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

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

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


Mr. Offenheiser: Maybe just to add a couple comments. In Bangladesh, I worked closely with the whole process of negotiation with the garment worker manufacturers during that period when they were trying to set up those arrangements. It was really a complex process that involved setting some standards as to what was child labor. In other words, sixteen years and above was considered not child labor and so the discussion with the manufacturers was really about how do we assure that there aren't girls under sixteen in the factories? And if they are, are there possibilities of arranging schooling for them and preserving their jobs at the same time so they might go back to the factories while at the same time improving conditions in the factories as well as a arranging schools and so on and so forth? A key to this though was actually getting the garment manufacturers themselves to buy into the whole program. The leveraging for that came actually from industry here in the United States and elsewhere which tried in some sense to bring codes of conduct and new standards to the kinds of sub-contracting arrangements that they were carrying out. So there is, I think, a role for people here that are involved in that movement to push for those kinds of codes of conduct and certification processes in order to see that those things happen appropriately.

7. Ms. Sharma: I'm from Women's EDGE in Washington, DC. I spent a lot of time on Capitol Hill with our geographically disabled congress. My question is for Dr. Khosla. You've described a really compelling and quite beautiful vision for development that takes advantage of the good parts of globalization and leaves the rest. My question for you and the rest of the panel is what constructive role can US policy play in catalyzing that process, if any? Or, is it more appropriate for the US to get out of it and essentially leave it to you?

Dr. Khosla: I don't think we're big enough for it on our own. If there was a slightly different attitude, one that is not confrontational and based on an expression of outrage and morals of high ground, but one of sensitivity and understanding, I think a lot could be done. Child labor is pretty bad. I'm not going to be heard saying it's a good thing. Sweat shops are pretty bad. I certainly don't want to promote them. But you know, in the U.K., Charles Dickens has written a lot about it and basically got where they are by investing very heavily in building up their countries and a hundred years ago, there was a lot of sweat shops here. Thirty years ago there were quite a lot. In fact, my company makes machines to make handled cloth and the first six that I sold were to a sweat shop in Chicago. Not that there are no sweat shops here either, but it's this sense of outrage and moral indignation that makes it difficult to have a dialogue. I don't believe that children should be working. They should be at school or playing or whatever else. If that's the only source of income in the family or their conditions haven't gotten to a stage in society and in the economy where you can eliminate all forms of child labor, it's not quite as disgusting as we tend to make it out to be. We essentially need transparency, accountability, but above all, local governance.

We need people at the center of decision-making. And if people are at the center of decision-making in a community or village, they tend to take care of their surroundings. They tend to protect their forests and waters and everything else. We need to encourage all that. If the international community - not just the US Congress but the UN and everybody else - is promoting generally the right kind of thinking instead of forcing it down your throat, I think they'd be much more successful. I think they would basically say, "Yes. We've got a problem and there has to be ways to deal with it. Let's work on it together. We'd like to put some money into it. We'd like to work with you". I think the chances of achieving a lot more are higher. It seems to me what you can do. Yes, we need to do that.

Dr. Linda Lim : We need to close now because we have to vacate the space by nine and there's a reception back there where you can mingle and ask the rest of the questions. Thank you very much.

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.
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.