4) “This is home, truly.” Is this the sentiment of young people in Singapore?

Definitions:

Home- sense of belonging; not confined to physical boundaries of geographical location.
Truly- genuinely
Sentiment- opinion
Young people- teenagers to mid-30s

Issues for discussion:

i) Young people’s patriotism towards Singapore/ lack of (aspects- politics: apathetic attitude, overseas Singaporeans keep themselves updated when General Elections were nearing. Social: social workers caring and giving back to society, students + cip , reselling of NDP tickets, poll results + NS )
ii) Increasing trend of young people migrating (resulting in brain drain. Invitations were sent to overseas talent to return home yet some declined.)
iii) Oppression by government. Freedom of speech + Law of assembly
iv) Young people’s sense of rooted-ness (little discrimination, Hosting Youth Olympics)

“This is home truly, where I know I must be where my dreams wait for me, where that river always flows. This is home surely, as my senses tell me. This is where I won't be alone, for this is where I know it is home.” This is adapted from Singapore’s theme song for our 1998 National Day Parade. Dick Lee, Singapore’s homegrown singer and songwriter, wrote these lyrics. By penning the lyrics, Lee is expressing his heartfelt feelings for Singapore and hopes that fellow Singaporeans share his sentiments. Singapore has many goals to achieve; these include maintaining its independence as well as establishing her economy as well. These serve to provide a haven for Singaporeans, a place where they can genuinely call home. Comparing between young people of today with the older generation, the older generation seem to have a greater sense of belonging to Singapore. Perhaps this could be explained by the fact that the older generation had experienced the struggles of Singapore in its early days and contributed to what Singapore is today. On the other hand, young people today lack those experiences thus they may be unable to empathize and appreciate Singapore and what she has to offer.

One pressing issue that has been discussed fervently is the brain drain that Singapore is experiencing. There is an increasing trend of Singaporeans studying overseas choosing to remain overseas after they graduate and working Singaporeans settling down overseas with their families. A recent article in the Straits Times stated that majority of Singaporeans who has high ranking jobs chose to stay overseas rather than return home despite invitations sent by the Singapore government. This shows that they prefer being abroad for many reasons such as a slower pace of life overseas as compared to Singapore. Though most of them were born and grew up in Singapore, they preferred to call somewhere else home.

There are many reasons accounting for this trend and the main reason is that young people in Singapore find the overseas more attractive than Singapore. This is so because they face many restrictions here in Singapore, which are not present in other countries. The Singapore government heavily monitors freedom of speech in Singapore. Issues such as those pertaining to the local political scene and which are detrimental to racial harmony in Singapore are not allowed to be discussed publicly and even on the Internet. The government defends its stance by saying that this is in the best interest of Singaporeans. However, many people, especially the young, find this oppressive and a violation to their personal freedom of speech. In addition, laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Prohibition of Assemblies and Processions) Order” disallow local Singaporeans to congregate at public places and engage in activities such as protests, which disrupt public order. Even peaceful protests can be subjected to laws and persecution. This causes young people to feel their speech and behaviour is controlled by the state and thus it makes it harder for them to call Singapore its home where they face such limitations.

However, there are also Singaporeans who harbour a sense of belonging towards Singapore. In its bid to host the Youth Olympics 2010, many young people and other age groups got together and combined efforts to obtain a successful bid. The synergy and co-operation show their love for Singapore as their home. On the day of the release of results for the bid, hundreds of Singaporeans, mainly the youth, congregated together. When it was announced that Singapore was the successful bidder, Singaporeans cheered and celebrated together. In addition, news reported that in the last Singapore General Election, there were Singaporeans who were overseas who kept themselves updated by checking online sites and watching local news. This shows that these young people are still concerned about happenings in Singapore, their home, though they were not present in Singapore. Apparently, home is more than just the physical location; it is this sense of belonging and attachment towards a place that makes the place a home.

There are young people who call Singapore their home and those who do not. The fact remains that there is an increasing trend of young people migrating and this is indeed worrying. The government should perhaps review its policies and its political stance to find out the root cause of the trend. However, the government may be able to do little as this trend can also be attibrute to the increase in globalization, which is the mobility of people across physical borders. Thus, it is more important to instill patriotism and a sense of belonging in young Singaporeans rather than to prevent them from venturing overseas.

Religion has greater influence than government. Religion is based on faith, which is more absolute. China is threatened by Tibet who is very religious. Tibet is under Dalai Lama, who believes he’s Buddha.

Singapore is supporting the crackdown of Muslim religion and Buddhist religion, by issuing a statement. Singapore is enemies with Myanmar because Singapore supported their leader, offering medical aid.

Singapore wants to be in the good books of many countries, like the super powers of the world.

Singapore therefore is not fully globalized as globalization means everyone, every religion is equal. Yet Singapore is supporting and leaning towards certain religions.

SDL and Research on Globalisation (Fri 28th Mar '08)

Impact on Social Issues

http://arabnews.com/?page=5&section=0&article=98293&d=17&m=7&y=2007

Globalization and Its Impact on SocietyAdil Salahi, Arab News

Q. The world has been moving steadily toward globalization and there seems to be nothing to check its march. The issue of women’s empowerment has been pushed through with the help of different agencies of the UN, particularly the UNDP. I do not have a problem with such empowerment or with women’s going out to work, if allowed by their families. However, in practice, this raises questions about the way they dress and their presence in a mixed working environment, where they have no Mahram. At work people develop friendship. Is there any provision in Islam for such friendship between man and woman? Please comment on this issue in detail.

Mujtaba Hasan
A. We always assert our belief that Islam is God’s final message to mankind, and that it is suitable for all societies, in all generations. At the same time, we make clear that God has placed man in charge of the earth and required him to build a good and virtuous human society that maintains freedom and justice for all. God says in the Qur’an: “Worship God alone. You have no deity other than Him. He it is who brought you into being out of the earth and settled you therein.” (11: 61) By settlement, the Qur’an means a settlement that ensures progress. Human civilization has achieved much material and scientific progress, but unfortunately it has not ensured similar progress in human issues. Hence, there is much injustice, particularly at the social level, in our world. Women bear a considerable share of such injustice, but in varying degrees in different societies.

In Muslim countries, injustice to women is often at a high level. What is more, some aspects of injustice are often given an Islamic appearance although they are contrary to Islam. Islam treats men and women equally in all respects, with some differences that are required to help them fulfill their two complementary roles in life. Where such differences occur, they always give women a special advantage or privilege. Shortly before the blessed life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) came to its end, he repeated enjoining his followers not to lose sight of three most important things: prayer as well as fair treatment of slaves and women. Prayer provides a bond between man and God, keeping man always aware of the need to obey divine orders and implement the Islamic code of living. The other two injunctions aim to establish justice for the two most vulnerable groups in society. If we look at the position of women in Muslim societies today, we find that there are still some Muslim communities that deprive women of their share of inheritance, assigned to them by God Almighty. It is ingrained in the culture of some Muslim communities that women have to defer to their husbands or parents in aspects where Islam gives them complete freedom. In marriage, Islam establishes that a woman should have a dowry, paid by the husband, and it becomes her own property, which she is free to use the way she likes. In some Muslim communities, the dowry is used to buy furniture, while in others, the woman is told by her parents to forgo it on her wedding night. In fact, the husband is paid in gold to ensure that the marriage is completed. If a woman is working, it is often the case that the man claims part or all of her income, when he is responsible to provide for her and the rest of his family.

The gulf between the position Islam gives to women and our inherited concept of that position is wide indeed. We always tend to think of certain aspects, such as the dress code, segregation between men and women, and the Mahram, or the presence of a close relative when a woman travels or is in the company of men. When a woman is in her waiting period, after her husband’s death or her divorce, we want her not to leave home until that period is over. Look at the following authentic Hadith reported by Jabir ibn Abdullah: “My maternal aunt was divorced. She wanted to go to her date farm to supervise its harvest, but a man tried to prevent her (because she was in her waiting period). She asked the Prophet and he said to her: “Yes, you can go and supervise your harvest. You may then be able to give something in charity or do some other good thing.” (Related by Muslim.) Here is a woman companion of the Prophet who owns a farm. The Prophet tells her that although she was in her waiting period, she could go and supervise the work in her farm. Of course she would not be the one who collects her dates from the trees. She would employ some men for the task and she would ensure that they do the work properly. As she will be doing this, she would be in charge and she can then give away a portion of her harvest in charity. We note that the Prophet did not tell her to take with her a Mahram, i.e. a close relative whom she cannot marry, because relations in Islamic society are based on trust.
Should women be empowered? Should they be allowed to work? Should they have control of their income? Should they have the freedom to conduct their own affairs? From the Islamic point of view, the answer to all these questions is, ‘Yes, by all means.’ However, we insist that all this should be in accordance with Islamic teachings, as these were given to us by the Prophet. What does this mean in practice? It means that there are differences between men and women in certain issues and these must be observed. These are meant to ensure fairness to women and priority for family concerns. Islam differs greatly with modern civilization in this regard. Modern civilization tries to establish equality between man and woman in absolute terms, giving the family two equal heads. This has resulted in the practical collapse of the marriage institution in the West. In some European countries, nearly half of all marriages end in divorce within two or three years. Morality is discarded as old-fashioned and women are often treated as sex objects.
The Islamic way is a middle way, providing a holistic approach to the needs of the individual, the family and society, and upholding a very high and serious standard of morality. However, we need to learn more about Islam and the place of women in Islamic society.
In Arab News, we have been carrying a series of articles on this issue with an approach relying only on the Qur’an and the authentic Hadith. We hope that readers will see the wide gulf between their inherited conceptions and the true Islamic view.


http://archive.gulfnews.com/notes/Issues/10164813.html

The impact of globalisation on society
By Manal Ismail, Staff ReporterPublished: November 03, 2007, 23:29



Impact on Political Relations


http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/2000/Vol26_3/3.htm

Globalisation and Its Impact on Security in Southeast Asiaby MAJ Ronnie Lim Gek Seng

ASEAN has faced diverse challenges since its establishment in 1967. From the time of its inception to the end of the Cold War, ASEAN's main preoccupation has been with challenges to its security in terms of military threats. With the end of the Cold War, as the military confrontation subsided, the challenges appear to come from other fronts, notably in the aspects of economic growth and cooperation.1 The recent economic crisis is probably one of the greatest challenges faced by ASEAN.
With the financial crisis, confidence in the Asian economic miracle has been severely shaken. Serious doubts have been raised in the region about the 'benefits' of rapid globalisation and economic interdependence. Globalisation, which had been a significant phenomena in this region, has been blamed for exacerbating the contagious spread of the financial crisis from one country to the entire region.2
The effect of globalisation is wide-ranging. The economic, political and security environment today is rapidly shaped by globalisation that it has become the framework on which businesses, the economy and government relations operate. The positive effects of globalisation are evident - rapidly rising standards of living and the emergence of a vibrant middle class. However, globalisation has also exhibited negative effects, as seen in the contagion effect of the financial crisis.
Globalisation has had a profound impact on security and the economy, however it does not infer that globalisation, on its own, can create such a substantial change in the security situation in ASEAN as to cause the region to escalate into a war footing. In fact, it is perceived that the negative effects of globalisation are unlikely to cause a decisive move towards animosity in the ASEAN context, as the effects are negated by a host of conflict-avoiding measures that are existent in ASEAN today eg, the provisions under ARF/APEC, preventive diplomacy, confidence-building measures, interdependent economies etc. Conversely, the positive effects of globalisation has facilitated the implementation of these conflict-avoidance measures and helped bring a peaceful settlement of issues in many instances. Moreover, for countries in the region to be inclined towards war, a number of factors would have to be present, eg. deterioration of inter-state relations, instability of government, imbalance of power, and the presence of ill-perceived threats, to name a few.
It is thus felt that the state of the security environment in ASEAN is not directly driven by globalisation, but by the interplay of numerous factors, some of which may be facilitated by globalisation. Though the financial crisis, symptomic of the ill effects of globalisation, has resulted in a number of minor conflicts between some ASEAN states, the positive effects of globalisation has enabled those same issues to be managed amicably, thus reducing the risk of further hostility.
Effects of Globalisation
Globalisation in its widest context, refers to the process where "social relations acquire relatively distanceless and borderless qualities, so that human lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single place."3 Country locations, and in particular the boundaries between territorial states are in some important aspects, becoming less central to our lives, although they do remain significant. Globalisation is thus a continual trend whereby the world has, in many respects and at a generally accelerating rate, become one relatively borderless social environment. Globalisation may be featured in the following dimensions :
Communication technology eg. computer networks, telephony, electronic mass media, allowing immediate contact, irrespective of the location and state borders that might lie between them.
The expansion of 'global factories' in sectors like motor cars and micro-electronics, where various stages of production are not confined within a national boundary, but linked across several countries.
The emergence of round-the-clock, round-the-world stock markets, commodities markets and the massive use of 'international' currencies eg. US dollars and German mark, as a trading currency throughout the world.
Impact of Globalisation on Economy and Trade
The development of global markets has been facilitated by the spread of global monies. Foreign exchange dealings have become a thoroughly trans-border business. This round-the-clock, round-the-world market is not limited by time and space. Trading is transpired without limitations of distance and transactions are concluded over the telephone and confirmed by e-mail between buyers or sellers across great distances. Trans-border money also assumes other forms, such as the Visa and Mastercard, and are readily accepted world-wide for purchases, whatever the local denomination.4
For developed countries and the Southeast Asian countries, globalisation implies the breakdown of boundaries as barriers to economic exploitation. Each country, rich or poor, developed or otherwise, would have access to every other country. With the recent economic crisis, a notable feature of the effects of globalisation was the speed at which the crisis spread across Southeast Asia. The pace at which the crisis had picked up is a direct consequence of economic interdependence and globalisation.
On the other hand, the earlier-than-expected recovery of the financial crisis has been attributed to the renewed growth of the electronics industry in the West, the strengthening of the Yen, and also the gradual return of foreign direct investments to this region in view of the increased stability in some of the ASEAN countries. This gradual return to economic normalcy was to a large extent, facilitated by favourable market sentiments and renewed demand which stimulated domestic output. As these markets operate within a global context: an increase in demand in turn increases trans-border production outputs. A significant off-shoot from globalisation is the consistent growth in economic interdependence over the last few years.
Regional Conflict Or War?
With globalisation, given the circumstances of the financial crisis and its recovery, there are no substantive reasons to believe that the region and its ASEAN members will escalate into a war footing. The following reasons outline the various rationale why war is unlikely to occur as a direct consequence of globalisation:
Model for Conflict Management
The creation of ASEAN is the result of collaborative efforts by some Southeast Asian states to create an association to provide a platform for successful management of disputes among them. The creation was the desire of its original member states, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand, to manage existing and potential inter-state disputes through peaceful means and minimise the risk of militarised conflicts. There was, therefore, a desire to secure a peaceful and cooperative environment in Southeast Asia, this being the significant contributing factor to the creation of ASEAN. ASEAN was from the outset created for conflict management.
The approach to dispute/conflict management 5 within ASEAN involves two aspects:
Mechanisms are formulated in different ASEAN declarations and treaties;
ASEAN members negotiate and reach a common understanding on various issues, within the framework of consultation, consensus, and non-interference in the internal affairs of another country.
The ASEAN states have managed to build confidence, familiarity and an understanding of each other's positions on different issues through a system of informal and formal meetings between the leaders, ministers and senior officials of the members states. The economic crisis that gripped the region is unlikely to significantly undermine this confidence, familiarity and understanding. Although severe financial and political turmoil in some countries had triggered a series of 'squabbles' on the type and magnitude of financial aid expected and could be given, as in the case of Singapore's aid to Indonesia, this has not totally displaced the long-term relationship. Ultimately, diplomacy prevailed in averting a potentially hostile situation between the two countries. The diplomatic gestures included humanitarian aid to Indonesia, and a call on then President Habibie by Singapore's Second Defence Minister, RADM (NS) Teo Chee Hean. To a large extent, globalisation has facilitated the extension of financial aid, bank guarantees (Letters of Credit), and humanitarian aid to be made easily accessible to Indonesia through the processes of inter-bank and inter-organisation linkages between the two countries.
ASEAN countries understand that mutual support in the long-term is still needed to maintain a strong and economically vibrant region. Thus, ASEAN's approach to conflict management has primarily been geared towards preventing new conflicts from emerging and preventing existing conflicts from disrupting inter-state relations. As one long-time observer 6 of ASEAN put it, "ASEAN is not directly about problem-solving, but about creating the milieu in which they either do not arise or can be readily managed". Historical records support that judgement. ASEAN's forte in conflict avoidance has meant that in its nearly 30 years of co-existence, there has not been a shot fired in anger among the ASEAN governments.Pioneer.
Economics and Security
The relationship between economics and security is a complex one, depending on which factor features more powerfully in the minds of the decision-makers at a particular juncture. Sometimes, concerns of nationalism or sovereignty may be so strong that a country may be prepared to enter into inter-state conflicts despite economic interdependence, and the resulting economic losses. The Taiwan Straits crisis of March 1996 showed that such a danger cannot be discounted, given the problems of divided countries (Korea & Taiwan) and the various territorial disputes in the region.
However, the relationship between economics and security has been positive in ASEAN so far. This is because the leaders of almost all the countries, and their likely successors have been committed to economic growth and development. They have vivid memories of insurgencies, war revolutions and political instability and how economies were consequently set back. Economic growth in ASEAN is underpinned by regional security, which is fuelled by the process of globalisation. Through globalisation, the ASEAN states experienced phenomenal growth, which in turn has generated wealth, prosperity and internal security within the region.
Even with the onslaught of the financial crisis, the importance of economics and security was not under-emphasised, when Singapore and Malaysia offered financial aid to Indonesia, in the form of credit facilities. Both countries and others in ASEAN recognised the imperative that helping Indonesia recover from the crisis implied not only political stability within the country, but also regional security and stability as a whole. Furthermore, as the region braced itself for a sooner-than-expected recovery from the crisis, the ASEAN leaders were even be more prudent in maintaining an amicable economic relationship among themselves.
Improbability of Resource Wars
Countries go to war for a variety of reasons. In the past, wars were often resource wars (wars to gain resources) - for land, to expand human settlement, or for food or other resources. Sovereignty issues also cause armed conflicts - perhaps as important previously, although perhaps less now for outright war. Motives for such conflicts in the regions do not for the most part concern economic issues, other than the resources i.e. oil, gas, fish that island territorial disputes involve, as in the example of the Spratlys where the main contention is the oil-rich resources that the atolls could provide.
Nevertheless, the resource motivations for conquest in the past are less significant now that education, technology and the national manpower resource skills are more substantial sources of wealth. Although natural resources in some countries have contributed to immense wealth, the highly industrialised world today thrives on economies with a leading advantage in technological skills, financial stability, and good governance to bring in foreign investments. Globalisation has enabled the opportunity for an economy to be 'networked' with the external world where technological and economic activities abound. It is precisely the dependence on these very factors that Singapore, devoid of natural resources, has remained relatively unscathed during the financial crisis.
Going to war for the purpose of gaining resources is highly improbable, as governments contemplating to do so, would weigh the costs against the benefits to be reaped from an outright war. For example, Vietnam had been secure with oil freely available on the open markets and it is less costly and more efficient to gain resources through the market than through the conquest of another country. Consequently, as the country's 'wealth' is increasingly enshrined in the quality of its technology-based economy and stable governance, an inclination to declare war to gain resource becomes even more remote.
Constructive Engagement With APEC and AFR
The post-Cold War period saw the building of much needed institutions for dialogue and cooperation. The two most important Asia-Pacific-wide official institutions to emerge in recent years have been the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.7
APEC is not a security organisation. But it is important to security indirectly. Rapid economic growth and interdependence underpin security in Southeast Asia. Conflicts within and between states can arise if economics go wrong. It is in everyone's interest, and the ASEAN members have been quick to affirm that to continue the present circle of prosperity will lead to more security, which in turn will contribute to more continued prosperity. APEC, by facilitating trade and investments and by dealing with economic disputes, had contributed to economic security, and ultimately to security. Secondly, APEC is an Asia-Pacific-wide institution. It annually brings together 18 countries, including the three most important major powers of the region - the US, China and Japan, at the heads of government-level. Keeping the major powers engaged in the region has contributed also to economic growth and balance of power security. A balance of power in the Asia Pacific, particularly Southeast Asia, with a strong American military presence had been regarded as essential. Inter-state conflicts will be 'kept in check' by US presence, which is committed to ensuring peace and economic growth of the region for the benefit of the rest of the world order. Since the end of the Cold War, the US has 'globalised' the major parts of the world in its bid to maintain global peace and order. Thus, an armed conflict is not probable amongst ASEAN, given the reprisals of having to contend with this major military power.
The purpose of the ARF is to promote confidence by encouraging frank discussions on security issues and build an understanding of the different points of view and concerns. The ARF is a cooperative security arrangement, not a collective security or defence arrangement. The idea of a cooperative framework, has over time, evolved certain principles and codes of conduct, established international rules and norms (especially the non-use of force to settle disputes) to be adhered by all. The restraints against errant behaviour - peer pressure and political price, and not punitive measures. The most recent ARF held in Singapore, amongst other issues, laid the framework for preventive diplomacy to be defined and also the scope for a Regional Conduct Code for claimants to the disputed Spratlys (claimed in part by four ASEAN countries -Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and the Philippines). A clear sign of the usefulness of this forum has been the acquiescence of the major powers, US and China, one of the claimants, in the drafting of the Conduct Code. Further diplomatic efforts were boosted with the agreement to define and implement subsequently, the scope of preventive diplomacy - which is likely to herald a new dimension in bilateral and multi-lateral relations amongst the ARF member countries. The ARF will continue to play a useful role as long as it remains in the interest of all members to be engaged in cooperative security in this manner. In such a context, ASEAN has the impetus to advance the cause of cooperative security.
Economic Interdependence
Increased interdependence, by itself, will not prevent conflict. Sovereignty claims, as over Taiwan (or the Falklands), illustrate that cost is, at times, irrelevant. Nevertheless, while perceived threats can lead to conflicts with an increase in arms expenditure, the greater a country's dependence on another, the greater the cost of conflict. Other things being equal, the likelihood of conflict would be small. Other things are not equal of course, but if two countries are significantly interdependent, then it is less likely that there would be conflict.8
The ASEAN region has offered fertile ground for the development of a close economic co-operative community. A significant offshoot of such a closely-knit economic interdependence is the convergence of interest which in turn produces shared values that can help reduce differences and facilitate peaceful settlement of disputes. The belief in the positive contribution of economic interdependence to regional peace and stability provides the rational for ASEAN countries to 'engage' each other in the regional economy. Over the years, globalisation has allowed ASEAN countries to develop a measure of economic interdependence through multi-lateral trade arrangements and cooperation eg. the Johor-Riau- Singapore Growth Triangle. The economies of most of the ASEAN nations today are so closely intertwined that a crisis in one economy or country affects the well-being of the other. For two ASEAN countries to enter into a conflict would result in 'economic suicide' as both the economies would invariably suffer from such action. For example, Myanmar, which exports close to 37 percent of its products to ASEAN and imports 67 percent of its total imports from ASEAN countries alone, would not find it economically viable to enter into a conflict with ASEAN countries and jeopardise its growing economy.
Thus far, economic interdependence in the ASEAN region appears to have enhanced regional security. Notwithstanding the financial crisis, it can be argued that economic interdependence and globalisation in the region have contributed to economic growth and development of regional countries and to the economic dynamism of the region as a whole. As the well-being of the people in the region increases, the region becomes more stable; this in turn improves the region's security.
Treaty of Amity and Co-operation
The regional association continues to manifest a strong adherence to the international norms of behaviour that it has "ASEANised' in its own Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC). These norms, which include mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity and national identity of all nations, the right to freedom from external interference in one's internal affairs, settlement of disputes, and renunciation of the threat or use of force, constitute the basis of the group's unity that ASEAN represents.9
Over the years, ASEAN has seen a gradual change in the behaviour of most ASEAN leaders in their adherence to the norms as enshrined in the TAC. In a true sense, the TAC mechanisms have never been invoked, but what has evolved from the years of familiarity and understanding is the 'intangible but real spirit of ASEAN' as the basis for accommodation over contentious issues. ASEAN leaders have elected to depend on bi-lateral dialogue or rational measures to right prejudices or disagreements arising between two countries. For example, Malaysia and Singapore have lately manifested a more pragmatic disposition by agreeing to submit their long-standing claims over Pedra Branca for adjudication by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). And in a similar departure from previous inflexibility, Indonesia has agreed with Malaysia to submit their territorial claim over Ligitan and Sipadan to the ICJ following a summit meeting between the President Suharto and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in Kuala Lumpur in October 1996. Both are examples in ASEAN where other territorial disputes over islands (for example, the Sengakku/Daioyu islands and the Takashima/ Tokdo islands) have inflamed passions and led to greater volatility in the relations between states.
Diplomacy
ASEAN diplomacy is grounded in the pragmatism of its political elites. It can be observed that the ASEAN approach towards 'personalised' conflict management is far more important than a formal mechanism. Singapore's Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong observed in September 1995 10 that "ASEAN has emphasised principles, concepts and processes rather than structures and institutional frameworks". ASEAN states have, by and large employed careful diplomacy to bring about mutually beneficial solutions, or if total solutions cannot be sought, to at least ensure that both countries are not unduly disadvantaged by the resulting arrangements. As ASEAN countries have also gradually socialised into a 'society' where consensus counts more than open confrontation, contentious issues will continue to be given priority within diplomacy channels for settlement. The recent case of the conflicts over the CIQ and water issues between Malaysia and Singapore saw a number of high level dialogues between the two countries, including talks between the two Prime Ministers.
Conclusion
Southeast Asia has been, in economic terms, the most dynamic region in the world. There has been a vast improvement in the economic and social indicators, especially of the ASEAN-Six. Over the past 30 years, there have been various bilateral disputes between ASEAN countries, including territorial ones, but none have led to military conflict. Today, it is difficult to think of military conflicts between ASEAN states. The "ASEAN spirit" has emerged from the numerous meetings between political leaders and officials over the years. Its main elements emphasises personal relationships rather than formal legalistic structures; an informal rather than formal approach to problem-solving; and consensus-building. These principles have served ASEAN well, during the initial tumultuous period. It is therefore not difficult to envisage ASEAN holding on to the same principles of consensus that has held the association together since its inception.
As ASEAN progresses with phenomenal economical growth and in the technology age, it has ostensibly embraced globalisation as a means of conducting its political and economic activities. Although globalisation has been touted as a cause of the spread of the financial crisis, it has enabled regional governments to manage and resolve contentious issues with a far greater measure of influence and flexibility.
Globalisation has fuelled the phenomenal economic miracle in Southeast Asia. But the linkage between globalisation and economic security is evident which Robert Scalapino 11 notes will result in the less likely use of force in ASEAN :
"The intricately interwoven economic ties binding states together will reduce incentives to resort to violence in resolving inter-state disputes. Given the disruptions that would occur to each state's economy, the costs of regional conflict are growing rapidly. Today and in the future, any war conducted with one's neighbours will penetrate deeply into the very marrow of one's own economic system."



http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/political.htm

Globalization, a political and not simply an economic question
by Chakravarthi Raghavan
Geneva, 8 Aug 2001 - Globalization is not divinely ordained, but a product of human society, and has no a priori existence independent of structures humankind has put in place, nor are its basic tenets foreclosed from negotiations, two Human Rights jurists have said in a progress report to the UN Sub-Commission on promotion and protection of human rights.



Impact on Culture

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2006/12/11/globalization-and-its-impact-on-singapore-family-values/


By Ney Reed
Organic - adj; Relating to natural way a system works; living nature of living things; not synthetic; constitutional in the structure/make up of something; of which source are alive; of which outcomes are alive; unadulterated; natural disposition.
Culture - noun; Comes from from the Latin word colo, -ere, with its root meaning “to cultivate”. Relating to “the set of distinctive spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group, and that it encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs”(UNESCO); “made up of the following four elements that are passed on from generation to generation by learning alone - values, norms, institutions and artifacts”
Globalization - noun; Relating to the process of growth of a phenomenon, within a native/peripheral unit/system of the universe, into a phenomenon that exists in many or most or every units and systems of the universe
Globalization is not a recent or purely ill phenomenon. In fact the process of Adam and Eve spreading out with their descendents across the globe after landing onto two different locations on earth, will probably constitute the first globalization phenomenon. Since then knowledge, language, religion etc have all globalized throughout time.
What is particularly distasteful and worrisome of the process of globalization today is that it has conservatively shrunk into a process that is predominantly dictated by corporatization, commercialization and commodification of the world with a clear objective to support and promote capitalism. The global outcomes of such have been a re-definition and re-imagination of the world to the extent that humanity’s equilibrium and sustainability have been adversely affected.
The manner by which globalization has displaced Singapore’s organic culture is by disrupting inter-generational learning process that facilitates the inter-generational transfer of values, norms, institutions and artifacts. Hence globalization has replaced the traditional forms of these in Singapore with its neo-American and/or neo-Western equivalent only to displace Singapore organic culture which provides each Singaporean with his/her indigenous identity. Hence today what haunts us is the reality that a Singaporean Indian, Chinese, Malay or Eurasian is no longer a Singaporean Indian, Chinese, Malay or Eurasian respectively.


http://www.google.com.sg/search?hl=en&q=Globalisation+and+its+impact+on+culture&meta=

Culture and Conflict
Culture is not static; it grows out of a systematically encouraged reverence for selected customs and habits. Indeed, Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines culture as the "total pattern of human behavior and its products embodied in speech, action, and artifacts and dependent upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations." Language, religion, political and legal systems, and social customs are the legacies of victors and marketers and reflect the judgment of the marketplace of ideas throughout popular history. They might also rightly be seen as living artifacts, bits and pieces carried forward through the years on currents of indoctrination, popular acceptance, and unthinking adherence to old ways. Culture is used by the organizers of society - politicians, theologians, academics, and families - to impose and ensure order, the rudiments of which change over time as need dictates. It is less often acknowledged as the means of justifying inhumanity and warfare. Nonetheless, even a casual examination of the history of conflict explains well why Samuel Huntington, in his The Clash of Civilizations, expects conflict along cultural fault lines, which is precisely where conflict so often erupts. Even worse is that cultural differences are often sanctified by their links to the mystical roots of culture, be they spiritual or historical. Consequently, a threat to one's culture becomes a threat to one's God or one's ancestors and, therefore, to one's core identity. This inflammatory formula has been used to justify many of humanity's worst acts.

Forum(Links) : http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/cultural/index.htm
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/wcsdg/docs/rep2.pdf

http://www.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/teaching_resource/tr_globalization.htm

I. Introduction to Globalization
Teachers may want to have the students read this introduction before they read the essays on "Globalization" to provide a basic understanding of the concepts included therein.
"Globalization" is a term that came into popular usage in the 1980's to describe the increased movement of people, knowledge and ideas, and goods and money across national borders that has led to increased interconnectedness among the world's populations, economically, politically, socially and culturally. Although globalization is often thought of in economic terms (i.e., "the global marketplace"), this process has many social and political implications as well. Many in local communities associate globalization with modernization (i.e., the transformation of "traditional" societies into "Western" industrialized ones). At the global level, globalization is thought of in terms of the challenges it poses to the role of governments in international affairs and the global economy.
There are heated debates about globalization and its positive and negative effects. While globalization is thought of by many as having the potential to make societies richer through trade and to bring knowledge and information to people around the world, there are many others who perceive globalization as contributing to the exploitation of the poor by the rich, and as a threat to traditional cultures as the process of modernization changes societies. There are some who link the negative aspects of globalization to terrorism. To put a complicated discussion in simple terms, they argue that exploitative or declining conditions contribute to the lure of informal "extremist" networks that commit criminal or terrorist acts internationally. And thanks to today's technology and integrated societies, these networks span throughout the world. It is in this sense that terrorism, too, is "globalized." The essays in this section address some of the complex questions associated with globalization in light of September 11. Before moving to these essays, consider the discussion below about some of the economic, political, social and cultural manifestations of globalization.
Economic manifestations of globalization
Increasingly over the past two centuries, economic activity has become more globally oriented and integrated. Some economists argue that it is no longer meaningful to think in terms of national economies; international trade has become central to most local and domestic economies around the world.
Among the major industrial economies, sometimes referred to as the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 65 percent of the total economic production, or GDP, is associated with international trade. Economists project that, in the U.S., more than 50 percent of the new jobs created in this decade will be directly linked to the global economy.
The recent focus on the international integration of economies is based on the desirability of a free global market with as few trade barriers as possible, allowing for true competition across borders.
International economic institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), facilitate this increasingly barrier-free flow of goods, services, and money (capital) internationally. Regionally, too, organizations like the North America Free Trade Association (NAFTA), the European Union (EU), and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) work towards economic integration within their respective geographical regions.
Many economists assess economic globalization as having a positive impact, linking increased economic transactions across national borders to increased world GDP, and opportunities for economic development. Still, the process is not without its critics, who consider that many of the economies of the industrial North (i.e., North America, Europe, East Asia) have benefited from globalization, while in the past two decades many semi- and non-industrial countries of the geo-political South (i.e., Africa, parts of Asia, and Central and South America) have faced economic downturns rather than the growth promised by economic integration. Critics assert that these conditions are to a significant extent the consequence of global restructuring which has benefited Northern economies while disadvantaging Southern economies. Others voice concern that globalization adversely affects workers and the environment in many countries around the world.
Discontent with the perceived disastrous economic and social manifestations of globalization has led to large and growing demonstrations at recent intergovernmental meetings, including meetings of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial countries.
Political manifestations of globalization
Globalization has impacts in the political arena, but there is not a consensus among social scientists about the nature and degree of its impact on national and international politics. Some political scientists argue that globalization is weakening nation-states and that global institutions gradually will take over the functions and power of nation-states. Other social scientists believe that while increased global inter-connectivity will result in dramatic changes in world politics, particularly in international relations (i.e., the way states relate to each other), the nation-state will remain at the center of international political activity.
Political theorists and historians often link the rise of the modern nation-state (in Europe and North America in the nineteenth century and in Asia and Africa in the twentieth century) with industrialization and the development of modern capitalist and socialist economies. These scholars also assert that the administrative structures and institutions of the modern nation-state were in part responsible for the conditions that led to industrial expansion. Moreover, industrial development brought with it social dislocations that necessitated state intervention in the form of public education and social "safety nets" for health care, housing, and other social services. Consequently, the development of the contemporary nation-state, nationalism, inter-state alliances, colonization, and the great wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were in part political manifestations of changes in the structure of economic production.
It follows from this argument that in the era of globalization, with its significant changes in global economic relations, the nineteenth and twentieth century model of the nation-state may become obsolete. The economic orientation of the modern nation-state has been centered on national economic interests, which may often conflict with the global trend towards the free and rapid movement of goods, services, finance, and labor. These processes give rise to the question of whether the modern nation-state can survive in its present form in the new global age. Is it adaptable, or will it gradually be replaced by emerging multinational or regional political entities?
Changes in political structure and practices resulting from economic globalization are only a partial explanation of changes in world politics in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. International relations and world politics in the second half of the twentieth century were strongly informed by another global factor - the Cold War (i.e., the ideological struggle between the Western nations, the United States and its allies, and the Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Union and China and their allies). The early and most intense years of the Cold War in the 1950s and 1960s coincided with the de-colonization of Asia and Africa and the creation of more than 70 new nation-states. Many of the new nation-states of Africa and Asia had based their struggle for independence on the principles of freedom, justice and liberty - principles espoused by both the Eastern and Western blocks. The economic, political, and ideological competition between East and West had fertile ground in these newly independent nation-states. Although the "cold war" never developed into a "hot war" of actual military conflict in Europe or North America, civil wars within and wars between new nation-states in Africa and Asia were fueled and supported by Cold War tensions. Major conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Congo, Angola, Mozambique, and Somalia are examples of regional conflicts that were fueled by the Cold War.
To some experts, the demise of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc a decade ago promised a new era of world peace and increased openness. The processes of globalization accelerated as goods, ideas and people flowed more freely across borders in the post-Cold War political environment. In place of policies of containment, the international community fostered policies of openness to trade and based on the principles of democracy and rights.
With such increased openness, multilateral organizations, and in particular the United Nations (UN), have changed their focus from maintaining the balance of power between the East and West to a more global approach to peacekeeping/peace-building, development, environmental protection, protection of human rights, and the maintenance of the rule of law internationally. The creation of legal institutions like the international criminal tribunals that have sprung up in the past decade, as well as the proliferation of major international conferences aiming to address global problems through international cooperation, have been referred to as proof of political globalization. Still, since all of these institutions rely on the participation of nation-states and respect the fundamental principle of national sovereignty, the extent to which these institutions exhibit true political globalization continues to be debated.
Social and cultural manifestations of globalization
Though there are many social and cultural manifestations of globalization, here are some of the major ones:
Informational services: The past two decades have seen an internationalization of information services involving the exponential expansion of computer-based communication through the Internet and electronic mail. On the one hand, the electronic revolution has promoted the diversification and democratization of information as people in nearly every country are able to communicate their opinions and perspectives on issues, local and global, that impact their lives. Political groups from Chiapas to Pakistan have effectively used information technology to promote their perspectives and movements. On the other hand, this expansion of information technology has been highly uneven, creating an international "digital divide" (i.e., differences in access to and skills to use Internet and other information technologies due predominantly to geography and economic status). Often, access to information technology and to telephone lines in many developing countries is controlled by the state or is available only to a small minority who can afford them..
News services: In recent years there has been a significant shift in the transmission and reporting of world news with the rise of a small number of global news services. This process has been referred to as the "CNN-ization of news," reflecting the power of a few news agencies to construct and disseminate news. Thanks to satellite technology, CNN and its few competitors extend their reach to even the most geographically remote areas of the world. This raises some important questions of globalization: Who determines what news What is "newsworthy?" Who frames the news and determines the perspectives articulated? Whose voice(s) are and are not represented? What are the potential political consequences of the silencing of alternative voices and perspectives?
Popular culture: The contemporary revolution in communication technology has had a dramatic impact in the arena of popular culture. Information technology enables a wide diversity of locally-based popular culture to develop and reach a larger audience. For example, "world music" has developed a major international audience. Old and new musical traditions that a few years ago were limited to a small local audience are now playing on the world stage.
On the other hand, globalization has increased transmission of popular culture easily and inexpensively from the developed countries of the North throughout the world. Consequently, despite efforts of nationally-based media to develop local television, movie, and video programs, many media markets in countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are saturated with productions from the U.S., Europe and a few countries in Asia (especially Japan and India). Local critics of this trend lament not only the resulting silencing of domestic cultural expression, but also the hegemonic reach of Western, "alien" culture and the potential global homogenization of values and cultural taste.




http://www.boloji.com/perspective/223.htm


Impact of Globalization on Indian Cultureby V. Sundaram

What is Globalisation?
People around the globe are more connected to each other today than ever before in the history of mankind. Information and money flow more quickly than ever. Goods and services produced in one part of the world are increasingly available in all parts of the world. International travel is more frequent. International communication is commonplace.
We live in an intensely interdependent world in which all the earth's peoples with their immense differences of culture and historical experience are compressed together in instant communication. We face today a world of almost infinite promise which is also a world of terminal danger. This phenomenon has been titled 'Globalization.'
'The Era of Globalization' is fast becoming the preferred term for describing the current times. Just as the Depression, the Cold War Era, the Space Age, and the Roaring 20's are used to describe particular periods of history; Globalization describes the political, economic, and cultural atmosphere of today. While some people think of Globalization as primarily a synonym for global business, it is much more than that. The same forces that allow businesses to operate as if national borders did not exist also allow social activists, labour organizers, journalists, academics, international terrorists and many others to work on a global stage.
British Imperialism or Western Colonialism did not die after the end of World War II when the West gave up its colonies in Africa, Asia, Latin America, West Indies and the East Indies. Gradually it changed itself into a more subtle form which is proving to be more harmful to all non-Western cultures both in the short run and the long run.
Indian culture which in effect means Hindu culture, Hindu religion, Hindu society, Hindu civilization, Hindu way of life are under the lethal threat of the ruthless forces of Globalization today. What went by the name of Colonialism in classical history textbooks produced in the days of British Raj has been replaced today by the synonym of Globalization. The unbridled expansion of western culture has continued at an accelerated rate along with the denigration and decline of Hindu culture, civilization, religion, art, literature and customs. This new Colonialism has taken on several new faces or rather put on new masks. It cleverly masquerades itself through labels and slogans like democracy, humanitarian rights, gender equality, internationalism, free trade and humanitarianism. In the name of modernization and Globalization it pretends to be uplifting peoples whom it is really exploiting. This is not very different in either kind or intent from old Western Colonialism ? British Imperialism in the Indian context ? which vaunted itself as the benign bringer of Civilization and culture to the uncivilized world. It was given the glorious title of 'White Man's Burden'.
In the Colonial Era in India from 1700-1875, British colonial expansion worked through military, economic, and religious methods. Military force was the primary and initial method. This was little more than organized banditry, stealing the gold, jewels and other treasures of India. Economic exploitation went hand in hand with the military conquest. Later it stooped so low in its methods as to get involved even with the drug and narcotic trades. Later economic exploitation developed into a fine art resulting in the exercise of total control over the natural resources and controlling the economy of India for long term gains.
Religion provided the needed rationale for this cruel plunder. All native Hindus were dismissed as heathens or pagans ? despicable creatures who don't have to be treated like human beings till they take their fateful decision to embrace Christianity. According to the missionaries who came to India to play second fiddle to the British Imperial rulers, Christianity was the only true religion. Jesus Christ was the only true God. All other religions like Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and many other traditional faiths and religions in India had to be eliminated to save the souls of India and Indians. All facets and all aspects of Hindu religion and Hindu society were dismissed as idolatry and superstition, in order to advance the noble Christian pursuit of salvation for the barbarous heathens of India.
Along with Christian religion came the rest of British or Western culture, thought and customs and the gradual end of traditional ways of life. Thus our traditional religions and cultures were gradually subverted or eliminated. The new Indian converts to Christianity were encouraged not only to give up their religion but their culture, which often had religious or spiritual implications as well. A good Indian Christian convert would dress like an Englishman and emulate English manners in all things. Thus in India the Hindus converted by the British to Christianity were encouraged to think, behave and live like Englishmen. This is what I call Macaulayism. This term derives from Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800 - 1859) who was a Member of the Governor General's Council in Calcutta in the 1830s. He introduced the English system of education to produce Brown Sahibs who were to be English in taste and temperament. This expectation was more than fulfilled even by 1900 and after our independence thanks to our Anglo-Saxon Prime Minister Nehru this process has been completed with consummate ruthlessness.
After the outward display and establishment of the forces of Colonialism, came an intellectual form that was less overt but more dangerous and explosively insidious. The British rulers attempted to colonize our minds by eliminating all our traditional schools and education systems through a progressive system of Western education. This they did in a country like India where Christianity failed to gain many converts. This gave British Colonialism in India the aura of a civilizing influence. Educated Indians having higher education in the colleges opened by the alien rulers in the latter half of the 19th century were made to believe that it was not colonial exploitation that the Englishmen were bringing to India but progressive Western values ? training our people in science, art and technology and teaching them better and more equitable forms of government. Native Indian people were helped to learn the skills of veneer of English civilization by becoming modern and rational.
Though all forms of Colonial Empire in the geographical sense came to an end after the II World War, yet the same forms of colonial exploitation continue even today in all parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America under the banner of that all-embracing umbrella called Globalization. Western Civilization in spite of its tall claims to support diversity is only promoting a worldwide monoculture ? the same basic values, institutions and points of view for everyone ? which it calls 'Globalization.' The brutal and stark truth is that western culture, with its declared pursuit of markets and commodities eliminates all true culture, which is based on quality and not quantity. It creates a culture of filthy lucre and lust for money all the way that submerges any true culture of refinement or spirituality ? a dismal culture in which everything can be bought and sold, possessed or capitalized on. All our capitalists and businessmen in India today are gloating and bloating about the ever rising tide of consumerism and consumer culture brought about by the ruthless march of Globalization. This in my view constitutes the greatest assault on Hindu culture and Hindu society by the draconian dragon of gargantuan Globalization.
Macaulayism of British India has become in letter and spirit the Globalization of today. Pound Sterling has been replaced by the US Dollar. To the people of India in general and educated Indians in particular, Globalization seems to be rather mild and well meaning, more like an imperceptible breeze, which blows in silently, fills up the psychological atmosphere, creates a mental mood, inspires an intellectual attitude and finally settles down as a cultural climate ? pervasive, protein and ubiquitous. It is not out to use a specified section of Indian society as a vehicle of its virulence. It is not like Islamism which wants to destroy the body of a culture in one fell sweep. It is not subtle like Christianity which subverts a society surreptitiously. Yet at the same time, it is a creeping toxaemia which corrodes the soul of our Hindu culture and corrupts our time-honoured social systems in slow stages. And its target is every section of Indian society.
What has been its impact on culture in India? Every educated Indian seems to believe that nothing in Hindu India, past or present, is to be approved unless recognized and recommended by an appropriate authority in the West. There is an all-pervading presence of a positive, if not worshipful, attitude towards everything in western society and culture, past as well as present in the name of progress, reason and science. Nothing from the West is to be rejected unless it has first been weighed and found wanting by a Western evaluation.
Swamy Vivekananda (An Indian Reformist) foresaw the dangers of Globalization as early as in 1893 when he spoke at the Parliament of World Religions in Chicago. To quote his soul-stirring words: 'Shall India die? Then, from the world all spirituality will be extinct, all sweet-souled sympathy for religion will be extinct, all ideality will be extinct ; and in its place will reign the duality of lust and luxury as the male and female deities, with money as its priest, fraud, force, and competition its ceremonies, and human soul its sacrifice. Such a thing can never be'.
Precisely such a terrible thing is taking place in India today on account of the inexorable and immutable process of Globalization.


Impact on Environment

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/chavez-cn.htm
Globalization ----> Tourism ----> Environment Degradation

Introduction

The processes that we now think of as “globalization” were centralto the environmental cause well before the term “globalization”came into its current usage. Global environmental concerns wereborn out of the recognition that ecological processes do not alwaysrespect national boundaries and that environmental problems oftenhave impacts beyond borders; sometimes globally. Connected tothis was the notion that the ability of humans to act and think at aglobal scale also brings with it a new dimension of global responsibility—not only to planetary resources but also to planetary fairness.These ideas were central to the defining discourse of contemporaryenvironmentalism in the 1960s and 1970s1 and to theconcept of sustainable development that took root in the 1980s and1990s.2The current debate on globalization has become de-linked from itsenvironmental roots and contexts. These links between environmentand globalization need to be re-examined and recognized. Toignore these links is to misunderstand the full extent and nature ofglobalization and to miss out on critical opportunities to addresssome of the most pressing environmental challenges faced byhumanity. The purpose of this paper is to explore these linkages inthe context of the current discourse.

Environment andGlobalization: Understandingthe LinkagesAlthough the contemporary debate on globalization has been contentious,it has not always been useful. No one doubts that somevery significant global processes—economic, social, cultural, politicaland environmental—are underway and that they affect (nearly)everyone and (nearly) everything. Yet, there is no agreement onexactly how to define this thing we call “globalization,” nor onexactly which parts of it are good or bad, and for whom. For themost part, a polarized view of globalization, its potential and itspitfalls has taken hold of the public imagination. It has often beenprojected either as a panacea for all the ills of the world or as theirprimary cause. The discussion on the links between environmentand globalization has been similarly stuck in a quagmire of manyunjustified expectations and fears about the connections betweenthese two domains.Box 1. Defining globalization.What is Globalization?There are nearly as many definitions of globalization asauthors who write on the subject. One review, by Scholte, providesa classification of at least five broad sets of definitions:4Globalization as internationalization. The “global” in globalizationis viewed “as simply another adjective to describecross-border relations between countries.” It describes thegrowth in international exchange and interdependence.Globalization as liberalization. Removing governmentimposedrestrictions on movements between countries.Globalization as universalization. Process of spreading ideasand experiences to people at all corners of the earth so thatEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions4aspirations and experiences around the world become harmonized.Globalization as westernization or modernization. The socialstructures of modernity (capitalism, industrialism, etc.) arespread the world over, destroying cultures and local self-determinationin the process.Globalization as deterritorialization. Process of the “reconfigurationof geography, so that social space is no longer whollymapped in terms of territorial places, territorial distances andterritorial borders.”Although the debates on the definition and importance of globalizationhave been vigorous over time, we believe that the truly relevantpolicy questions today are about who benefits and who doesnot; how the benefits and the costs of these processes can be sharedfairly; how the opportunities can be maximized by all; and how therisks can be minimized.In addressing these questions, one can understand globalization tobe a complex set of dynamics offering many opportunities to betterthe human condition, but also involving significant potentialthreats. Contemporary globalization manifests itself in variousways, three of which are of particular relevance to policy-makers.They also comprise significant environmental opportunities andrisks.1. Globalization of the economy. The world economy globalizesas national economies integrate into the international economythrough trade; foreign direct investment; short-term capitalflows; international movement of workers and people in general;and flows of technology.5 This has created new opportunitiesfor many; but not for all. It has also placed pressures on theglobal environment and on natural resources, straining thecapacity of the environment to sustain itself and exposinghuman dependence on our environment.6 A globalized economycan also produce globalized externalities and enhance globalinequities.7 Local environmental and economic decisions canEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions5contribute to global solutions and prosperity, but the environmentalcosts, as well as the economic ramifications of ouractions, can be externalized to places and people who are so faraway as to seem invisible.2. Globalization of knowledge. As economies open up, morepeople become involved in the processes of knowledge integrationand the deepening of non-market connections, includingflows of information, culture, ideology and technology.8 Newtechnologies can solve old problems, but they can also createnew ones. Technologies of environmental care can move acrossboundaries quicker, but so can technologies of environmentalextraction. Information flows can connect workers and citizensacross boundaries and oceans (e.g., therise of global social movements as wellas of outsourcing), but they can alsothreaten social and economic networksat the local level. Environmentalism as anorm has become truly global, but sohas mass consumerism.3. Globalization of governance. Globalization places great stresson existing patterns of global governance with the shrinking ofboth time and space; the expanding role of non-state actors;and the increasingly complex inter-state interactions.9 Theglobal nature of the environment demands global environmentalgovernance, and indeed a worldwide infrastructure of internationalagreements and institutions has emerged and continuesto grow.10 But many of today’s global environmental problemshave outgrown the governance systems designed to solvethem.11 Many of these institutions, however, struggle as theyhave to respond to an ever-increasing set of global challengeswhile remaining constrained by institutional design principlesinherited from an earlier, more state-centric world.The relationship between the environment and globalization—although often overlooked—is critical to both domains.12 The environmentitself is inherently global, with life-sustaining ecosystemsand watersheds frequently crossing national boundaries; air pollutionmoving across entire continents and oceans; and a singleEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions6Environmentalism as anorm has become trulyglobal, but so has massconsumerism.shared atmosphere providing climate protection and shielding usfrom harsh UV rays.Monitoring and responding to environmentalissues frequently provokes a need for coordinated global or regionalgovernance. Moreover, the environment is intrinsically linked toeconomic development, providing natural resources that fuelgrowth and ecosystem services that underpin both life and livelihoods.Indeed, at least one author suggests that “the economy is awholly-owned subsidiary of the ecology.”13While the importance of the relationship between globalization andthe environment is obvious, our understanding of how these twindynamics interact remains weak. Much of the literature on globalizationand the environment is vague (discussing generalities);myopic (focused disproportionately only on trade-related connections);and/or partial (highlighting the impacts of globalization onthe environment, but not the other way around).It is important to highlight that not only does globalization impactthe environment, but the environment impacts the pace, directionand quality of globalization. At the very least, this happens becauseenvironmental resources provide the fuel for economic globalization,but also because our social and policy responses to global environmentalchallenges constrain and influence the context in whichglobalization happens. This happens, for example, through the governancestructures we establish and through the constellation ofstakeholders and stakeholder intereststhat construct key policy debates. Italso happens through the transfer ofsocial norms, aspirations and ideasthat criss-cross the globe to formulateextant and emergent social movements,including global environmentalism.In short, not only are the environmentand globalization intrinsically linked,they are so deeply welded togetherthat we simply cannot address theglobal environmental challenges facing us unless we are able tounderstand and harness the dynamics of globalization that influ-Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions7They are so deeplywelded together thatwe simply cannot addressthe global environmentalchallenges facing usunless we are able tounderstand andharness the dynamics ofglobalization thatinfluence them.ence them. By the same token, those who wish to capitalize on thepotential of globalization will not be able to do so unless they areable to understand and address the great environmental challengesof our time, which are part of the context within which globalizationtakes place.Table 1. Environment and globalization: some examples of interaction.How does globalization Means of How does environmentaffect the environment? influence affect globalization?Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions8- Scale and composition ofeconomic activity changes,and consumption increases,allowing for more widelydispersed externalities.- Income increases, creatingmore resources for environmentalprotection.- Techniques change as technologiesare able to extractmore from nature but canalso become cleaner.Economy - Natural resource scarcityor/and abundance are driversof globalization, as theyincite supply and demandforces in global markets.- The need for environmentalamelioration can extractcosts from economy andsiphon resources awayfrom development goals.- Global interactions facilitateexchange of environmentalknowledge and best practices.- Environmental consciousnessincreases with emergence ofglobal environmental networksand civil societymovements.- Globalization facilitates thespread of existing technologiesand the emergence ofnew technologies, oftenreplacing existing technologieswith more extractivealternatives; greener technologiesmay also bespurred.- Globalization helps spread ahomogenization of consumption-driven aspirations.Knowledge - Signals of environmentalstress travel fast in a compressedworld, environmentallydegraded andunsustainable locationsbecome marginalized fromtrade, investment, etc.- Sensibilities born out ofenvironmental stress canpush towards localizationand non-consumptive developmentin retaliation to thethrust of globalization.- Environmental stress cantrigger alternative technologicalpaths, e.g., dematerialization,alternativeenergy, etc., which may nothave otherwise emerged.- Environmentalismbecomes a global norm.How does globalization Means of How does environmentaffect the environment? influence affect globalization?The dominant discourse on globalization has tended to highlightthe promise of economic opportunity. On the other hand, there is aparallel global discourse on environmental responsibility. A morenuanced understanding needs to be developed—one that seeks toactualize the global opportunities offered by globalization while fulfillingglobal ecological responsibilities and advancing equity. Suchan understanding would, in fact, make sustainable development agoal of globalization, rather than a victim. As a contributiontowards this more nuanced understanding of these two dynamics,we will now outline five propositions related to how environmentand globalization are linked and how they are likely to interact.Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions9- Globalization makes itincreasingly difficult for statesto rely only on national regulationto ensure the wellbeingof their citizens andtheir environment.- There is a growing demand andneed for global regulation, especiallyfor the means to enforceexisting agreements and buildupon their synergies toimprove environmental performance.- Globalization facilitates theinvolvement of a growingdiversity of participants andtheir coalitions in addressingenvironmental threats,including market and civilsociety actors.Governance - Environmental standardsinfluence patterns of tradeand investment nationallyand internationally.- The nature of environmentalchallenges requiresthe incorporation of environmentalgovernanceinto other areas (e.g.,trade, investment, health,labour, etc.).- Stakeholder participationin global environmentalgovernance—especially theparticipation of NGOs andcivil society—has becomea model for other areas ofglobal governance.The Five PropositionsBy way of exploring the linkages between environment and globalization,let us posit five key propositions on how these two areas arelinked, with a special focus on those linkages that are particularlypertinent for policy-making and policy-makers. The purpose of thesepropositions is to highlight the possible implications of the dominanttrends. This is neither an exhaustive list nor a set of predictions.It is rather an identification of the five important trajectorieswhich are of particular importance to policy-makers because (a)these are areas that have a direct bearing on national and internationalpolicy and, (b) importantly, they can be influenced by nationaland international policy.PROPOSITION #1:The rapid acceleration in global economic activityand our dramatically increased demands for critical,finite natural resources undermine our pursuit ofcontinued economic prosperity.The premise of this proposition is that a sound environment isessential to realizing the full potential of globalization. Conversely,the absence of a sound environment can significantly underminethe promise of economic prosperity through globalization.The notion that rising pressures on, and dwindling stocks of, criticalnatural resources can dramatically restrain the motors of economicgrowth is not new.14What is new, however, is the realization that thespectacular economic expansion we have been seeing has made theresource crunch a pressing reality that could easily become the singlebiggest challenge to continued economic prosperity.The premise of the proposition is fairly simple. First, naturalresources—oil, timber, metals, etc.—are the raw materials behindmuch of global economic growth. Second, there is ultimately a finiteEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions10amount of these resources available for human use. Third, andimportantly, the quantum of resources being used has grown exponentiallyin recent years, especially with the spectacular economicexpansion of large developing economies—such as India andChina—and increasing global prosperity. Fourth, we are alreadywitnessing increasing global competition for such resources; andnot just market, but geopolitical forces are being mobilized toensure continued supplies and controls over critical resources.15Add these facts together and you arrive at a realization that soonerrather than later the degradation of ecological processes—especiallyfragile ecological systems that are central to the preservation of ouressential life systems—could cause a major hiccup in continuedglobal economic growth, and possibly become the single mostimportant threat to the continuation of current globalization trajectories.16 The dynamic is not new, but it has suddenly becomemore real and more immediate. Growth, of course, is a paradox inthe context of sustainable development.17 We need growth in orderto meet the needs of people, especially the poorest among us; butpermanent global growth is impossible in a finite system. Studiesdemonstrate that we already exceed the productive capacity ofnature by 2518 to 30 per cent,19 and that 60 per cent20 of the ecosystemsare currently overused.Although scares about “limits to growth”21 have proved less thancredible in the past, simple economic logic (and available trends)argues that, as competition for scarce natural resources increases,prices will be driven up—and sooner than we might have assumed.In the past, technology has—and in the future, it certainly could—help to alleviate some of these pressures by developing new solutionsand by more widely deploying existing technological solutions.However, the prospects of higher demand, growing prices anddwindling stocks are already propelling new races for control overkey resources. The race is now on not just for oil, but for metals,minerals, timber and even for recyclable waste.22 For many developingcountries endowed with critical resources in high demand,this provides an opportunity to harness the power of globalizationand pull themselves out of poverty. Past experience suggests thatnational and global economies have not been particularly good atEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions11allowing for the benefits of resources to flow down to the poor;23the challenge today is to find the ways and means to do exactly that.A parallel challenge is to decrease the adverse effects of resourcecompetition on the poor.24 For example,“fish prices are expected torise, reducing the availability and affordability of fish for lowincomefamilies in developing countries.”25 In areas like theMekong River basin in Southeast Asia, where 50 million peopledepend on fish for their food and their livelihoods,26 poor familieswill lose food security while the wealthy, both domestically andglobally, bid up the price of food the poor cannot afford.Populations dependent on the extraction or exploitation of naturalresources, or on natural systems and ecosystem services, could losetheir livelihoods as local sources are depleted (fisheries, forests, etc.)or degraded (soil fertility for agriculture) and will need assistance tomake the transition to alternative employment.While market mechanisms and technology could possibly assist inhandling increasing resource competition, they offer no solutionsfor running out of ecosystem services.27 This is a critical threat tothe continuation of current globalization trajectories and thepreservation of our lives on the planet. Many critical ecosystemservices—including watershed filtration, soil fertility and climatestability—are un-valued (or under-valued) and, therefore, as theseecological services are threatened, there are no market signals thatwould spur technological development of alternative supplies.Moreimportantly, we do not have the technological ability to create substitutesfor ecological services at the volume or at the costs thatwould be needed.Environmental degradation could also impact productivity throughdamages to health. For example, international agencies found that2.5 million people in the Asia-Pacificregion die every year due to environmentalproblems including air pollution,unsafe water and poor sanitation.28 Ignoring environmental costsdestroys value. The “natural capital” ofecosystem services (such as watersheds, which provide clean water)is drawn down, creating a need to pay for services (like water filtra-Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions12Ignoring environmentalcosts destroys value.tion plants) that could have been provided for free, in perpetuity, ifsustainably managed.29 Similarly, environmental degradation, globaland local, will affect the agricultural sector, on which the majority ofthe world’s poor depend directly for their survival. For example,recent data suggest that global climate change could reduce SouthAsia’s wheat area by half.30While gains in productivity in temperateareas could partially offset the difference, whether poorer tropicalcountries could afford to buy food from richer regions of the worldis uncertain. To avoid famine, the Consultative Group onInternational Agricultural Research has already called for acceleratedefforts to develop drought-, heat- and flood-resistant strains of staplecrops.31 The Worldwatch Institute estimates that 17 per cent ofcropland in China, and a staggering 28 per cent in India, is seriouslydegraded by erosion, water-logging, desertification and other formsof degradation.32It is most likely, therefore, thatdecreased environmental stabilitywill create more hostile conditionsfor economic growth and alsoplace new pressures on internationalcooperation. Two recentreports have documented anddrawn global attention to this discussed“possibility,” which hasstarted to become a reality. On one hand, the Millennium EcosystemAssessment33 has meticulously documented the slide in the environmentalhealth of the planet and how we are pushing the limits ofmany critical resources. The recent rise in oil prices has had the effectof making this connection tangible and recognizable even to ordinarycitizens. On the other hand, the recently released Stern Review34has bluntly suggested that these environmental pressures have nowbegun impacting global economic processes and that impacts of climatechange could create losses of 5–10 per cent of global GDP, anddecrease welfare by up to 20 per cent if damages include non-marketimpacts and are weighted for ethical/distribution effects. This calculationincludes estimations of damages caused by flooding, lowercrop yields, extreme weather-related damages, and other directimpacts on the environment and human health.Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions13It is most likely, therefore,that decreased environmentalstability will create morehostile conditions foreconomic growth and alsoplace new pressures oninternational cooperation.Together, and in the context of galloping economic growth in Asiaand elsewhere, these and other such findings suggest that mountingenvironmental degradation could impose very significant costs onglobalization and economic growth. But they also hold the promisethat an improved environment is central to human well-being inecological as well as in economic terms.PROPOSITION #2:The linked processes of globalization and environmentaldegradation pose new security threats to analready insecure world. They impact the vulnerabilityof ecosystems and societies, and the least resilientecosystems. The livelihoods of the poorest communitiesare most at risk.With globalization, when insecurity increases and violence erupts,the ramifications become global in reach. The forces of globalization,when coupled with those of environmental degradation,expand concepts of threat and security, both individually andthrough their connections.We have already begun recognizing newglobal threats from non-state groups and individuals, and securityis now being defined more broadly to include, among other, warsbetween and within states; transnational organized crime; internaldisplacements and migration; nuclear and other weapons; poverty;infectious disease; and environmental degradation.35To take one pressing example, the World Resources Institute (WRI)reports that:36Water scarcity is already a major problem for the world’s poor,and changes in rainfall and temperature associated with climatechange will likely make this worse. Even without climatechange, the number of people affected by water scarcity is projectedto increase from 1.7 billion today to 5 billion by 2025.37In addition, crop yields are expected to decline in most tropicaland sub-tropical regions as rainfall and temperature patternschange with a changing climate.38 A recent report by the FoodEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions14and Agriculture Organization estimates that developing nationsmay experience an 11 per cent decrease in lands suitable forrain-fed agriculture by 2080 due to climate change.39 There isalso some evidence that disease vectors such as malaria-bearingmosquitoes will spread more widely.40 At the same time, globalwarming may bring an increase in severe weather events likecyclones and torrential rains.All of this imperils human security, which in turn drives societalinsecurity and, in many cases, violence. Placed in the context ofglobalization, violence and insecurity can spill out since now theycan travel further, just as people, goods and services can.Security is about protecting people from critical and pervasivethreats.41 This ranges from the security of nations to that of individualsand of societies. Human security is about creating systemsthat give individuals and communities the building blocks to livewith dignity. Livelihoods are, therefore, an essential element ofhuman security. Acting together, globalization and environmentalstress may directly threaten the livelihoods of the poor, i.e., thecapabilities, material and social assets and activities required for ameans of living, and decrease their ability to cope with, and recoverfrom, environmental stresses and shocks.For “winners” of the process, globalizationbecomes an integratingphenomenon—one that bringstogether markets, ideas, individuals,goods, services and communications.For the “losers” in theprocess, however, it can be a marginalizingphenomenon.42 Just asthe winners come closer to eachother they become more “distant”from the losers. The dependencewithin society on each otherbecomes diminished as transboundarydependence increases. To use a basic example, as WestAfrican consumers develop a liking for imported rice, their “links”to farmers on other continents who export rice to them increaseEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions15For “winners” of the process,globalization becomes anintegrating phenomenon—one that brings together markets,ideas, individuals,goods, services and communications.For the “losers” inthe process, however, it canbe a marginalizingphenomenon.even as their “links” to farmers in their own country growing cassavadecrease. Environmental stress can have a similarly marginalizingimpact on the vulnerable and the weak. It is quite clear from the evidencenow that even though climate change will eventually impacteveryone, it will impact the poorestcommunities first and hardest. In thecase of desertification, we already seethe poorest and most vulnerable communitiesbeing displaced the most.43In essence, the already insecure andvulnerable are pushed to greaterdepths of insecurity and vulnerability.The combined effects of globalization-related marginalization andenvironment-related marginalization can wreak havoc on whateverresilience poor communities might otherwise have possessed. Anillustrative example is the case of small fishers in the Caribbean.44On one hand, globalization forces of advanced extraction technologies,reduced transportation costs, increased ability to keep fishstockfresh over long distances and increasing global demands fromfar-away markets combine to drive the small fisher out of the market.On the other, the very same forces dramatically decrease theamount of fish in the ocean, thereby further reducing the resilienceof the small fisher. As globalization changes the patterns of environmentaldependence, it may marginalize parts of Caribbean societyand disintegrate local security networks.In many ways, climate change is the ultimate threat to global securitybecause it can existentially threaten security at every level fromthe individual to the planetary.45 In a world where one-quarter ofthe people in developing countries (1.3 billion) already survive onfragile lands,46 and where approximately 60 per cent of ecosystemservices examined are being degraded or used unsustainably,including freshwater; capture fisheries; air and water purification;and climate regulation,47 the implications of global climate changeare becoming evident among the already vulnerable. For example,impacts of climate change on Inuit livelihoods have been recorded;evacuations of low-lying coastal populations, such as Vanuatu’s,have begun; and more dramatic adaptation and survival challengesEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions16… the already insecureand vulnerable arepushed to greater depthsof insecurity andvulnerability.in vulnerable states such as Bangladesh are expected. Climatechange-related sea level rise and agricultural disruption could cause150 million environmental refugees in the year 2050 which couldexacerbate insecurity in host countries and regionally.48 The deathof low-lying coastal states and changes in their economic zones andmaritime boundaries may cause further instability.Three key security challenges in the context of climate change arewater scarcity, food shortages and disrupted access to strategic mineralssuch as oil. Historically, these have been the cause of violenceand war. International experience with the linkage between naturalresources and conflict calls for resolute action as natural resourcescan fuel and motivate violent conflict (e.g., conflict diamonds fundingrebel groups in Angola and Sierra Leone; conflicts over distributionof resource profits from timber and natural gas in Indonesia; oilas key factor in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait).49 Environmental stressunleashed by potential climate change could trigger internationalmigration and, possibly, civil wars. In fragile circumstances, environmentalstress could act as an additional destabilizing factor exacerbatingconflict as it combines with other political and social factors.Conditions of insecurity and conflictimpose high costs on the pursuit ofsustainable development just as theyimpose hurdles in the way of globalization.50 Both processes require ameasure of stability without whichonly survival considerations will bepursued. Conflict sets back theprospects for sustainable development,often by decades, by setting inmotion a negative spiral—environmental degradation leads to morecompetition for scarce resources, leading the powerful to secure theresources for their use, leading to conflict, which leads to worsenedsocial relations, smash-and-grab resource use, greater resentment,etc. Security—from national to human—is, therefore, a prerequisitefor realizing the benefits of sustainable development as well as thoseof globalization.Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions17Conditions of insecurityand conflict impose highcosts on the pursuit ofsustainable developmentjust as they impose hurdlesin the way of globalization.PROPOSITION #3:The newly prosperous and the established wealthywill have to come to terms with the limitations ofthe ecological space in which both must operate, andalso with the needs and rights of those who have notbeen as lucky.Consider the following:• Emerging economies now dominate and drive global growth.51Last year their combined output accounted for more than halfof total world GDP.• China has become a major importer of just about all naturalresources. It is now also the world’s largest importer of recyclablewaste material.52• “About 700,000 Chinese tourists visited France last year and thenumber is climbing annually. By 2020, the World TourismOrganization estimates, 100 million Chinese will make foreigntrips each year.”53• Mittal Steel, a company born in India, with its recent hostiletakeover of Arcelor, is now the world’s largest and most globalsteel company.54While the company’s financial headquarters isin Europe, much of the company’s growth has been in emergingmarkets—India and China, but also Latin America and elsewherein Asia.• “By one calculation, there are now more than 1.7 billion membersof ‘the consumer class’—nearly half of them in the developingworld. A lifestyle and culture that became common inEurope, North America, Japan and a few other pockets of theworld in the twentieth century is going global in the twentyfirst.”55 “China and India alone claim more than 20 per cent ofthe global [consumer class] total—with a combined consumerclass of 362 million, more than in all of Western Europe.”56The point of the above is that the key decisions that will affect—andare already affecting—the trajectories of globalization as well asEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions18environmental processes are no longer solely Northern. They areincreasingly coming from a few large developing countries, especiallyChina and India, but also a handful of other large developingcountries. A palpable excitement accompanies this dramatic rise,but there are challenges as well as opportunities.The dramatic growth in these new economies has forced them tothink about the management of that growth, including its environmentaldimensions. In many cases, they are doing so on their ownterms and in the context of their own specific realities. China, forexample, has embarked on substantial environmental programs.Some immediate programs are fueled by the upcoming OlympicGames to be held in China,57 but many are much longer-term initiativesthat emerge from an explicit realization by China that thecosts of environmental degradation are a major strain on the country’sprospects for continued prosperity, and threaten to affect itsstanding in the world.The rapid rise of this set of erstwhile developing countries shouldalso trigger reflection within established industrialized economieson the questions of growth and consumption. It is not viable—norwas it ever—to urge consumption restraint on the newly prosperouswhile continuing on paths of high consumption oneself.Whilethe question of consumption will be discussed more specificallylater, the point to be made here is that the newly prosperous as wellas those who have been affluent for much longer will now have tocome to terms with the limitations of the ecological space in whichboth must operate and also with the needs and rights of those whohave not been as lucky.The interaction of globalization and environment are writ large inthe new realities unleashed by the focus of global possibilities interms of both processes moving southwards. For example, it is popularto say that “China is the workshop to the world”;58 but it is alsoworth asking ”who is the customer of this workshop’s products?”and “who are the suppliers to the workshop?” Of course, China isused here as a metaphor because it is the most dominant exampleof a host of rapidly developing countries providing manufacturingto the whole world, industrialized as well as developing. But to theextent that China (and some other countries) have emerged as theEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions19new “workshop” of the world, the suppliers to this workshop are thestill poor raw material-based economies in Asia, Africa and LatinAmerica; and the customers of the products from this workshop arethe populations in the North and within the affluent pockets in theSouth. To consider the “workshop” metaphor seriously requiresplacing the “workshop”within a supply chain that is (a) truly globalin nature, and (b) not just an economic supply chain, but an environmentalone.None of the above, however, must distract our attention from thefact that countries that industrialized earlier—in North America,Europe and East Asia/Oceania—are still major movers of globalizationand environmental processes59 and have long-standing andcontinuing responsibilities in this regard.Many of the most pressingenvironmental problems that the world faces today are not caused bydeveloping countries and, in fact, belong to a different industrializationera. The rise, and the scale of the rise, of new emergingeconomies in Asia should be a moment of reflection for the “old”rich countries about their own consumption and resource-use patterns.The ecological space for the North is constricting and societiesthat continue on the path of highly consumptive growth themselveshave no right or standing to ask the “new” rich to restrain theirappetites. Certainly not until they themselves have done so.At the same time, today it does meanthat emerging economies at least havethe opportunity to shape the future inways that they did not have before.They could choose to follow distinctand different paths of their own thatstem from their own particular developmentalconditions as well as anunderstanding of today’s world. Inessence, they have an opportunity—and hopefully the motivation—to bend the curve60 in ways that “old” industrialization didnot or could not.China, for example, is a particularly interesting and importantexample of the opportunities for paradigm shifts that might emergefrom this shift in the global centre of gravity. Not only is China aEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions20Emerging economiesat least have theopportunity to shape thefuture in ways that theydid not have before.major importer of just about all natural resources (and so it willremain), it is emerging as a new hub of recycling.61 China—and,increasingly, India—lie at the cusp ofa new set of challenges and opportunities.They seem aware of the opportunitythey have to do things differentlyfrom countries that industrializedearlier and under different circumstances.The most pressing globalenvironmental problems that theworld faces today are not of their making; but they have a realopportunity to undo these problems by “bending” the proverbialcurve that expresses the relationship between growth and environmentaldegradation. The question is whether these emergingeconomies of the South will have the foresight to embrace theopportunity and to chart a development path that is different fromthat which had been followed by those who came before them, andwhether the “old” affluent economies of the North will demonstratea shared commitment to assist the developing world in chartingsuch a path and by demonstrably taking the lead in curtailing theirown unsustainable patterns.62PROPOSITION #4:Consumption—in both North and South—willdefine the future of globalization as well as theglobal environment.To put this proposition most bluntly, the central challenge to thefuture of environment and globalization is consumption, notgrowth. Fueled by the aspirational “norms” of consumption63 thatalso become globalized through, in part, the global media andadvertising, consumption changes magnify the footprints ofgrowth. For example, while global population doubled between1950 and 2004, global wood use more than doubled, global wateruse roughly tripled, and consumption of coal, oil, and natural gasincreased nearly five times.64Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions21China—and, increasingly,India—lie at the cusp of anew set of challenges andopportunities.A focus on consumption immediately draws our attention to thechallenge of inequity. That challenge cannot be brushed aside. Asimple but powerful illustration suggests that on average, in 2000,one American consumed as much energy as 2.1 Germans, 12.1Colombians, 28.9 Indians, 127 Haitians or 395 Ethiopians.65 Thesenumbers are, of course, stylized but they do help make the pointthat we live in a massively unequal world and that these inequitiesare central to the future of globalization as well as the environment.Also, one should note that national averages hide massive consumptioninequity within nearly all societies. The very affluentwithin developing countries over-consume just as the poor withinaffluent countries under-consume.The scope of the challenge is highlighted by the 2006 Living PlanetReport66 which points out that, based on current projections,humanity will be using two planets’ worth of natural resources by2050—if those resources have not run out by then.Humanity’s ecologicalfootprint—the demand people place upon the naturalworld—has increased to the point where the Earth is unable to keepup in the struggle to regenerate. The key to resolving this challengeis to de-link consumption from growth, and growth from development:67 to provide the poor with the opportunity to increase theiruse of resources even as the affluent reduce their share so that a sustainablelevel and global equity can be achieved.68Technology is one key element in meeting this challenge. The policydecisions we now take that will influence future trajectories of technologydevelopment and deployment—and of consumption choices—will shape the interaction between globalization and the globalenvironment. The good news is that these trajectories can be shapedby policy. Technology has been one of the great drivers of modernglobalization.69 It has also become one of the principal drivers ofenvironmental processes. Transport technologies, for example, havenot only made the world a smaller and more “global” planet, theyhave also resulted in new environmental stress, especially throughincreased atmospheric carbon concentrations. Technology has spedup prosperity for many, but it has also allowed extraction ofresources—fish, timber, metals, minerals, etc.—at unprecedentedrates, thereby placing new and massive pressures on stocks.Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions22At the same time, technological advances have allowed, in someareas, reduced environmental stress. Evidence suggests, for example,that China’s economic growth has come with a relatively lesserincrease in emissions than what had happened earlier in Europe andNorth America because China has been able to “leapfrog” to technologiesthat are much cleaner than Europe and North Americawere using at similar stages in their development. Although its emissionrates per GDP are still high, they are decreasing and have beenhalved in the last decade.70 For example, their fuel economy standardsare higher than those of the United States.71Technological solutions will inevitably determine the future ofglobalization as well as the global environment. But they will do sowithin the context of global consumption demands. Technologycannot change the demands or help us satisfy all of them but it can,through globalization, help meet these demands in a more planetfriendlyway.Automobiles, in fact, are an interesting area of interplay between technologicaladvances and consumption growth. Although the fargreater number of automobiles more than makes up for theseadvances, the fact is that the automobile today is many orders of magnitudecleaner in environmental terms than automobiles were 30 or40 years ago. The promise of technology also lies in the fact that, evenwith existing knowledge, we have the ability to make automobiles anorder of magnitude cleaner than they are today. The point, of course,is that technology does not operate in a vacuum. In particular, it cannotbe understood outside of the context of consumption.72Ultimately, the trajectories of the future—aswell as the technologies available—will beshaped by our aspirations of what a “goodlife” really is.73 The moral and spiritualdimension of planetary aspirations may notseem like an appropriate subject for policydiscussions, but it lies at the very heart of thetype of global society that we want to live inand the type of global society that we areconstructing.Not only are policy discussionsimpacted by aspirational decisions of society,Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions23Ultimately, thetrajectories of thefuture—as well asthe technologiesavailable—will beshaped by ouraspirations ofwhat a “good life”really is.they can in fact shape these aspirations. The Brundtland Report74released 20 years ago was very much an attempt to shape global aspirationson environment as well as what we now call globalization.Agenda 21, which emerged from the Rio Earth Summit 15 years ago,was another such attempt.75 Since then, an array of other influentialideas have come from governments, civil society and business. Forexample, concepts of “natural capitalism,” industrial ecology, ecoefficiency,“Factor Ten” efficiency improvements, and “GlobalTransitions” have been proposed and some have gained currency incivic discourse, business strategy and government policy.76The European Union has launched an initiative that aims to “reducethe negative environmental impacts generated by the use of naturalresources in a growing economy,” decoupling growth and environmentalimpact.77 Similarly, the U.K. hassignalled a shift towards a “One PlanetEconomy,” with the launch of the government’snew U.K. Sustainable DevelopmentFramework.78 Sweden has pledged tobecome the first “oil-free nation” by 2020by switching to alternative fuels.79 In short,key actors have begun to recognize—andsome to implement—the notion that ultimatelyconsumption will have to be constrained.The purpose of this proposition, therefore, is not simply to say thatconsumption is the key to understanding globalization and theenvironment. It is to propose that de-linking consumption fromgrowth, and growth from development is possible. That the promiseof sustainable development is—or can be—an honest promise;honestly kept. It is also to suggest that policy interventions are necessaryto make this transition and to offer the hope that slowly—albeit too slowly—this realization is coming to be accepted by decision-makers. The challenge, of course, is whether this slow realizationwill be able to trigger the much larger change in global consumptiontrajectories before it is too late.Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions24In short, key actorshave begun to recognize—and some toimplement—thenotion that ultimatelyconsumption will haveto be constrained.PROPOSITION #5:Concerns about the global market and global environmentwill become even more intertwined andeach will become increasingly dependent on the other.Although still unrecognized by many, it is nonetheless a fact that alarge proportion of existing global environmental policy is, in fact,based on creating, regulating and managingmarkets. The most obvious examplesare direct trade-related instruments likethe Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of wild fauna andflora (CITES) or the Basel Convention onTrade in Hazardous Waste. But even lessobvious instruments such as the ClimateConvention (especially through its emissiontrading provisions) or theBiodiversity Convention (through, forexample, the Cartagena Protocol on living modified organisms)operate within created or existing marketplaces and markets are acentral element of their design and implementation.For their part, the managers of market interactions—most prominentlyin the area of international trade, but also in investment, subsidies,etc.—have also belatedly come to the conclusion that theycannot divorce market policies from environmental policy for long.To take international trade as an example, we see that a significantpart of international trade is in environment-related goods—rangingfrom trade in resources such as timber or fish to flowers andspecies, and much more.Moreover, trade in just about all goods hasenvironmental relevance in the manufacture, transport, disposaland use of those goods. The Preamble to the Marrakech Agreementsestablishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) recognizes thisclearly. And following its lead, the Doha Round of WTO negotiationshas also acknowledged this intrinsic connection by placingenvironment squarely on the trade negotiation agenda.80 Althoughthose negotiations are currently stalled, the principle of the inclu-Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions25… a large proportionof existing globalenvironmental policyis, in fact, based oncreating, regulatingand managingmarkets.sion of environmental concerns on the trade agenda is no longer inquestion and is not in doubt.Importantly, there is a synergy in the stated goals of the trade andthe environment system. Both claim to work in the context of, andfor the attainment of, sustainable development.81 Given that internationaltrade is a principal motor of globalization, one can arguethat sustainable development should be considered an ultimate goalof globalization, just as it is the stated end-goal of the internationaltrading system.This integration of environment intotrade policy and trade into environmentalpolicy will only intensify. The hope, ofcourse, is that not only the two policyissues, but also the two policy arenas, willinteract more than they have to date; thateach will recognize that they share themeta-goal of sustainable development;and that both will seek to reach that goalthrough collaboration. One must start, therefore, with the acceptancethat policies that impact markets go beyond the WTO (e.g.,supply chains, regional and bilateral arrangements, etc.) just as policiesthat impact the environment go beyond UNEP (e.g., nationaland local initiatives, private sector and civil society initiatives, etc.).Our concern here, therefore, is larger than to the future ofWTO andUNEP; it is how environmental and market dynamics interact toreap the potential of globalization and environmental improvement.One interesting example of how the interactions between marketsand environment may play out beyond international trade is in thearea of electronic waste.82 The manufacture of electronic equipmentis one of the world’s fastest growing industries. Yet, with theproliferation of such equipment also comes the growing environmentalchallenge of proper management of the equipment at theend of its useful life. As technology advances and the demands byconsumers for new and advanced equipment soar, proper managementof the waste will be of paramount importance. In 2004 alone,about 315 million personal computers became obsolete.83 DespiteEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions26This integration ofenvironment intotrade policy and tradeinto environmentalpolicy will onlyintensify.efforts by many countries to tighten control over acceptable disposalmethods, adopt processes to recover valuable constituents and usesafe practices to deal with the hazardous constituents in e-wastes(e.g., cadmium, lead, beryllium, CFCs, brominated flame retardants,mercury, nickel and certain organic compounds), many difficultieslie ahead.One interesting sub-component of this is the trade in refurbishedmobile phones. Phones that are used and discarded in advancedindustrialized countries (and some fast-industrializing developingcountries) end up in poorer countries where they are refurbishedand resold, soon to become useless and electronic-waste. By thistime, however, there are few options for proper disposal and fewaffordable opportunities to return items to the original producer.Resolving this growing problem will require us to think outside ofthe confined boxes of “markets” and “environment.” For example, amechanism could be established to fund the buy-back of mobilephone waste in developing countries wherein the funds are collectedfrom producing companies (based on their average cost of buyback)and donors. The collection itself could be done by the samesmall entrepreneur who sells used phones, thereby contributing tolivelihood, with the network of collection and compensation managedwith civil society assistance, since they have far better access tolocal markets and entrepreneurs than large multinationals. Such amechanism illustrates how a creative and integrated approach andthe inclusion of relevant market actors can bring the benefits ofglobal markets to the poorest communities in ways that are beneficialto the environment and lead to the shared goal of sustainabledevelopment.Looking at the larger picture, one does begin to see the emergingrecognition of the need for better integration among the key players.On the trade side, for example, the Doha Declaration and itsreaffirmation of sustainable development as the meta-goal of globaltrade policy was a manifestation of this recognition. Soon afterwards,the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) of2002 also reaffirmed the centrality of the trade and environmentconnections in its Declaration and all its deliberations.However, themove from the declaratory to the regulatory remains mired in insti-Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions27tutional challenges since our systems of global governance havebeen designed to keep the two issues apart rather than to inspirecollaboration for the achievement of common goals.84The central point of this proposition, then, is that even though thereality of the global marketplace and the global environment areintrinsically intertwined and becoming ever more so—through themechanisms of international trade; manifestations of environmentalstress; the changes in peoples’ livelihoods; and the actions ofbusiness and civil society—the processes of decision-making inthese two areas are still far apart and only occasionally interact. Thegood news is that recent developments have nudged policy-makersin the two areas to talk to each other just a little bit more. To bemeaningful, however, this nudge must soon convert into a real pushand the stated common goal of sustainable development shouldbecome a central driver of coordinated policies.

Avenues for Action:What Can We Do?Better global governance is the key to managing both globalizationand the global environment.More importantly, it is also the key tomanaging the relationship between the two. The processes of environmentand globalization are sweepingly broad, sometimes overwhelming,but they are not immune to policy influence. Indeed, theprocesses as we know them have been shaped by the policies that wehave—or have not—put in place in the past. Equally, the directionthat globalization, the global environment and the interaction ofthe two will take in the years to come will be shaped by the policydecisions of the future. Governance, therefore, is the key avenue foraction by decision-makers today.However, it is also quite clear that bothglobalization and environment challengethe current architecture of the internationalsystem as it now exists. Bothdynamics limit a state’s ability to decide onand control key issues affecting it.Globalization does it largely by design asstates commit to liberalize trade andembrace new technologies. The environmentchallenges the system by default as ecosystem boundariesrarely overlap with national boundaries and ecological systems arenearly always supra-state. The role of the state in the managementof the international system has to evolve to respond to the evolutionof the challenges facing it.This evolution is already happening, but often in painful, even contorted,ways. Having outgrown its old structure, the internationalsystem is designing a new, more inclusive one.85 Many problemshave been identified in the current system of global governance: it istoo large; it is chronically short of money and yet also wasteful ofthe resources it has; it has expanded in an ad hoc fashion; it lackscoordination and a sense of direction; it is often duplicative andEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions29… both globalizationand environmentchallenge the currentarchitecture of theinternational systemas it now exists.sometimes different organizations within the system work at crosspurposesto each other, etc. In terms of environment and globalization,we see three important goals for the global governance systemas it exists today.Managing institutional fragmentation: Although there alreadyexist organs within the system to address most problems thrown upby environment and globalization, the efforts of these institutionsare fragmented and lack coordination or coherence. The efforts andthe instruments for making the “system” work as a whole either donot exist or are under-utilized.The institutional architecture that wehave remains focused on precise issues eventhough the pressing challenges of ourtimes—particularly those related to environmentand globalization—relate to theconnections between issues (e.g., labourand trade; environment and investment;food and health; etc.). There is a pressingneed, therefore, for meaningful global governance reform that createsviable and workable mechanisms for making existing institutionswork together more efficiently and effectively than they haveso far.Broadening the base of our state-centric system: Despite someheadway over the last two decades, the essential architecture of theinternational governance system remainsstate-centric, even though neither the problemsnor the solutions are any longer so. Interms of environment and globalizationdynamics, one now finds civil society andmarket actors playing defining roles inestablishing the direction and sequence ofevents. Whether it is companies creatingnew global norms and standards throughtheir procurement and supply chains, orNGOs establishing voluntary standards inareas such as forestry or organic products,we see that policy in practice is no longer the sole domain of theinter-state system. It should be acknowledged that both civil societyEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions30There is a pressingneed, therefore, formeaningful globalgovernance reform.… the essentialarchitecture of theinternationalgovernance systemremains statecentric,even thoughneither the problemsnor the solutions areany longer so.and business are beginning to be integrated into global governancemechanisms—for example, through their presence and participationin global negotiations and summits and through closer interactionswith environmentally progressive businesses. This processneeds to be deepened and accelerated, and meaningful ways need tobe found to incorporate them as real partners in the global governanceenterprise.Establishing sustainable development as a common goal: Thepost-World War II international organizational architecture wasoriginally designed to avoid another Great War. In terms of what thesystem does and in terms of the types of goals that it has set for itself(e.g., the Millennium Development Goals; stabilization of atmosphericconcentrations of CO2; eradication of diseases such asMalaria; control of HIV/AIDS; etc.), the system has evolved to abroader understanding of what we mean by “security” as well as ofwhat its own role is. Yet, it is not always clear that the entire systemof global governance is moving towards a common goal. This createsundue friction between the organizations that make up the systemand results in disjointed policies.To the extent that a new common globalgoal has emerged, it is sustainable development.Not only is sustainable developmentquintessentially about the linkagesbetween environment and globalization,it is also a goal that has increasingly beenadopted by various elements of the globalsystem. For example, it is not only theoverarching goal of all environmental organizations and instruments,it is also now a stated goal of the World Trade Organization,the Food and Agriculture Organization and many others.Laying out a detailed plan for achieving this shared goal is beyondthe scope and mandate of this document. To a more limited extent,an earlier related report, Global Environmental Governance: AReform Agenda,86 begins doing so for the process of environmentalgovernance only.While recommendations from that work are validhere, the challenge of environment and globalization lays out aneven bigger agenda for us to think about. By way of prodding suchEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions31To the extent that anew common globalgoal has emerged, it issustainabledevelopment.thinking, a sampling of the types of initiatives that could be consideredis presented here.• The last few years have seen a number of different initiatives oninternational institutional reform, and the next few will invariablysee more. Many of these have been focused on organizationalreform relating to management, operations, financing,etc. Some have been focused more precisely on strengtheningkey institutions in specific issue areas (e.g., UNEP for globalenvironmental governance). The success of such initiatives isimportant in making the system efficient and these processesshould be supported and strengthened. Bringing more coherenceand coordination between sub-systems should also be amajor priority: e.g., the global environmental governance system;the global financial governance system; the global economicdevelopment support system; etc.• The challenge, however, is larger than efficiency alone. It is alsoabout making the various components of the system worktogether and towards a shared vision. As an initial step, onecould envisage choosing just one area with which to begin andestablishing modalities for deep and permanent links betweeninstitutions that are dealing with clearly related issues. The obviouscandidate is the area of trade and environment. Given ourearlier discussion and the steps that have already been taken inimproving coherence between these intertwined areas, onecould envisage an agreement between the two institutions thatclearly defines the role of each and the “services” that each canprovide to the other and the expertise that can be shared acrossthe two domains. Such coordination at the global level couldalso serve to instill greater interaction between environmentaland trade decision-making at the domestic level.• Effectively responding to the challenges of environment andglobalization requires a concerted effort to find new and meaningfulways to engage non-state actors from business and civil society.A first generation of attempts towards public-private partnershipsis already underway with efforts such as the UNSecretary General’s Global Compact Initiative, the Type 2 partnershipsdevised during WSSD in 2002, and increasing interac-Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions32tion between state and non-state actors at various global fora.87There is a need to elevate this notion of partnerships to a newand higher level. One which seeks to establish not only sharedgoals and priorities, but to also devise a course of sharedresponsibility and joint action. Until now, for the most part,partnerships between state and non-state parties have meantseeking synergies in what they are already doing. In order tomeet the challenges of environment and globalization, we needto move to deeper—possibly contractual—bargains that bringbusiness and civil society as full partners into the enterprise ofglobal governance. The type of partnerships that was discussedabove in terms of e-waste may be one example of what thismight look like.• The existing instruments that do relate to environment andglobalization tend to come either from the direction of environmentalpolicy (e.g., the climate convention) or from thedirection of economic policy (e.g.,WTO rules). As a first step,and as elaborated above, the cross-cutting elements within theseinstruments need to be better understood, and actors from variousdomains need to be engaged in these discussions.However,we will soon also need to start creating new instruments thatemerge not from one of the two dynamics—environment or globalization—but from the interaction of the two. For example, thereis already an advanced body of interesting work done on “greenaccounting” and various forms of ecological accounting andecological tax reform. There is both a need and an opportunityto begin thinking of integrating this work into our national andglobal accounting mechanisms. One option might be to promotesystems of payment for ecological services (domestically,internationally and possibly globally). Or, at a minimum, toaccount for the value of such services in national accounts sothat more reasoned and reasonable decision-analysis can bedone for and by policy-makers. Another option, at a moreextreme end of the spectrum of possibilities, may be to considernew legal instruments: a possible “Global Compact on PovertyReduction” or a “Global Treaty on Consumption.” The merits ofparticular instruments may be debatable, but the point to bemade here is that if global opportunities are to be maximizedEnvironment and Globalization: Five Propositions33while adhering to principles of global responsibility, then newand innovative mechanisms of understanding, measuring andmanaging economic and ecological values will be needed.• Another area of global governance that needs attention in termsof environment and globalization is that of security—and insecurity.An acknowledgement and appreciation of the importanceof human insecurity and of the multiple drivers of societalas well as international conflict has begun to grow.However,our governance mechanisms for discussing security remain fixatedon a much narrower conception of security. Institutionsresponsible for dealing with issues of security are slowly—but,again, too slowly—beginning to accommodate broader notionsof the term. The UN Security Council, for example, held a specialhearing on conflict diamonds.88 The U.S. military, asanother example, has had for a number of years an AssistantSecretary for environmental security, and has been seriouslystudying the implications of global climate change on U.S. security.There is a need to even more explicitly broaden the mandateof global security organizations to include non-traditionalsecurity mandates, including those related to environmentalsecurity.• Although discussions of environment and globalization maytake place at the global level, the implications of these dynamicsare invariably national and local. It is evident that the ability tomanage these processes, to benefit from the potential of globalizationand to minimize the threats of environmental degradationare all functions of preparedness, information and capacity.Investments in these areas—and particularly in developingcountries—can have immediate as well as long-term benefitsvis-à-vis sustainable development. As has been suggested, globalizationhas great potential to bring economic prosperity to thepoor. But this potential cannot be realized without the capacityto do so and a readiness within those communities and societiesto actualize these benefits. The role of international assistance increating such readiness and enhancing such capacities is critical.Addressing domestic capacity constraints—including, forexample, in early warning; technology choice and innovation;Environment and Globalization: Five Propositions34decision analysis; long-term investment analysis; etc.—should,therefore, be a key area of international cooperation.• Finally,we do need better assessments of the full potential as wellas the full costs of environment and globalization interactions.If any of the ideas presented here are to be adopted,we will needfar more robust information and analysis than we now have.What is the full value of global ecological services? What are thebest available instruments for ecological accounting? How arethe costs and benefits of globalization currently distributed?What are the economic costs of various environmental stresses?What are the long-term impacts of alternative technology decisions?What is the potential for de-materialization and de-linkinggrowth from consumption? These, and many others, aresome of the many important questions that we need to thinkabout. It may not be possible to get answers to all of the questions.But it is possible to get answers to many. In other cases,even if exact answers are not available, indicative assessmentsmay be possible. A first step, therefore, would be to conduct alarge-scale global assessment of the state of knowledge on environmentand globalization. As we found with the global assessmentson climate change and, more recently, the MillenniumEcosystem Assessment,89 the act of conducting such systematicstudies is important not only for the answers that they bring outbut also because they raise new and more important questions,they identify new and otherwise unexplored options, and theyhelp create the policy space for new discussions.