Politics

استعادة الثقة في العولمة

Feb 16, 2017 Carl Bildt

ميونيخ ــ ينبغي لي أن أعترف بأنني من أشد المؤمنين بفوائد العولمة. وفي اعتقادي أن الترابط التدريجي بين المناطق والبلدان والناس يُعَد التطور الإيجابي الأكثر عمقا في عصرنا على الإطلاق.

بيد أن الشعبويين تمكنوا الآن من تولي رئاسة الولايات المتحدة من خلال إدارة حملتهم الانتخابية على أساس برنامج يتسم بالقومية الصارخة ونزعة الحماية. وفي العديد من الدول، يهيمن على الخطاب العام الحديث عن "الخاسرين" المزعومين بسبب العولمة، والحاجة المتصورة إلى سياسات جديدة لوقف صعود السخط الشعبوي.

عندما ولِدت كان عدد سكان العالم 2.5 مليار نسمة. وما زلت أتذكر بوضوح شديد فترة من فترات حياتي حيث كان العديد من الناس يخشون تفشي الموت جوعا قريبا واتساع الفجوات بين الأثرياء والفقراء على نحو متزايد وانهيار كل شيء في نهاية المطاف.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

Carl Bildt

Writing for PS since 2009
116 Commentaries

Carl Bildt was Sweden’s foreign minister from 2006 to 2014 and prime minister from 1991 to 1994, when he negotiated Sweden’s EU accession. A renowned international diplomat, he served as EU Special Envoy to the Former Yugoslavia, High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, UN Special Envoy to the Balkans, and Co-Chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference. He is Co-Chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 47 Comments on this article

Alexxx Bera Mar 22, 2017

This is not a fair globalization, this is a robbery! How come that just as little as 80 individuals (predominantly Westerners) owns more money and power than 3 500 000 000 people combined ? That is sick ! So called "globalization" is a biggest fraud of all times
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Subhash Garg Mar 9, 2017

Isn't there a difference between globalization and shuttering entire factories just because they can run cheaper overseas? Isn't the latter calculation flawed because it ignores the social costs of the move? Shouldn't the job exporter pay a portion?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Feb 23, 2017

Wolfgang Münchau writing in the FT wrote a decent article on this subject.

"The elite’s Marie Antoinette moment"

"Some revolutions could have been avoided if the old guard had only refrained from provocation. There is no proof of a “let them eat cake” incident. But this is the kind of thing Marie Antoinette could have said. It rings true. The Bourbons were hard to beat as the quintessential out-of-touch establishment.

They have competition now."

From Bildt and the rest of the failed establishment no doubt. Sweden is burning and Bildt wants to tell us how wonderful Open Borders are. Does Bildt let any of those wonderful immigrants into his own world of privilege? Of course, not. Open Borders is a burden for ordinary Swedes. Bildt has his gated community.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
kees de vos Feb 23, 2017

Mr. Bildt I.ve read all the comments and I hope you did as well so I won't repeat a lot in even different words but illustrate out of experiences (Africa and India) that we all will face a problem that is not going to dissappear any time soon. The little bit of progress which you could extrapolate in a beautiful number of 500% is just enough for too many economical refugees to risk everything. These people know that this "progress" does not provide any future more than some extra consumption. They would need progress for a hundred years or so like many of us in developed countries have had. Since there are severe limitations for such future growth prospects and corruption is rampant and growing it is indeed dumb to extrapolate past results into the future now you've lost support of the majorities everywhere as you can notice in all the comments.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Feb 22, 2017

Carl Bildt is living in complete denial. Sweden is in flames and Bildt wants to tell us how great life is in his gated community. Inequality is soaring and Bildt wants to tell us how great it is to be rich. Like it or not, Sweden is a case study in failed globalization (via mass immigration). A few recent headlines from Sweden.

"SWEDEN RIOT: Police forced to shoot at protesters as violence erupts - yet PM is in denial"

"SWEDEN’S capital was plunged into chaos on Monday as police were forced to fire at rioters after a violence erupted in an area described as high risk. The terrifying scenes took place just hours after the country’s Prime Minister, Stefan Löfven, slammed Donald Trump for claiming Sweden was in crisis as a result of its liberal refugee policy. Stockholm police were forced to fire a shot into the rampaging crowd in the hard-hit suburb of Rinkeby, after a mob of around 30 thugs started attacking the officers with rocks. Violence erupted after the police had tried to arrest a wanted person on the subway. "

Just recently, a book was published on this subject in Sweden. The title is "Moral Superpower" and was written by Tino Sanandaji. The book is now a best-seller in Sweden.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Parsons Feb 21, 2017

I am grateful to Mr NBilt: his bland artticle explained, to me at any rtate, why Sweden is in open revolt against immigration and the domnance of views such as his. The rise of populism shows the world is not going mad, just coming to its senses.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Dyna Mike Feb 20, 2017

Dear Carl, while the positive effects of globalisation are undeniable on the macro level it has also resulted in increasing inequality on the micro level globally. Isn't it time globalisation starts to show a positive, more humanistic, social face ?
One that does not just favour the HAVE's, but also the HAVE-NO-LONGER's ?
Whether globalisation will deserve the credit you are advocating for will in my view depend on how well it can be constrained and the financial proceeds (almost exclusively) on the Western / developed world directed to lessen the burden of the Small and Medium business level that globalisation has decimated to a level where it is all but extinct ? It's high time for globalising a Social kapatalism that the Swedish have successfully bred in the past, but is as absent in the world today as in your article.
I would welcome your ideas for contribution to such Social kapitalism at gracianxmr@gmail.com.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Pete Voegeli Feb 20, 2017

Most numbers surely correct (but not the real under/unemployment) but they miss the point!. Much of the reduced poverty is due to China's smart government style and not global initiatives by UN and western governments that often claim credit. The bigger population is fed due to changed agriculture, arguably many pesticides help much larger food production but at a cost to health. Just look at the many allergies and other illnesses that young generations suffer. Our planet is robbed of diminishing resources by ever more people. Unless third world aids succeeds in population control, e.g. no longer 5plus children in many African countries, many of the mentioned benefits are none in the longer term. This is what the elite politicians like the writer do not seem to understand. Whereas in the past technological improvements improved work, the current changes like artificial intelligence do not have the same extent of work creation. These are just some examples that the "common person" seems to understand much better than the elite. The latter is "overeducated but undercommensensed". Hence the rise of nationalism is almost entirely due to the disconnect of leaders with their people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
William Ryan Feb 19, 2017

China's mfg surplus is at 7% of GDP . The US mfg exports are at 5.6% of GDP. Trumps budget assumes a 3 to 4% GDP growth while China is at 6.7% and still falling. Perhaps we could meet them at the 4% happy ground of GDP growth for both countries to have fair and balanced trade with peace in the region. The past wrongly structured globalism has benefitted the dictators and oligarch global elites the most. We must make it structured to benefit more democratic countries and also have more democracy in global decision making policies...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Joss Wynne Evans Feb 19, 2017

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you? I prefer to ask how much more prosperous the world would be today had the small uber-rich and unaccountable group who have claimed the mantle of globalists (in insult to the planet and its inhabitants) had not been calling the shots for the last half century. Oxfam points out that today 8 people own more assets than half the world's population, and the Middle East has been turned into a conflict engine for profit. Western populations have been frightened into allowing the development of police state conditions everywhere on the supposed major threat of terrorism, when in reality for example 9 people a year over the last decade on average have died at the hands of Islamic terrorists in the States while 11,700 have been killed by fellow citizens. None of that is either capitalism or in the real sense globalism; it is a drive towards the enslavement of populations.

If we have prospered at all it is by just enough for the juggernaut of the New World Oligarchy to progress their plans. Fortunately they have misjudged things at the eleventh hour and we must embrace the Manichean conflict which has already seen the outriders engaged. There is much - everything - to lose.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert REYNOLDS Feb 19, 2017

As a kind of hybrid democratic socialist/Marxist/communist, and an internationalist, yes I am prepared to (very cautiously) embrace "globalization". However, when globalization is combined with laissez-faire, free-market capitalism, then you have a recipe for trouble and that is exactly what we are getting now.

Also, as an atheist I am skeptical about allowing a multitude of people into the more advanced western countries who bring with them medieval practices, beliefs and cultures (such as female genital mutilation, honor killings and arranged marriages, etc.)

We have a long way to go before we can realistically repeat Karl Marx's call for "Workers of the World unit, as you have nothing to lose but your chains". Hopefully we will get there one day!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Mirek Fatyga Feb 19, 2017

Mr Bildt starts his article promisingly, by putting his finger on the pressing dilemma of our times: he says that the world population has tripled in his lifetime. He proceeds to say however, that one may see this as the most glorious time in the history of human civilization. One may also take a slightly less optimistic view, which is to say that a period of such rapid growth was unprecedented in the natural history of any species and, in the natural world, a growth of this kind tends to be followed by a population crash. I hasten to add that I have not yet purchased a subscription to the Club of Rome. Humanity has indeed proven itself resilient up to this point. The growth itself was a result of a rapid decline in the mortality of the young colliding with cultures that evolved under conditions of high mortality. Such cultures must have evolved into high fertility to survive, never mind grow. When the mortality declines but fertility does not, we have exponential growth of the population. This growth is abating now as cultures slowly adjust to new realities, but it does have consequences that must not be overlooked in practical governance.
For instance, the United States, a home to ~5% of the human population, still uses ~20% of world oil production, importing about half of this use. If one wanted to extend US standard of living to the world by straight extrapolation, the production of oil would have to about quadruple on a sustainable basis. It is worthwhile to remember what led to the 2008 crash. Irresponsible lending that goosed up the economic growth -- yes. What else though? The price of oil spiked to ~140US$/barrel in anticipation of the continuing goosed up growth. This spike "killed demand", which killed the anticipation of growth, which pricked the speculative bubble. Current low (lower) price of oil should not fool anyone. Underlying reality has not changed. In a short term, uplifting of poor masses takes down the affluent. It is the matter of simple numbers. The rising tide is not lifting all boats, but rather living standards equilibrate. To make matters worse, inequality grows. Some live like medieval princes, others wander how to feed their kids in the midst of plenty.
One cannot ignore these developments in favor of "global indices going up". There is no question that living standards and economic security of what was once middle class in developed countries have been dropping. Moreover, these people have no way of knowing where the bottom may be, which leads to persistent and growing fear. Fear is a fodder for fascism, populism, nationalism, whatever one wants to call it. Saying "things are looking up overall" is not helpful.
Technology may save the humanity yet again (or kill it in a nuclear war). I have no crystal ball to say which will actually happen. I do know enough to say that it is time to soberly look at the reality. People are driven by emotions, and they cannot be parked on a shelf while the global game plays itself out. If the world is to avoid a new spasm of violence, Mr Bildt and his fellow travelers need to come down from the reality of indices, to the reality of their own societies. The history of the world is littered with revolutions that the elites of the time decried as irrational, which however were a predictable response to social dislocation, if one was willing to look at reality in a little bit greater detail. Let's take a step outside of the palace gate, shall we?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Stouch Feb 19, 2017

At the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos this year, Chinese President Xi Jinping was the one extolling the virtues of globalization............
Well DUH! China is where all the jobs were shipped to GENIUS.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Louis Stouch Feb 19, 2017

Meanwhile, the US economy is already doing well – unemployment is below 5% and real incomes are rising. ............
Lies, damned lies, and statistics. We have 75 MILLION that have dropped out of the labor force. We have 46 MILLION on Food Stamps. Wealth inequality is back at all time highs not seen since the 1920's.
When you are a hammer (globalist) everything looks like a nail.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Cal Bengoshi Feb 19, 2017

There is no doubt that globalization has benefited many people throughout the world, including not only Mr. Bildt but also billions of people who live in countries other than the US and the EU countries.

However, Mr. Bildt and others who talk about the benefits of globalization seem to be unaware of, or to ignore, the fact that most people in the EU countries and the US, and indeed most people in any country, are more concerned about their own personal economic outlook, and perhaps that of their children, than they are about the economic outlook of those who live in some other part of the world.

On an abstract level, had most people in what was then the "industrialized West" been asked in 1950 whether they would support goals such as reducing the percentage of people in the world living in extreme poverty and increasing world-wide average life expectancy, I think they most likely would have said "yes." However, had they been told that the price for accomplishing those goals would be stagnation or a decrease in their own economic situation and reduced opportunities for their children unless their children were able to get a college or post-graduate degree, I think the answer would have been very different. This is the fundamental truth that Mr. Bildt and others like him who tout the world-wide benefits of globalization seem to ignore or not understand.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schaeffer Feb 19, 2017

This article can me summarized rather easily.

"Globalization has made the rich, richer and wiped out the middle-class... And that is a good thing".

Thanks , but no thanks.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stan Sorscher Feb 19, 2017

Why would anyone trust a system that serves 1% and pushes aside 99%? Neoliberalism failed economically, socially, and now it has failed politically.

Earn trust, then write another column.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrés Galia Feb 19, 2017

A lot of claims that are just that, claims. One example: "Likewise, rising inequality, real or imagined, has far more to do with technology than with trade."

And why is that?, please tell us. What has technology done to make the ones at the top to accumulate more than the rest of us? To make possible that 60 guys make more money than 3.5 billion people? Imagined inequality? Do you believe that the almost 4000 people that got drowned in the Mediterranean sea in search of a better life are just product of our imagination?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Frank White Feb 19, 2017

How can anyone write about the benefits of globalization without even mentioning the accompanying worsening effects of climate change? Is the author living in a silo?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
sabine Dreher Feb 19, 2017

I suggest Carl Bildt starts to read the arguments by Saskia Sassen in "expulsions" and the arguments by Dani Rodrik on hyperglobalization and its problems. It is incredible to see that you are still unwilling to confront the economic power of multinational corporations who refuse to pay taxes and deprive states of any ability to act. Please wake up and stop austerity, restore a working tax regime, stop the imperial and destructive military invasions that have destroyed whole regions, e.g. The Middle East and then we are talking again. Your view of globalization as a trade thing is so outdated and wrong that it leaves you totally unable to understand the anger by those who have been left out. Corporate power, tax evasion, financing of right wing populism by hedge fund managers and destruction of effective regulation by billionaires is the problem. Globalisation is simply one aspect here where wealthy and multinationals are allowed to evade any fiscal responsibility and terrorise nations. Wake up, please and start talking about the real issues that people do not always understand and so they blame globalisation - a codeword for corporate power. You are now blaming the people for their anger. That is not helpful at all. We need to put the blame where it belongs: multinationals refusing to pay taxes, hedge fund managers financing Breitbart, Twitter and facebook allowing racism, sexism and fascism, and thus enabling Trump, banks causing a financial crisis and then not paying for it. Corporate power is the problem. Why is a hdege fund manager financing a right wing website and is not critisized but why are Trump and Brexit voters shamed for their alleged ignorance about the benefits of globalization?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Vanishing Leprechaun Feb 19, 2017

Oh yes! Globalization a lot of benefits (to someone): huge inequality in income and wealth, the Long Depression, a lot of wars and huge amount of refugees, tension amid countries, the lost of proficiency all around, the disruption of the democracy, as far it was weak before.
A very good deal!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Nagendra Sharma Feb 19, 2017

I agree with u .But no can deny the fact that inequality , by and large , in all countries has widened and in some countries has reached alarming proportion. That has to be tamed failing which globalisation will face a retreat
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Feb 18, 2017

Stop austerity and the meddling by politicians, bring in truly independent central bankers and responsible politicians who are dedicated to serving the people rather than their own self interest, restore growth and create real jobs and people will forget that globalisation even exists.
- M M Feb 19, 2017
  
  Tom, I fully agree about the unorthodox workings of the EU, but the same can be said of any other country, including the US. We have old practices, rigid and out-dated regulations and habits that are in conflict or not compatible with today’s times, with today’s market dynamics and challenges. Regarding the central bankers, when the central bankers of the 5 / 6 major world economies were co-operating and working in synchronisation, controls and oversight mechanisms were not perfect but at least we had prosperity and the wheels of the economies were turning. Since 2009, when excessive regulations started being introduced and central bankers became politicised (this is easily identifiable in the various speeches or statements made by M. Draghi, M. Carney and J. Yellen, to state just a few) and major countries adopted protectionist policies, one gets only stagnation and lack of growth. A. Merkel and W. Schäuble never stopped accusing the ECB of unfair practices (which is not true), when the ECB is having the mission impossible of co-ordinating a fragmented and dysfunctional landscape. So in short, Central Bankers of the 5/6 major world economies should stop acting unilaterally and must go back to co-ordinating and co-operating more closely their activities between them, independently from their paymasters, unfortunately and with the current state of affairs in the US and in the EU, this is not likely to happen anytime soon.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Tom Müller Feb 19, 2017
  
  @M M: an independent central bank is not the solution but a severe problem. A central bank is part of the state and monetary politics is a political and not a technical issue. In the Eurozone we face the problem, that the economic union is far ahead of the political union. For that reason, restoring growth is hardly impossible in this union since the member states lost the power to achieve this goal when they accepted the euro and the political union, which could, does not exist at all.
  
  The idea, that the economy is a sphere of its own and only obeys scientific rules is nothing but political propaganda which had been spread more than 200 years ago. The propaganda served a new class to take power from the nobility class. It was never ever scientifically founded. The problem of the Eurozone and also of globalization lies in the fact, that it is disigned along this propaganda, which today is also the believe of mainstream economics.
  
  As a result, the competition between the memberstates produces winners (eg. Germany) and losers (eg. Greece or Spain) and it erodes the base of living for many regions and the people who live there.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Aale Hanse Feb 18, 2017

I also am agreeing that globalisation it the best tool to help combat the problems we are experiencing now and in the future. Your version of globalisation is not that tool to be relied on to take out planet into the future because it is based on acquisition of money and profit taking.

Your versions of globalisation abandons swathes of peoples labour in favour of another country, all in the name of cheaper labour and then hide behind the banner of poverty reduction.

Your version of globalisation holds countries to ransom and demanding rent seeking advantages.

Your version of globalisation refuses to pay taxes too any country and pit country against country in the process.

Your version of globalisation has restricted quality education to a few by pricing it out of people reach in countries that are forced to pay and by using child labour in those that cannot pay. Either way we are being reduced to pawns in a game that very few will win if any.

Your version of globalisation pollutes the environment and leaves the people to clean up after at their own expense because your version of globalisation uses terms like “All care used but no responsibility taken”.

Your version of globalisation has allowed inequality to proliferate without a care and brags about it.

Your version of globalisation has allowed the political systems to implode because people's lack of education has blurred the real reason behind the problem they face or better still able to be manipulated because they lack the education to put two and two together.

Your version of globalisation needs to die and quickly if the world of ours is going to survive with eight billion people and increasing. Protagonists of your version of globalisation need a swift kick where it hurts the most.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ray CHOY Feb 18, 2017

A pertinent issue with globalization is not so much the reduction in the absolute numbers of those in poverty, but the degree of wealth inequality - the pareto rule used to work at the 80:20 ratio where 80% of the world's wealth was held by 20% but we are heading towards 98:2 at the rate we are going. We need to be keenly aware that the positive narrative here really depends on whether it is a winner or loser of globalisation which is speaking it. While countries such as Emerging Asia have benefited from economic globalisation, laggards such as sub-saharan Africa remain in the doldrums and oddly, there hasn't been a transfer of new wealth from the winners to more proportionately benefit those left behind. Empirical research is widely of the agreement of the core-periphery argument of uneven development which is seen both in the EU as well as globally. It is not without reason populist movements arose out of nothing, but populism is really a reflection of anger over excessive economic liberalism and a McDonaldlization of national identity at a macro scale, alongside the degradation of the individual human spirit. Rather than deny the problem and embrace what was historical prosperity, we need to face up to reality and fix it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Markus Rosgen Feb 18, 2017

It never ceases to surprise me re people's comments. If globalisation had been such a disaster GDP per capita in real terms, in each country would be lower today than 10,20, 50 years ago. It is not. Just because some people have been left behind does not mean that globalisation itself is a failure. Maybe the failure lies also partially with those who have been left behind. As harsh as it sounds.
- Mirek Fatyga Feb 19, 2017
  
  GDP per capita is not worth much if it does not get to your particular capita. One of the reasons for the sharp turn to the right in my home country (aka return of Polish fascism) has been an odd fascination with economic indices by the prior government. Corruption too, but the new government is even more corrupt. You cannot ignore social consequences of economic development. When these are ignored, fascism is right around the corner.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Can Calhan Feb 17, 2017

It is not the globalisation that responsible for the oligopolistic industrial structure, it is rather the success that is measured on the basis of increasingly accumulating profit. Globalisation is not a system, it is a market, enabled Multinational Corporations to expand and radically restrict the conditions in which small and middle sized entrepreneurship could emerge.
That is true that many people have been lifted out of the poverty through the opening of the global market, as it caused many people to lose in different places.

The fact is that after a while the extreme pressure of shareholders for constant and increasing begin to sequise the living standards of people whom it claims to increase and/or lifted out of poverty. This is the inevitable consequence of this economic model.

The benefit of this economic system, or the growth is claimed to happen is not horizontal, but vertical that leads to oligopolistic structure inevitably generate the same outcome(s)
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Garland Feb 17, 2017

Ah no. When the manufacturing jobs migrated from California to Tijuana, there was no technological advancement: just cheaper labor and no federal restrictions (pollution, workers rights, etc). The US employees that were impacted are the largely the ones who voted for Trump and are against immigration. Technology did not create corporations' "race to the bottom"; this has been an economic factor since industrialization began. It used to be between US states. Now it's global.
- Subhash Garg Mar 9, 2017
  
  Totally.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 17, 2017

'When trade stop war starts' is a very popular phrase amongst globalist apologists at the moment but they never stop to think that for a significant proportion of Western citizens that trade has effectively stopped hence the backlash - which globalists parody as 'protectionism' or an ignorant uninformed movement.

For global apologists more of the same is the answer with along side keeping the faith that somehow someday a mechanism of compensation will drop from the sky. There is also some bewilderment in globalists brain that China is launching a sweet talking defence of globalism, why is this a surprise, China has been and continues to be a beneficiary of globalism. As for the part of technology in this - a lot of predictive text functions must be enabled by globalists because their output sure is predictable. Globalism is a scam - Globalism is capitalism and corporatism writ large with liabilities and downsides writ nationally - as we all found out with the Great Recession.

Globalism is driven by corporations who argue in their tax avoidance their legal obligation is to maximise profits for their shareholders and nobody else. Why would any citizen wish to put their security in the hands of such a mechanism, it would be an act of insanity.

The final emotional heart tugging plead from globalists is globalism must continue forevermore in order to support developing economies. This is totally myopic and pretends that eviscerating Western economies can continue forever and that a static Western consumer population with diminishing purchasing power in real terms can somehow buy goods and services from a population that is doubling every 3 decades in the rest of the world. The cry is developing nations must industrialise and export but to quite who to is never stated and that Western investment de facto should occur to make this happen
- Peter Schaeffer Feb 23, 2017
  
  'When trade stop war starts' turns out to be a myth. Trade was supposed to stop WWI. It didn't. Before WWI, Norman Angell wrote a book, "The Great Illusion" claiming that war was impossible because of extensive trade in Europe. WWI happened anyway.
  
  The U.S. maintained an extensive trade relationship with Japan before WWII. It didn't stop Pearl Harbor. Hitler and Stalin traded extensively. It didn't stop the German invasion of Russia.
  
  In our own time, Syria has been ravaged by war. All of the parties involved have traded extensively with each other and the world. Trade has had zero influence in stopping the war in Syria.
  
  The doctrine that 'When trade stop war starts' is just another excuse for neoliberalism and the failed status quo.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernhard Kopp Feb 17, 2017

Globalisation must be managed where jobs are lost. As long as our 'system' declines to do that sufficiently, there will be no restoration of faith in globalisation with increasing numbers of people in the industrialized countries. It is not about unemployment benefits and welfare payments, it is about a middle class life for the losers and their children. It is not sufficient that H&M, or Ikea, or Walmart get enormously successful and rich in one generation, it is about millions of people on a salary.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Sean Higgins Feb 17, 2017

All of the wonders conferred by globalization being countered by " a growing sense of cultural insecurity" seems to flabbergast the writer. But as the majority of the commentators note, the progenitors of this "profoundly positive development of our time" failed to foresee the reaction of the people upon whose backs globalism rests, who apparently are unhappy with the concept, and the reality, of economic serfdom. While the elite thinkers such as Mr. Bildt scratch their heads over the ingratitude of the workers who have seen the promises of capitalism fizzle, those same workers
know that further economic meltdowns are imminent, as are the wars Mr. Bildt mistakenly believes he and those of his ilk have forsworn to the dustbin of history. And petulant missives will not change that future.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Feb 17, 2017

UNITED NATIONS, UNITED RELIGIONS, UNITED LANGUAGES
Like Planets in The Solar System, where Nine Planets and their Moons pursue their orbital destinies - Planet Earth needs a template.
The United Nations is one such template - that for 70 years 1945-2015 has brought about Peace n Prosperity that Europe has never seen.
The attempt to hijack the agenda by Sectarian Majority has wrecked that Peace - Democracy has produced Two Verdicts, as a result.
Brexit and Brexit plus plus - are both results of Brussels enlargement of Europe, and the consequent marginalization of The Anglosphere.
There is no platform like the United Nations that UNITES Religions, Languages, Sectarianism.
The Anglosphere became the World's Economic Epicentre - by harnessing the disintegration due Internecine Sectarianism.
The Anglosphere became the World's Economic Epicentre - by harnessing the disintegration due Internecine Linguistic Tribalism.
One Language has underwritten Globalisation of Seven Decades of Peace n Prosperity - now challenged by Europe's Sectarian Tribalism.
The Rise and Fall of Empires always requires an Alternative - and the Anarchy that BRUSSELS SPROUTS is not the solution.
Britain and America have underwritten a remarkable template - that has delivered Salvation from ClubMed Megalomania every 100 years.
Europe's Sectarian Tribalism WILL NEVER DELIVER SALVATION - to either Europeans or The World.
Britain's departure from Europe - 500 years ago - created The World's Economic Epicentres of Today's World.
The only Infinity always is The Trinity - not Sectarian Tribalisms every 100 years.
THE-CITY-ON-THE-HILL was once @ The Acropolis in Europe.
But for the last 500 years is ensconced @ The Anglosphere.
Until there is Another Acropolis, there is only One Guaranteed Salvation.
Eternal Empires need Eternal Vigilance.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Rech Feb 17, 2017

Globalization would be acceptable if labour in the new economies was given sufficient income to share equitably in the consumption of its own output. However, investment in the new economies only occurs because labour in these economies is compliant and willing to grossly undersell itself. "Restoring faith in globalization" might happen if predatory Western capital could be harnessed for the general equitable good.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 17, 2017

Carl Bildt is bullish about the upsides of globalisation - lifting tens of millions out of poverty, reducing income and wealth inequalities, improving life quality and expectancy etc. - and he urges us to defend globalisation and combat "reactionary nostalgia." But this process doesn't seem to work for a lot of ordinary people in the West. Their fear and economic insecurity had enabled the rise of populism and anti-establishment, nativist parties around the world.
Bildt says when he was born in 1949 the world had a population of just 2.5 billion. In general life was "poor, brutal, and short." The population has tripled since then, and globalisation has "delivered more prosperity to more people than anyone could have dreamed of just a few decades ago." The world has become more interconnected as a result of increased trade and the production of goods and services. Overall income per capita "has grown by 500%."
Unfortunately ordinary people and middle class groups say they bear the brunt of free trade - the freer movement of capital, goods, and services. They blame globalisation for the closing of factories and outsourcing of jobs to countries of low labour costs. The only progress they see - from which they don't benefit - is "advances in science and technology," which is a cause for shrinking middle-class jobs. They don't share the optimism of the political and financial elites, who they say don't have their interests at heart.
Another threat supporters of anti-globalisation see is the cultural exchange between countries, prompting many societies to feel "a growing sense of insecurity," as they believe "external forces" such as migration brings cultural diversity, leading to the erosion of traditional values and disrupting their peace and stability. Populists decry the loss of national identity and demand for a return to indigenous culture.
Indeed, we see a two-pronged opportunism in an anti-globalisation movement. There are activists who call for social justice and equality. On the other hand, populists seeking political fortune, capitalise on xenophobic sentiments to whip up nationalism as an elixir. On the whole opponents to globalisation embrace hostility to immigrants, blaming them for their social grievances, even in countries with strong economic performances.
The author speaks of the UN Sustainable Development Goal "to eliminate extreme poverty worldwide by 2030." This is "entirely dependent on continued economic growth through trade, technological innovation, and international cooperation." Hence the "erecting trade barriers, engaging in digital mercantilism, and generally undermining the liberal world order will severely harm the extreme poor in Africa and other underdeveloped regions, while doing nothing to help coal miners in West Virginia."
But the author ignores the demographic development in many parts of the world,which results in an imbalance. We are seeing a "demographic trap" - a combination of high fertility and low mortality - in developing countries. The problem of youth bulge is the main source of woes behind the Arab Spring in 2011. In the West, many countries grapple with an aging population as a result of low birth rates and rising life expectancy. Despite population decline many nationalists reject immigrants. It's true that "We can have a brighter future – but only if we don’t seek it in the past." But many do want to flee reality and return to the good old days they knew.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henry Rech Feb 16, 2017

How can Mr. Bildt be seen other than an apologist for western capital? Not only has western labour lost income but it has had to borrow back from western capital the income it would otherwise have had were it not for globalization, all to sustain a given standard of living. Without this recycled income, western capital would not have been able to sell the product of globalized industry. Globalization may have lightened the lives of many in newly developed countries but it has been at the cost of entrenched enslavement of western labour and engendered the untrammeled enrichment of western capital.
- D. Carter Feb 17, 2017
  
  Excellent comment . Bildt is absolutely out of touch with the ratcheting down of opportunity and ability to even sustain the hope of a family in the U.S where there is absolutely no social safety net.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Feb 16, 2017

Tee hee, Carl. On the Internet we call this trolling. Globalisation 1.0 was obviously good for some buy not for others. Globalisation 2.0 might well work for everyone if you can somehow get your Bilderberg buddies to step out of the way.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 16, 2017

This is the usual hodgepodge of globalised stew we are all supposed to relish and hops around enticingly from one tasty chewy morsel to the next in this beggers banquet. Thank you, but the dish needs to be sent back to the kitchen, along with the waiter
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Bernard Fudim Feb 16, 2017

The globalization of jobs without the globalization of living standards, without the globalization of cost structuring, without the globalization of union rights and retirement standards, without the globalization of educational opportunities, without the globalization of health insurance, etc., does put the American worker at an unfair disadvantage because the economists just design abstract economic theories.
- Steve Hurst Feb 17, 2017
  
  D Carter
  
  Then the next step is to understand that the housing market is a manipulated market which is why housing prices are catergorized as unsustainable by historic income ratios in all Western democracies. It is no accident and is to the advantage of government and the financial sector
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- D. Carter Feb 17, 2017
  
  We in the u.s.are in a housing market in which one month's housing payment is more than the annual salary of workers in other countries who live in crowded slum housing -guess who's getting hired?
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Feb 16, 2017

Alleged losers? Look at the numbers Mr. Bildt shipping jobs to the 3rd world has been an absolute disaster for the working class! Yes they are filling new jobs, such as Starbuck's barista, nursing home attendant, and Walmart stocker. Jobs that pay a third or less of what their fathers and grandfathers made in real terms. Are we supposed to thank you and your fellow "Global Citizens" for reducing our chances our futures so you folks the rich much richer, help the 3rd world not the people whose interests the governments are supposed to represent. I can't tell the words I use to thank you "Global Citizens" for the wonders of a future locked in poverty for betterment of people the governments were not elected to represent. Congratulations globalization has not only killed democracy it has driven a stake through it's heart to make sure it stays dead. What do you call a government that puts the interests of foreign countries over the interests of it's own people, it surely isn't democracy. You folks sacrificed a lot of peoples futures and hopes in the developed world to help the 3rd world, you did it, congratulations. But the truly large number of us now living in a world where there is rich and not much else hate you for it. Because you basically wiped out the developed worlds middle class to do it. You "Global Citizens" got what you wanted but you sacrificed a large number of innocent people's interests to get your results. You have left a large number of people with nothing left but their hate. nI didn't vote for Trump but he merely the beginning of the backlash against globalization not the end.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/WuO7Dbvar

استعادة الثقة في العولمة

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

استعادة الثقة في العولمة

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification