There is a third option – a combination of the two.
When could that happen?
Next year.
Antony De La Rea ; translated by: Dobromira Bozukova