Powered by the Plogosphere

A Nightmare Called … Deglobalization.

Posted by inspir3d on January 17, 2007

Do you remember what you were doing one hour just before the New Year celebrations in 2000? Probably not – as for me, I was dressed in my army No.4 camouflage strapped with 20 sticks of granola bars hunkering in my makeshift bunker in the backyard with my Bible thumping kid sister.

She was reading the book of Apocalypse and I was straining over the wireless tuned to the BBC world service. When midnight came, I registered a faint static over the air waves and said to her, “That’s it, they are dying now, quickly close the hatch and remember, if I die you can eat me!” As it turned out later when our neighbors reported us to my mom and dad because they heard some crazed moaning in the garden. We realized nothing happened – airplanes didn’t drop from the skies like cats and dogs, trains didn’t derail and intercontinental ballistic missiles didn’t launch automatically – it was just another new year.

Like members of some apocalyptic cult who gathered on a side of the hill waiting for the end of the world only to look silly when the meteors and rivers of fire didn’t come, I felt cheated. (Trust me you would feel the same thing when you invested all your pocket money buying books about how to gut Rover and make a meal and use the rest to make a post apocalyptic hand bag.)

Since then I had a hard time reconciling myself with any prediction that tends to lean towards the inevitable, irreversible and inexorable (trust me when you spend a whole year smelling of tinned tuna because you overstocked yourself with survivalist rations, you begin to start seeing the world like flipper the magical seal – even bad news makes you clap). I am of course talking about globalization.

A number of books proclaim that, whether we like it or not, globalization is here to stay. Yet, despite the huge benefits of free trade and other aspects of the global economy, an open and integrated economy is neither as extensive and inexorable, nor as irreversible as many often assume.

Those who describe the advent of globalization as inexorable see it as a logical end – that is terra-forming a world that is not only tightly connected but also peaceful and prosperous. It’s a cogent case when one considers how fast and far the globalization movement has actually taken hold especially during the last decade when international integration accelerated so dramatically.

In “The Lexus and the Olive Tree,” Thomas Friedman described globalization as the proverbial sun rising in the morning, since,

“Even if I didn’t much care for the dawn there isn’t much I could do about it.” (he must be a vampire!)

But against this imagery of a merry suffused light that brings with it the promise of peace and prosperity – there are also long and disturbing shadows which question whether globalization’s inexorability isn’t as robust as it is often made up to be – for one there is still considerable debate among those who analyze the subject, whether the future could be anything but integrated and harmonious. Skeptics foresee the possibility of globalization being derailed by disruption, distrust, decay, or disillusionment. Specifically they believe globalization could fail because of the presence of serious fissures within the systematic construct of globalization itself.

These fissures take many forms such as the anti-globalization movement who see it simply as an institutional means to victimize workers, the poor and the environment. Even the main proponent of globalization, the US, is not exempt from being fingered as a probable saboteur in the guise of US unilateralism, since it often exploits its status in ways that continue to alienate and exasperate other nations. For instance, it undercuts trade agreements which it deems harmful to its labor unions e.g. steel and farming. The decline of shared values also poses a threat to globalization as evident in the failure by the US and other countries to bridge differences on treaties covering everything from land mines, arms control, pollution limits, global warming indices and the International Criminal Court. The recent execution of Saddam Hussein exposes deep divisions ranging from, “you deserve it!” to “it’s disgusting” and how these sentiments seem to be divided squarely along continental blocks separating the EU and the US merely represents the tip of iceberg on how fractious and fragile: the notion of world view – we are starting to realize we don’t even see the world in the same way, let alone seek common ground in politics, economics, sociology or technology!

The assertion is these developments reveal a trend away from consensus and teamwork. The drift is towards nationalism and protectionism rather than global institutions and open markets. Quite a contrast from the conventional wisdom that globalization is often depicted as a fait accompli, where all subscribing parties are unanimously in happy agreement as to what globalization is and how we should all go about globalizing. In a nutshell, reality presents a very different and disturbing picture and this highlights the need to appreciate the possibility of deglobalization.

Deglobalization as a body of knowledge doesn’t really exist for the same reason cavemen who play paper, scissors and stone, use only the latter because the first two haven’t been invented yet. It’s still considered the black arts of economics because world leaders and the clique ridden bureaucrats in the IMF and world bank still believe given the political will and the economic attention directed at building the machine that will one day change the world – something will definitely give. (This people have obviously never read up on the history of alchemy!)

People are quick to forget. Should liberal democracy fail to deliver on its political overreach, then arguments for regulation, protection, and control (of markets and people alike) will inevitably surface again. Presently based on hostility to immigration (because of concerns about the labor market), a belief in capital controls (as the ones seen when Malaysia introduced capital controls in 1998, in order to prevent shocks emanating from the financial sector), skepticism about global trade, the prevailing atmosphere has shifted from belief in the near – inevitability of globalization to deep uncertainty about the very survival of the global order. This brings into focus the need for our government to develop an exit strategy or fall back plan should the proverbial globalization train suddenly run out of steam – or worse still decide on a lane change – or dare I say, to do a U-turn!

In essence, the main phalanx of this paper lays down the basic outlines of why and how deglobalization may occur despite the prevailing hold globalization seemingly appears to have over international trade and commerce. It is perhaps time to appreciate the complex possibilities at work as various people and money issues push and pull for primacy in the global arena. The future is still very uncertain and it may be too late for us all to jump out of the bed with our proverbial bed partners in this dream called globalization. Perhaps it is time to simply wake up to the prospects. And if we don’t wise up to the possibility of deglobalization, we may just be headed to the nod land. Only this time, it’s a nightmare that we the sleeper may never ever awake from.

(By Astroboy / Politics / Economics / The Brotherhood Press / E: 99303693/2007)


10 Responses to “A Nightmare Called … Deglobalization.”

  1. ggwfung said

    countries going back to being little niches and pockets is a scary thought. All the wonders that interaction brings and the possiblities that open up … totally unpredictable advancements.


  2. NUSlecturer said

    Hi the brotherhood,

    I would like to ask where do you ppl get your source from? I dont mean to sound insulting or disparaging, but some of these claims are very wild although I do admit they obvious contain truths within truths as your leader Mr darkness will often say.

    The reason why I am asking for the source is because, we are also currently pursuing a similar line of research, although we dont refer to it as deglobalization. Rather the term we prefer to use is defragmentation of national interest in the light of globalization.

    I would be very interested to speak to some of you and I hope you can assist my request for further information to facilitate our research. A very interesting and thought provoking article. Absolutely agree our govt should have a fall back or plan B in the wings just in case something goes awry.

    Many thanks and regards.

  3. longman said

    hi there,

    Very interesting Malthusian point of view if you dont mind me saying so.

    Deglobalization, yes, no and maybe. I shall reserve my judgement, as you rightly mentioned: the weight of academia appears to disregard this whole proposition of deglobalization completely. Although there appears to be growing awareness of this theory.

    I too would really like to peruse your sources. I cant say, I am doing any research at the moment on this, but it would come in handy for my database one day should I have to consider this issue of deglobalization.

    Very frightening and thought provoking POV! Kudos and respect from one who is aspiring to join the immortal ranks of those in the know!

  4. Astroboy said

    Nuslecturer & longman,

    The brotherhood press does provide a reading list or which accompanies every post.

    However the leadtime is 7 days from the date of request as this will have to be retrieved from our historical archives by the chronicler.

    Meanwhile pls bear with us.

  5. chronicler said


    We have already retrieved it, it is on its way to you by comsat.

    Pls bear in mind reference sources are ONLY for academics, researchers and journalist.


  6. bird of prey said

    This is really funny LOL – I guess it can happen buddy, it can after bush did a U turn on Iraq and it happened overnight and that really isnt as big as globalization in the scheme of things, so perhaps you are right.

    We should definitely have a contingency plan just in case the world decides to back track.

    Agreed 100%

  7. sphgirl said

    If you are so right how come we haven’t heard more abt deglobalization???????

    I scanned through every ST article abt global economics in the last 5 yrs and there is not even a single write up on deglobalization.

    So I its either a non event or something that has slipped below our radar or field of vision.

    Another thing I wish to know is how the situation in Iraq affect the globalization movement. I dont see how they can be possibly related, but none the less many economist appear to be drawing references.

    Could you please explain?

  8. garuda said

    first, you gotta convince the oldman and his pack of posse to change course. with his brand of philosophy spreading like wild fire, this part of the world, and converging in middle earth, i think, your convoluted disquisition will just remain as that – another spin.

  9. Astroboy said

    Aint no spin, I can prove the validity of my hypothesis – I am just waiting for an intelligent question beyond drawing lines between what is happening in Iraq – if you really want to know you journalist are the ones who are aiding and abetting the spin, as for me, I am just telling it the way, I see it.

  10. boing boing said


    OK let us just assume for one minute the possibility of deglobalization is real. Can you share with us what are main levers which will account for the tipping point which will culminate in deglobalization?

    I agree with you, there is considerable uncertainty in the global sphere and globalization isnt nearly as certain as it is often made out to be.

    I am a researcher and would like further info on this subject. Many many thanks for a humorous and mind boggling article.

    Looking forward to more articles such as these. Cheers!

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: