Tuesday, December 23, 2003
Random thoughts on globalisation
I've been spending some time the past couple of days roaming around the Fort Cochin area. Walking around an ancient port with fishing nets from the court of the Kublai Khan, jewish settlements that were established soon after the sack of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar (and site of the oldest synagogue outside the middle east), remains of Roman trading ports, one has to really wonder why there is so much song and dance about globalisation today (yes, the stakes are much are higher today than they were 100 years ago).
2000 years ago, free trade between nations was a matter of fact (in fact the Phoenicians were trading with south-west India far earlier than that). A cursory look at the similarity in the racial features, language, customs, traditions and food of people along the various trade routes provide more than ample evidence of this movement of ideas, capital, goods and people. In fact, one could safely make the argument that the global trading system finally collapsed in the wake of the first world war.
So, why then the fear that globalization is some kind of imperialist plot cooked up by the Americans to take over the world (i am paraphrasing of an opinion expressed by a trade unionist in an Indian newspaper today)? What's truly ridiculous is that is this opinion was proferred by someone from Cochin, someone who clearly has no clue about the history of his own hometown.
Yes, the Americans are the main drivers of globalisation today, but that's because they are the biggest economy in the world. Yes, globalisation at it's practised today (trade is good, imports are bad) is bound to piss people off, but even so, if the critics thought about it for a bit, the benefits of a free and fair trading system must surely be evident to them?
2000 years ago, free trade between nations was a matter of fact (in fact the Phoenicians were trading with south-west India far earlier than that). A cursory look at the similarity in the racial features, language, customs, traditions and food of people along the various trade routes provide more than ample evidence of this movement of ideas, capital, goods and people. In fact, one could safely make the argument that the global trading system finally collapsed in the wake of the first world war.
So, why then the fear that globalization is some kind of imperialist plot cooked up by the Americans to take over the world (i am paraphrasing of an opinion expressed by a trade unionist in an Indian newspaper today)? What's truly ridiculous is that is this opinion was proferred by someone from Cochin, someone who clearly has no clue about the history of his own hometown.
Yes, the Americans are the main drivers of globalisation today, but that's because they are the biggest economy in the world. Yes, globalisation at it's practised today (trade is good, imports are bad) is bound to piss people off, but even so, if the critics thought about it for a bit, the benefits of a free and fair trading system must surely be evident to them?
