Written by: Goh SW, September 2015
‘Global’ is a pervasive term today –from the ongoing ‘global war on terror’ coined by George W. Bush to ‘global cities’ to describe important node cities in the worldwide financial system like New York and Singapore. The widespread usage of this term derives from the ongoing process we term globalisation: an intricate web of processes which has made the world increasingly interconnected in worldwide technological, political, social, economic, and cultural exchanges and interdependencies. However, it remains to be seen whether this process has caused, or conversely prevented, more conflict. This essay will explore this key question based on the effects of globalisation in the political, socio-cultural and economic spheres of human endeavor.
Anthony Giddens identifies the concept of ‘Time-Space separation’ to elucidate modernity’s dynamic nature in his Consequences of Modernity. While mankind’s concept of ‘time’ has been made homogeneous through a worldwide standardization of calendars and international time, our physical, geographical ‘places’ have been conversely separated from our social ‘spaces.’ This phenomena is largely attributed to the rise of information and communications technologies, most ostensibly the Internet. With the advent of social media and social networking sites, social influences from afar are given a platform to penetrate and subsequently shape our immediate surroundings. This often results in extensive political repercussions.
In 2011, a combination of influence of western ideas of liberalism from abroad and the use of social networking sites to circumvent state-operated media channels aided activists to orchestrate the Arab Spring against the incumbent Middle East governments. Mass protests and armed civil resistance came about from that combinnation. That aside, greater interconnectedness from the blurring of locale and global lines has potentially curtailed authoritarian, inhumane, and corrupted regimes from inflicting greater harm on their people. Western supporters of liberal ideals strongly purported these views at the time of insurrection.
However, the proliferation of de-territorialising technologies can also be a double-edged sword. Fast-forward four years from the Arab Spring, the ‘global war on terror’ faces a new, globalised, threat from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), more commonly known as ISIS, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Capitalising on technological advances and operating on social media platforms, ISIS is an extremist Muslim terrorist organisation which willingly shares information – or creates and manufactures “information”, or disinformation – to coax a global audience to join their cause. These platforms are also used to broadcast their acts of violence worldwide as a show of might, such as the infamous beheading of a Japanese journalist. In fact, ISIS propaganda has radicalised many moderate Muslims and disenfranchised youths in surrounding nations. It is hence evident that greater interconnectedness has, in fact, promulgated conflict beyond Iraqi and Syrian borders. The shifting sands in the Middle East create an impact on other regions too. In Southeast Asia, Malaysians, Indonesians and even a few Singaporeans have been inspired to join ISIS’ fight. The situation has created much domestic friction and polarisation, and is a good example of how globalisation has facilitated the spread of conflict.
As I have argued, globalisation is deeply characterized by the omnipresent media and lines of communications. Different cultures and ideas interact and exchange over these platforms, and the local lines are increasingly blurred. This has not only created awareness of other cultures worldwide, but also, fostered understanding. From July 2012, South Korean musical artist PSY gained international fandom as his music video Gangnam Style went viral over Youtube. Even international sensations like Katy Perry, Britney Spears and Tom Cruise amongst millions of others took to Twitter to share their appreciation of the music video. The video was known not only for its humour, but a strong satirical message on the pursuit of the outward appearance of wealth and luxury. This seemed to have created resonance across the globe. Commenting on this, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon remarks that “in this era of instability and intolerance we need to promote better understanding through the power of music." This demonstrates that cultural exchanges, be it through music or other mediums, can be a constructive force to promote collaboration, inter-cultural understanding, and – in an ideal situation – world peace.
However, many critics see that the same cultural aspect of globalisation promotes the ‘cultural imperialism’ of western ideals. This means a greater and more dominant powers (nations) privileging and imposing their ideals over others. When a minority of Hong Kongers took to the streets in the Occupy Central movement over cries of ‘universal suffrage’, U.S. President Barack Obama pronounced that the U.S. would continue to speak up for the “right of people” to both protest against and change the elections process determining Hong Kong’s Chief Executive. More ironically, Hong Kong’s ex-British governor and other British parliamentarians mention ‘democracy’ in Hong Kong despite her citizens being deprived of any democratic electoral processes under British administration. All this is despite Hong Kong having agreed to the ‘One Country, Two Systems’ constitution, which grants them not a full, but an altered, form of democracy given her historical circumstances. The aforementioned actions by western leaders have galvanized the protestor’s activism against the Chinese government in Beijing, resulting in a massive economic shutdown and violent clashes. This proves to show that cultural globalisation does have aspects which promote conflict, especially when people feel that their ideals are universal and can be replicated elsewhere. This seems to be too true, especially in relation to the earlier mentioned Arab Spring, which has later metamorphosed into an ‘Arab Winter’ of social and ethnic conflicts.
Globalisation and greater interconnectedness also bring economic aspects of free-market capitalism and industrialisation around the world. This has facilitated greater free-trade, increased capital flows, increased transport and communication, and the growth of multi-national companies (MNCs). One example of how these have brought more stability, less conflict, to a country once ravaged by the ills of war is South Korea. Under the leadership of third President Park Chung Hee, South Korea shifted her focus from self-sufficiency in the Syngman Rhee’s administration to export-oriented industrialisation. This facilitated the rise of multinational conglomerates such as Hyundai in heavy industries and motors, and Samsung in electronics and shipbuilding. To facilitate the above operations, infrastructures and communications were improved. As a result, a once socially instable and poverty-ridden post-war South Korea transformed into a wealthy, developed and socially stable nation in a span of four decades. The ‘Miracle on the Han River’ is a testament that globalisation and greater interconnectedness have allowed nations to experience less evils, hence conflict, compared to what would have been in the past.
On the contrary, the same economic aspects have ironically brought scourge to other parts of the world. There was an initial belief that Congo, which holds more than 80% of the world’s coltan reserves, would benefit socio-economically from the rise in demand of consumer electronics starting from the late 1990s. This is because coltan is a raw material used to produce tantalum in capacitors, a critical component in manufacturing computers and smart devices. However, the digital revolution proved to be more of a bane than a boon. Warring rebel forces attack villages and displace families to mine and supply coltan in response to demand from MNCs. This finances their ensuing civil war. Even neighbouring Rwanda has joined in the pillaging to exploit the coltan reserves. As a consequence, more than a few million civilians have perished. This shows that when nations have weak governance and polarized societies, there are rendered unfit to best take advantage of too widespread a phenomena as globalization. In these cases, civil unrest, and conflict results.
Ultimately, our transition into an age of ‘late-modernity’ has been indubitable a multi-faceted and complex process. Globalisation and interconnectedness will likely remain an irreversible trend, but gloablisation can simultaneously bring more and less conflict. This largely depends on political, cultural, and historical climates of the geographical ‘places’ in which the related events occur. However, what remains important is that humanity continues to learn from her circumstances, and face them to construct a better age. This is through both the conflicts which globalisation has promoted in certain places such as the Middle East, Hong Kong and Congo; and the good it has done to other nations like South Korea.
JC General Paper Essays (GP essays) - What makes this GP essay good, and how can it be better? Thank you for reading and cheers.