The globalization project is not yet a global system
Mar Introini, PhD
Founder/Political Analyst thesustainabilityreader.com/Global Chair G100 Global Networking
Is indeed, a fact that even after the last decades of building a global system, we have only achieved, global consumption and standardizations from products and services -especially transportation and communications-. Besides, the impact of a market that is wide open also brought the negativity of a global impact. However, that we are impacted equally by the crisis -as pandemics and finances- does not necessarily mean that we are in a global system.
Lets go to the very essence of what means globalization: integration, interconnection, diversity -not necessarily merge- of national sovereignties that come together to build common bridges and policies, to thrive on equal power despite traditions and religions. Globalization means going beyond the differences and not erasing differences, what makes a world enriched is the capacity to negotiate spaces, not to resign sovereignty. This is a substantial difference that cannot be underestimated, especially after pandemics, when it gets the exposure that global businesses are much more than selling products but the controller of private lives that in the end, turns dangerous to deliver information and guarantees for human rights -not only right to intimacy-
As well presented by the Harvard Business Review “Globalisation has become more about data and less about stuff” *which is indeed the reason not only for more rejection but also for less effectiveness. If global data is about less moral integrity, more surveillance, and more power to private Social Media outlets, then we are going in the wrong direction. The manipulation of what means integration and interconnection collides with the goal of a developed society that increases its levels of resilience by the integration of all actors, not the centralized panoptical view for a small group.
According to a recent survey from the World Economic Forum the 1st among the 10 top risks, on the first position is disinformation and on the third one, polarization of the society. Two elements that are more than a risk I am seeing as two facts that are collapsing a fragile world that is gradually entering into chaos because of an intellectually empty and wrong interpretation of the globalization project. The first one leads to the other one, once there is a break from intellectual construction, and action any project is cannibalized to the point that serves other interests, different from the common good. Besides, the own misconception of the global concept as a centralized power instead of harmonically divided into blocks, pervert any attempt to move forward in terms of true integration and not as now true confrontation . Once we get into a new dimension where there is no correlation between information and reality, then the global utopia is gone. However, not so the perception of so, as the Media controls and supports one version of each conflict, is when we live, debate and finally act out from reality. I would like to particularly focus on what means “support”, which is a paradox because the information is about delivering realities, not supporting one position or another, is about building critical thinking not presenting realities already interpreted and backing my Media. Is important to recover this road of intellectual construction and give birth to the global system of thoughts and new ideas. Is only then that we were available to say that we are part of a global -real- system. By establishing a global transparency system. So far the so-called global system has developed the capacity to more and more restrict individual freedom under the pretentious that we will get more security for the citizens, however, that was not been achieved, far away to be safer, insecurity is growing and concession of a basic human right as is intimacy is not been correlated by direct benefits. Is not only
In recent declarations, WEF Founder Klaus Schwab said:“If you have nothing to hide, there is no need to be afraid” or “In the future we will not need for elections anymore”*
All statements clearly go in contradiction to the concept of a global democracy, and is it here when the obstacles arise: is not just about global trade, goods, or capital but global democracy.
Standardizing consumption is not the same as standardized consumers. Even if it gets to a level when the majority of the consumers agree on the same products, making consumers homogeneous is not a deal. Is a great benefit for multinationals but not for the consumers themselves who lose the capacity to simply create. Is it much easier to produce homogeneous products rather than a variety of creative, and innovative ones that reach all kinds of people.
Once again, the grey against the colorful landscape.
Cyber security More security, equal guarantees, more control, more guarantees, actually is the other way round, and with the growing security measures we are losing more guarantees or what is worse giving it to private power of the different outlets. Recent research suggests that* the AI assistant Brand chat, will also “understand the context of your conversations, your tone, and your interests.” It may analyze the sentiment of messages, “to tailor its responses to your mood and vibe.” It may “analyze your message history with different contacts to understand your relationship dynamics… to personalize responses based on who you're talking to”
Is easy to conclude that to protect our computing system as users of the Internet, we also need to protect from the new technologies that tend to hack “legally” our privacy.
Migration is another good example of what not to be done, export persons are not the way to solve the crisis, at least not in these numbers (millions of refugees in the world in 2023)
the original idea was that developed countries support the least developed, or even better South-South cooperation exchanging skills and practices is the way to help, and not to create missives of movements from persons that enter into uncertaintly and unsafety (same or worse than in their own countries). Economic migration should have rules to become globally effective in implementation, that's why furthering agreements helps to balance the migration chaos. If not, we lose freedom of movement and create a crisis within the crisis.
Global institutions like the WHO are not about Nations that make decisions according to their reality but to top financial contributors that make the rules and then the rest follow. Gates Foundation is the 2d main donor GAVI Alliance the 5th, as well as Rotary International in the 8th position and Philanthropic Trust in the 11th. No doubts about the extraordinary work and leadership but certainly far away from a global system that through consensus gets into inclusive decisions.
Recommended by LinkedIn
The so-called Global political leaders are not so, their action has no global impact, although their capacity to influence public opinion and get a huge audience is powerful. Is about communications, rather than real political impact. If it were so, they'd be in direct support of their opinions. A good example is what is happening in Africa: more than 35 armed conflicts but almost any “global leader” is effectively pledging for peace, as with Ukraine-Russia or Gaza.
Global is about sharing different practices to face crises resiliently, not to export crises, pandemics are an example that exposes this. Is not about one recipe to all, but to make sure each local society takes responsibility to control inside securities. Let's give a local example La Gomera in Spain has almost 0 cases of COVID-19, however as the lockdown was part of a package of National measures, they have been forced to follow even if their conditions were totally out from any emergency.
We see that a global system is not about global leadership and rules for local implementation, but about local needs that gain power and harmonically apply global rules.
They have never been a better opportunity to give civil society a powerful place instead of full delegation in political leaders and now, in private hands. However, we are gradually entering into a “big brother” society that looks more like a reality rather than a balanced global society that takes care of all crises with impartiality. Currently centralizing power is the dictatorial resource that is canceling any attempt for innovative and creative solutions, within diverse and inclusive approaches. All strategy is about standardisation instead of tailor-made solutions adapted to each society, one solution for all centralising funds and leaders does not make it global.
Only when there were a variety of pieces in the global puzzle of crisis is that we may say that is a global system: a true global think tank of mutual support and joint action.
Once again, the piece of the puzzle that is missing: is democracy.