The Globalization Debate

Can globalization be a geo strategy? That is what appears to be when we read reports from experts in US about the ‘behind the scene’ parleys in the presidential teams of the past. After Henry Kissinger’s Tri-Polar World Geostrategy and Bush’s anti EURO geo strategies, subsequent presidents of US has harped on the strategy on globalization.

While some regions of the world have benefitted from such geo strategic initiatives, others have not benefitted and perhaps the humanity as a whole might have suffered damage. Anti – Globalization volunteers talk about the widening gap between the rich and poor countries of the world partly due to the Globalization. They also talk about the deteriorating labor policies like those in China, where global companies have compromised on the human values in their production units, while ensuring their global profits. They argue that global production is motivated by cheap labor, favorable labor policies of the host governments, and more importantly lax environmental laws. The middle classes of the investing countries have also suffered in terms of lost jobs and dwindling pay packages at home.

So who has benefitted from globalization? It is argued that 6.3 % of world population living in US controls 50% of the world wealth. Globalization strategy ensures this control of world wealth is maintained if not improved. US have certainly got richer by globalization, although the wealth is among the richest of the country and may not with the common people. The planet is becoming less habitable by the day contributed by the forces of globalization.

India and China as many other emerging economies also have certainly benefitted from globalization. However this benefit is still to trickle down to the neediest of the population there. Similar benefits have not been seen with most of other poor countries especially in the African continents. Chinese economic incursions in African countries have already been compared with modern form of imperialism, which has not benefited the poor people of Africa. Chinese deals with the dictators of mineral rich African nations, have only benefitted few individuals there.

So how would be the global economy of the deep 21st century? It can not be inferred that global economy would continue to harp on the globalization while criticism to these forces mounts. Russia has in recent times, demonstrated a pull back from these forces of globalization. Others may follow suit. So the global economy of 21st century is likely to be mixed bag of regionalization and certain degree of globalization. Most countries are likely to focus on trade with certain strategic partners with the motivation for secure transactions, convenience, location advantages, favorable political ideologies etc.