Globalization vs. Regionalism

(May 11-May 23, 2003)
by Clive Quino

The seminar, which lasted for two weeks, much covered almost everything one ought to know about globalization. The discussions, the lectures of the guest speakers, who, by the way, are most respected in their own fields, the materials provided and the work group activities were very intensive approaches on understanding better the phenomenon that is globalization. Moreover, the fact that participants coming from 21 different countries attended it made the seminar even more interesting because this meant that different problems, views, those opposing and favoring globalization, and cultures come into play. In addition, it is quite interesting to know that amidst all the differences, most, if not all of the participants, spoke of globalization as a menace and a scourge to each of our country. The most common criticism is that the process of globalization threatens to make the poorer countries, such as the Philippines, even poorer and the richer countries, such as the US and Japan, even richer.

I went to the seminar with the mindset that globalization will do more harm than good to my country. But at the end of the two-week seminar, I gained a better understanding of what it is and found out that globalization is not really, as perceived by many, the beast that preys on poor countries. It is rather a great opportunity to uplift the living conditions of millions of Filipinos. So how come many are still opposed to this concept of globalization? The problem really is not with globalization but rather on what I consider as the external factor and inter factor. The first factor involves the countries that participate in the globalization process. The drastic changes and the often shocking effects of opening up has been addressed by trade agreements (e.g. GATT) among nations, these agreements have established significant guidelines and regulations intended for fairer trade. However, problems arise when powerful transnational companies and rich countries ignore the established rules. In addition to the problems, fair trade seems impossible because the institutions (e.g. WTO) established to advocate for fairer trade are instead biased in favor of the self-interest of rich countries and powerful corporations.

The problem with globalization is not however to be blamed exclusively on those external factors that I just mentioned. The problem is more internal than it is external. No wonder why the Philippines is not ready, the country belongs to the list of one of the most corrupt nations and perhaps is now on top of the list. Massive tax evasion causes lesser collection and thus leading to overly insufficient road, health, communication, environmental protection measures, and many other basic social infrastructures. We have so many insurgent and militant groups already and many are still emerging. And one of the very adverse effects of this internal insecurity is the rapid dwindling of investor confidence. There is also the problem of extra-constitutional authorities who, when they flex their muscles, scare the living daylights out of many politicians. Moreover, the Filipinos have great minds but sadly, these have not been developed to their fullest potential because school infrastructures have been neglected. Certainly, an ordinary Filipino cannot immediately see the implications of these internal problems with respect to globalization. The tendency is to look at globalization as a problem involving external factors only, say, Americanism. IN that case, what one actually fails to see is that globalization in itself is a good opportunity for Juan de la Cruz to have a better paying job, send his children to school, and live a much better life. The Philippines without a doubt has enormous strengths and opportunities that if only these were properly identified and utilized would prepare us better for globalization. These strengths include the Philippines' strong democracy, strong and well-trained workforce, well-educated middle class, excellent laws and the list goes on and on. However, what stops Juan from achieving all these is sadly the people he placed in power to help him and perhaps, even Juan himself.

Coming to the discussion of my views on the seminar itself. I have mentioned at the beginning of this report that the seminar, as brilliant and as enlightening as it is, covered only "almost" everything. The reason being that although political, economic and cultural issues with respect to globalization were thoroughly discussed, the seminar lacked the same attention on issues which I believe are equally important and these are the environmental issue and the issue of education. Although these issues were discussed at one point in some articles that were provided during the seminar, the discussion unfortunately lacked the thoroughness that these issues deserve. The gravity of the issue with respect to the environment, its degradation and the measures taken to preserve it, or the lack of such measures, should have been given greater consideration and should have been discussed thoroughly during the seminar. Moreover, with respect to the issue of education, I would have greatly appreciated it if during the seminar the issue on how to better prepare the world's youth for the greater challenges of globalization were addressed. Lastly, the participants noticed that the countries invited were all developing countries and no participant came from an industrialized country. It would have been more interesting if participants the so-called ICs were able to take part so that they could also share their own country's experience in the process of globalization.

Lastly, the seminar has given me not only a better understanding of globalization but it has also provided me with a significant introduction into the concept of Liberal politics. As a young politician, I am truly grateful for such an opportunity and I hope more emerging leaders will be given the same opportunity to appreciate the Liberal ideology.