So here is my final essay, considering a lot
of things that are going on in the world, this I think, is a good topic to
cover. This year has seen a lot of
surprises on the world stage. Brexit, and potential
the most important of all, renewed Russian involvement in the Middle East and
the fallout from the inevitable death
of ISIS, which will send extremists flying to all corners of the
world. Planet Earth is really getting
shook up. In the post-Cold-War world we
still aren’t sure what form this new world will take. We are in a world of a rising Asia, a
probably declining West, but overall an age of uncertainty. Will things lead to war or peace, to
prosperity, or decline; division, or globalization?
Globalization is an angel or a
demon depending on who you ask. Although recent events like the Brexit, and
tensions in the South China Sea have cast some doubt on the prospects of globalization. In my opinion though it is not something that
will be diverted by anything short of a climatic event on the scale of a world
war, or an alien invasion, though an alien invasion might actually help it. Never-the-less, whether it’s fast or slow it
will happen and the question is what shape it will take. There are many people who have speculated
about what the post-globalization world will look like. Someone who is not often looked at though is
a lesser known American author and political thinker named Edward Bellamy, best
known for two things, running for congress while in jail, and writing a novel
called Looking
Backward.
Looking Backward is a novel about a man who
falls asleep in the year 1887 and wakes up in AD 2000. 113 years later and 16 years ago. The world he wakes up to find was not turn of
the century America, but 21st century Boston. He found an America that has become a
utopia. This happened through the
creation of the Great Trust, by the nationalizing and unifying of the great
corporations. This, I think, is a sort of
proto-globalizations. An early model for
the direction the world might actually go, put probably minus the utopia and
the part about everyone retiring at the age of 45. In fact, Bellamy wasn’t completely wrong with
his vision of the year 2000, and we can already see the beginnings and the
conditions for what might be Bellaminian globalization. So let’s get down to business. corporations and non-government bodies
becoming massive and very powerful bodies to be precise. In his time, Bellamy was thinking of
companies like Standard Oil. We don’t
have Standard Oil anymore since Teddy Roosevelt took an offense to monopolies but
we can take look at one of its modern equivalents, Exon-Mobile. Exon-Mobile, so how rich is it? Well how about we put it on a scale with the worlds
countries. Let’s say on a scale of the top 100 most profitable countries and companies
in the world. Where do you think Exon
Mobile falls? It’s number
17. It’s not even the company in
front. The fact that international
corporations can and do hold more economic power than most countries is
remarkable and frightening. That number,
of course, does transfer into political power to a degree though fortunately stays
short of military power, for the moment.
This is for many people something to fear. It is certainly something to be cautious
about though I don’t think it’s something we need to be negative about as it
can potentially bring about a lot of good, though I wouldn’t argue that it will
directly. The amount of power that
corporations and other non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) have on the world
stage today is unprecedented and is pushing the world toward a change. “What are we going to do about these organization?” is the question people are asking and that
the world will eventually have to answer.
They currently are largely unregulated in what they do in international space
because NGO’s in the shape they take today are a very recent phenomena and
there are more and more of them every year.
To put it into perspective. In
1956, the Union of International Organizations
(UIA) had on its books, 973 NGOs, by the 1980’s there were more than 3000. Today they have over 30,000 active International
organizations registered with them. They are spreading like locust and we will
have to deal with them sooner or later.
Of course, part of the problem is that we don’t really have any bodies
powerful enough to do it. The EU might
be able to do something in Europe if it’s members agree, but as far as I know
most other regional or international organizations of nations are pretty useless. We could regulate them by treaty or
convention but this is like putting a Band-Aid™ over the missing finger that is
the real problem.
This is another one of the problems of the
modern world. We do not live in a world
of super powers anymore. Not
really. It’s not like to Cold War where
the USA or the USSR were the two big, end-all be-all powers. One power can’t just do anything anymore and
they have to work with others, or at least that’s where we are going. This doesn’t make the problem better it makes
it worse because now instead of one or two big nations pushing everyone around
we have a lot of big nations stepping on each others toes and getting worked
up about it. As the recent Chinese
refusal to accept a UN judgment about South China Sea jurisdictions has shown,
we cannot cut on existing bodies to regulate and rain in these nations
either. Currently no international or
regional body had the power to do this but I do not think this will be permanent. I believe that the world is moving to a point
where states will eventually surrender some of their sovereignty to a much
large region or international entity that will have the power to enforce its
rulings and bring member states into line.
We will call this body the Regional Authority (RA) for the purposes of discussion...
"Looking Backward" was an amazing glimpse of a possible future world, from the desperate vantage of a 19th century idealist. It did indeed envision a globalist world, and its hard to imagine a sustainable future that doesn't reject sectarian nationalism and protectionism. On the other hand, it's also possible to envision a future in which locality and subsistence, not ever-expanding gnp, is key. We need a Bellamy (or two or three) to write a story showing how to combine the best elements of those competing visions. "World government" sounds ominous, but "World War" sounds worse.
ReplyDelete