Home › Policy › Social Issues › Human Rights

Globalization: The Promises and The Perils, U.S. and Asian Responses

Share

Informatics Creative Commons photo-patchwork. (musha68000/Flickr)
enlarge image

Informatics Creative Commons photo-patchwork. (musha68000/Flickr)

What were some of the lessons then that we learned? Asia's love affair with the global market tends to downplay the negative side of globalization, including its effect on the poor and on the environment. It also pushed aside Asia's first love - social investment - as the foundation for sustainable prosperity. I think this is a lesson that we've learned. Now that the passions have cooled a little, perhaps we can look at some of the positive, as well as the negative effects of globalization and find some pointers to the future, not only for East Asia, but also for all Asian countries.

East Asia's prosperity, as I said - and I think this is born out by many studies including the world bank study recently - was built on social investment. Recent experience has shown how easily the effect of these investments can be undermined. But it has also demonstrated their underlying value. East Asian countries are now bouncing back. I think with more emphasis on poverty, eradication and gender equality in the years to come, they will be better able to protect themselves from future shocks. As they say in America, remember who brought you to the dance.

Renewed emphasis on social investment will also allow East Asian countries to invest in their older people of whom there are now an increasing number and for whom there is still little provision. The extended family is still continuing but we are already testing the limits of what can be expected from it.

One of the costs of breakdown of expansion has been the environmental damage. I think we all know what has happened in Indonesia and the consequences of those actions. I hope that East Asian countries are alive to these efforts. They could perhaps learn from the experience of Europe and Japan, where investment and conservation is paying economic dividends. I think these are some lessons from the globalization and from the interchange that we need to examine and apply.

There is no reason why Asian countries should repeat some of the mistakes that have been made by some of the industrialized countries.

One of the other outcomes of the globalization process has been the greater mobility of labor and as you know, this is one of the great political divides between the north and the south in the UN; while we advocate very strongly on the free market system in a globalized environment, we are less open about the other side of the coin, which is the labor markets which go along with the free market system.

Migration has been of course a mixed blessing for both the sending and the receiving countries, especially because there is no comprehensive international agreement covering labor movements and the right of migrants. These economies drew workers from across the regions, some of who now are in a difficult position. And of course, still there's migration and movement problems between countries in the Asian region as much as they are between the countries of the South and the North.

M.Hunter | 07:29:10 12:57am
Usually when we speak of Asian globalization and its perils we speak about China. I had the privilege of having Robert Sutter as my professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. This scholar possesses a truly incredible grasp of China and the issues surrounding her Rise in Asia. I can earnestly recommend anyone remotely interested in Asian affairs to purchase his book and take advantage of Professor Sutter's expertise in the region. According to Sutter's theory, historically, China has had hegemonic ambitions. Not only she portrays her own struggles as of universal significance, she also keeps a close watch of countries around her periphery as if they are naturally within her sphere of influence. Her political leaders are hypersensitive to criticisms and tend to behave defensively. The Chinese plot their policies and strategies, not much guided by principles but mainly on a case-by-case bases. They are more likely to go after short-term gains than for long-term benefits. As a result, Chinese foreign policy tends to be capricious and disruptive. In Sino-US relations in particular, China has been long suspicious of U.S. ulterior motives and is actively hedging against U.S. policies through bilateral and regional actions. In the same vein, Sutter views China's recently totted "peaceful rising" with suspicion. Whether China has truly renounced aggressive posture in her international dealings, or she just says so to "bid time" in order to secure economic growth, remains to be seen. As how to engage a rising China, Sutter sees Bush administration's approach as a potential model: keep her at arms length, do not give any unwarranted expectations (as Clinton administration has purportedly done), and stand firm. My personal observation is, although there is some truth to many of his assertion, Sutter's ultimate fallacy is that he uses a liberalist standard to criticize China in order to justify U.S. own realist strategy.
Orchard | 05:19:10 04:30pm
Ambassador Platt should be commended on his efforts to introduce the issue of Economic expansion and crisis and it's effect on the population of Asia to the American people.

Post new comment

Your comments are welcome, please adhere to our guidelines

Be respectful. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; nor will profane, abusive or threatening posts.

Keep it short (150 words or less), Stay on topic.

Asia Society reserves the right to moderate all comments and remove or edit for guideline violations. Thank you.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.