Response - Globalization

Is globalization imperialism repackaged?

At heart, imperialism refers to the policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. Globalization on the other hand, is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones, by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together.

The statement is true to the extent that Western Leaders, particularly the USA, have been the forerunner and leader in the global economic order, extending their power and influence all over the world. With globalization, we witness an integration of national economies into the international economy through mediums such as trade, foreign investment, capital flows and technology. For instance, through the creation of the Bretton Woods system (backed by USA) in 1944, consisting of the IMF, World Bank and GATT, 2nd, 3rd world economies are now exposed to western capitalist style of governance, one widely advocated and used by these Western Leaders. This is an illustration of how imperialism, under the hood of globalization, has allowed for the USA to establish economic control and influence over these benefitting nations.

Nonetheless, it is an overgeneralization to commit to the statement, as national sovereignty is still very much relevant in today’s context. Countries affected by globalization still have control over state affairs and policies, unlike that of Western Imperialism in the past. For instance, in the 1980s, socialist Burma and Vietnam had closed their doors to international trade through adoption of a ‘closed economy’. Furthermore, it is obvious that the global economy and international relations today are upheld by interdependency between nations, in order to benefit mutually. Thus, it is safe to conclude that globalization is not imperialism repackaged, but a showcase of Western influence over global issues.

Will globalization create a more peaceful or conflict-laden world?

According to the Dell Theory, it is believed that no two countries in a major global supply chain will ever fight a war against each other. In other words, one of the reasons why countries will refrain from attacking each other is because they stand to gain economic benefits through cooperation. With globalization, increased interaction between countries would lead to increased cooperation, not just in the field of economics, but also in other areas such as political alliances. Increased dependence on other countries helps to build a more peaceful world.

However, the Dell Theory is an over-generalized and over-simplified depiction of the world; it does not apply to every single country. Certain countries (albeit very few) have limited interaction with the rest of the world despite globalization, such as North Korea, and for these countries, they have little to gain from other countries and remain a potential source of global violence and conflict. Some third world countries still remain enclosed and share little interaction with the rest of the world due to inherent constraints like social disorder and technological limitations, and globalization would fail to address the problems of these countries and the world would remain conflict-laden.

Although globalization has created several problems for the world and further propagated them, it is ironic (but thankful) that globalization has also allowed us to more efficiently keep track of such problems and clamp down on them with no national or geographical limitations. Therefore, we must acknowledge that globalization remains a double-edged sword with both good and bad implications, but more importantly, it is up to the global community, rather than the trend of globalization itself, to create a more peaceful world.

Can we be part of the global economy and still retain our own unique culture and traditions? Or would we end up being mini-Americas?

Undeniably, there may be some erosion of our culture and traditions as other cultures increasingly influence our practices and way of living. It is apparent that Singapore is changing at a rapid rate, becoming more westernized. This is part of integrating into the global economy, which is largely dominated by America. However, although that may be the case, I think that it is still possible to preserve our unique culture and traditions as globalization is taking place. This would have to depend on the efforts of the state and the people of the country. For instance, the state can help to preserve the heritage of the country by promoting traditional festivals. In Singapore, the government puts in great efforts to retain and enhance places with a sense of history and identity. These conserved buildings can be seen in Chinatown, Kampong Glam, Little India and Boat Quay, which were the early ethnic settlements.

However, as the saying goes, it takes two hands to clap. Efforts of the government have to go hand in hand with that of the people in order to successfully retain our culture and tradition. People of the new generation especially, do not see the importance of retaining our own cultures and traditions. This can be seen during Chinese New Year which has become just another opportunity to travel for many. If our own people do not see the significance of it, then it would be difficult to achieve both aims.

Chin Yik Sin
Goh Ying Ying
Zhang Zhefei
09S07A