Globalization and Regionalism: Liberal Stocktaking of Chances and Risks

(September 3 - 17, 2004)
By Paolo Antonio A. Zamora

Paolo Antonio A. Zamora

I was elated when I heard that I will be attending a seminar in Germany. Part of my job as a Program Officer was to organize (and hence attend) conferences and seminars. This was different however, in the sense that I had the opportunity to actually participate in the exchange of views, as a young, slightly inexperienced liberal.

During my university years, I had very limited knowledge of globalization. As certain as the fact that I felt it, was the sorry fact that I knew too little about it. I suppose you can say that I took globalization for granted. This was because as a computer enthusiast, I was constantly exposed to changing technologies. I precisely thought this was globalization - modernity, the constant effort to bring mankind closer together through shifting technologies.

This two-week seminar brought me broader knowledge about globalization in relation to today’s regional and global situation. I learned that trade, finances, and the movement of people around the globe increase as technology progresses. I also realized that globalization will lead to positive changes worldwide for it will help unite countries through interdependent cooperation and participation.

Interesting Points

The seminar’s theme was one that literally transcended all boundaries: “Globalization and Regionalism.” There were various issues tackled during our discussion. Those that I found most interesting follow.

Firstly, I learned that there will always be two sides to a coin.

While I support and believe in the benefits of globalization, there are others who undermine it. For instance, while some hail the Microsoft Windows sensation, others condemn its virtual monopoly of the computer software market and ultimately, the difficulty it brings to smaller software companies.

On a side note, as I was gathering information about globalization, I came across an anti-Thomas Friedman website. Friedman, as we all know, has been a long time proponent of globalization and has written several books about it. Do not the creators of this anti-Friedman website see the irony in the fact that they are promoting their views through the borderless world of cyberspace, which is precisely a product of the very globalization they oppose? While they try hard not to draw on globalization, they miss the fact that they themselves have taken advantage of it.

Secondly, competition is part of globalization. Because of globalization, multinational companies are forced to compete with and adapt to domestic markets. In the Philippines for example, Mc Donald’s is in a constant struggle to outpace Jollibee, a domestic corporation likewise engaged in the fast food business. A “McSalad meal” is a favorite choice for Parisians, but I wouldn’t find it in the menu of McDonald’s in the Philippines. What we have are the “Crispy Chicken and Rice Meal” and the “Fish Fillet Meal” for the religious during the devout period of lent in our predominantly Roman Catholic country. This shows how a multinational corporation, seeking to take advantage of new markets opened by globalization, has adjusted to the uniqueness of a country, creating a competitive advantage and hence opportunity for growth.

Another topic I found interesting is global governance. In a world so diverse, global governance doesn’t mean having an ultimate ruler and an ultimate law. It simply promotes international cooperation between and among governments and other institutions in order to bridge the gap between the local and the international orders.

Associated with the globalization process are the regional arrangements (e.g. EU, SADC, ASEAN, etc.) Being grouped with my colleagues from Asia, we have had interesting discussions regarding our own ASEAN. Although we did not go deep into ASEAN’s history, we have managed to explore its importance as a venue for economic and political cooperation in the region. ASEAN is a venue where small countries like the Philippines could exercise a greater influence in the region. However the problem we have observed is that countries in ASEAN are still trapped into economic protectionism. One of the propositions in our discussions was: “economic regionalism reinforces globalization as long as competitiveness is increased between its members and low protection against non-member countries.” We held that ASEAN should observe the continuance of open societies and economies in order to prevent stagnation. This is globalization - bringing down the barriers and opening ourselves to our neighbors.

As a bloc, ASEAN members should increase its efforts to cooperate with the Northeast Asian powers namely China, Japan and Korea. Through this “ASEAN plus three” framework, Asian countries can create a level playing field with their trading partners around the globe. Nevertheless, no matter how much effort we put into the process of making the region successful, if one country needs to undergo reformation and internal structural development, then such country will not benefit from the harvest.

This reflects the Philippines’ situation. Even as a founding member of ASEAN, over the years its economy continues to decline. The Philippines has to first mind its internal affairs by reinforcing good governance and accountability and strengthening democracy within. I agree with Peter Drucker when he said that “there are no ‘underdeveloped’ countries anymore, there are only mis-managed countries.”

Evaluation

The seminar, which was held in Theodore Heuss Academy, in the quiet, serene place of Gummersbach, Germany, was a success. It was really extensive and I appreciated it. (The academy by the way is Friedrich Naumann Foundation’s oldest center for liberal dialogue at an international level.)

As liberals, it was important for us to hear each other’s opinion to bring about consolidation as well as resolution. All my new friends and colleagues in the seminar were kind enough to share their knowledge and experiences about their countries and about globalization. Sometimes the discussions got really intense and it was hard for us to come into agreement. But all came to pass through tolerance and respect of opinion. We were all survivors of the rigorous, but productive discussions in and out of the seminar room.

The articles given to guide us in the discussions were quite theoretical, but still encouraged analytical thinking. All the important points and aspects of globalization were effectively delivered and discussed. I have learned so much from the participants, moderators, organizers, guest speakers, and even from the VIP (very important place) and kitchen staff because however diverse we were in the group, we realized we all shared the same passion for sumptuous meals and drinks (which I terribly miss).

I extend my sincere gratitude to the moderators for supplementing information and presenting summaries for every subject area finished. The guest speakers were excellent at providing substantial data about the different areas of concern that affect globalization; while the translators were effective in helping us convey our thoughts during the sessions.

In sum, I would like to thank the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for giving me the opportunity to experience this kind of training as a young liberal. I would like to commend the foundation for continuing to educate people on the principles of liberalism and democracy. It was a privilege to participate in an event where people from 23 different countries have converged to share ideas and learn from each other’s experiences.