Borderless WORLD
the pros and cons of a more integrated world
The Borderless World and Selective Globalisation
Previously, globalisation represented access to cheap land and labour, and the ability to exploit a struggling post-colonial world in the name of free trade; globalisation lined the padded pockets of the rich and not-needy. Today, in a horrendous turn of events, it seems that globalisation is actually helping developing countries to take advantage of larger, wealthier markets and incoming advancements in technology.
The developed world increasingly sees globalisation as a threat to its all-encompassing grasp on power, a capitalistic risk to their economic superiority. In order to counter such a threat, the developed world seek to restrengthen border controls in the face of migrants, reinstall tariffs and barriers to trade and restrict access to key markets in the name of regulation. So much for united nations.
While Europe bickers and back-peddles in the wake of another wave of refugees, China slowly begins to open its doors — and those of its neighbours — to the One Belt, One Road policy. Just a few bilateral trade agreements away from creating a trans-continental free-trade zone, China seems set on the prospect of a interconnected, integrated world with the Middle Kingdom at its core.
Some Pros and Cons of a More Integrated World
November 3, 2015
Domination by Regulation: The Dangers of Free Trade
China is not the only country attempting to promote “free trade” ideals as genuine foreign policy. The United States seems to be on the brink of establishing the largest series of free-trade zones the world has ever seen, with the TTIP and TPP coercing governments worldwide to accept U.S. regulatory domination on a domestic level -- in exchange for market access to an economy already saturated with consumers loyal to home-grown brands (the same brands who have grown fat selling stolen European products, faking feta and falsely imitating gouda).
Entering into the final stages of negotiation for securing the twin trade agreements, the U.S. approach to free trade highlights the dangers of the borderless world.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) aims to connect the U.S. to the EU member states with a single free-trade zone, allowing companies almost limitless access to one another’s markets. The move aims to create 214 billion EUR in “economic gains” to the U.S. and the EU combined. However, just as American consumers are concerned over the quality of imports from China, EU citizens are concerned over the imposition of lower American health and safety standards in Europe.
The TTIP will bring about a 9% rise in the trade of processed foods, and a 9% rise in the trade of chemicals, between the two parties. Food safety standards in the EU are the highest in the world, but the TTIP would allow American companies to sell products in Europe according to U.S. regulations and safety checks. The EU Commission states that “producers should only have to pass EU tests to gain access to the US”; it would be assumed that the same rules apply in reverse, exposing the EU to substandard, potentially hazardous American products. However, American politicians have cordially dismissed with such concerns, without any right-wing bullish ranting.
Instead of unity, a policy of selective globalisation appears to have emerged, wherein the developed world cherry picks its chosen immigrants, which industries will flourish and who will be bullied into accepting economic cooperation. Under such a policy the U.S. accuses China of selling sub-standard and dangerous toys to children in America, while simultaneously coercing the EU into importing potentially hazardous American food products to be sold in Europe. Foreign business leaders are allowed to criticise China’s restrictive visa regulations, while certain EU and UN members continue to reject asylum seekers and so-called “economic migrants”. Countries like the U.S. are permitted to criticise China’s economic protectionism, but Germany is able to threaten trade sanctions for “dumping” (selling more cheaply than local competitors are able to produce) Chinese products in the EU market.
Companies from developing countries that are Going Global face accusations of low quality, unsafe products and inhumane working conditions in developed markets, regardless of compliance and adherence to local norms. Whereas a British company found guilty of bribing doctors in China is seen as the local government unfairly “targeting” foreign companies.
Over the past year, Spain obtained the greatest number of Chinese buyers, followed by Portugal, Italy and Cyprus.
The Spanish have been opening themselves to China for many years now, offering a series of real estate visa combination packages, which are becoming so popular across the Mediterranean. Exploiting its EU status, Spain has been opening its doors to cheap Chinese goods and wealthy Chinese elite alike. Now, it seems, the country wants to take a leading role in the New Silk Road.
Guests from over thirty countries attended the Silk Road Forum last week, cementing the reliance of Europe on China as member states attempt to “escape the financial crisis” by building a thousand bridges to the world’s fastest growing economy.
Note: The content of this article does not reflect the official opinion of any unit of the Chinese government. Responsibility for the views expressed in the article lies entirely with the author.
Image credit: cloudwordsinc
Written by Bey Critical
1
A Process of
Selective Globalisation
3
Domination Through Isolation
5
Datong Rhetoric & the New Age
2
4
Part of the problem is that the G-20 countries (the biggest economies and trading partners in the world) [have] added more restrictive export and import measures.
Domination Through Isolation: The Great Anti-Chinese Wall
The U.S. is taking a variety of creative and innovative steps to ostracise China in the global context. From increasing its military presence in the South China Sea and Asia Pacific region, to implementing an “Asian Pivot”, which conveniently excludes the world’s fasted growing economy. The U.S. has made no secret of its attempts to push China out.
Following its lead, many countries seem to have slipped into the outdated belief that all “Made in China” products are sub-standard, cheaply-made copy-cat products contributing little or nothing to global innovation. However, many of the world’s cutting-edge technology markets are dominated by home-grown Chinese brands. And many of them face discrimination in the U.S. market.
Having already put into action a fleet of electric public buses in London and having just been commissioned to launch America’s largest fleet of e-Buses in Washington, Shenzhen-based BYD is changing the face of the world’s electric vehicles market.
Another Shenzhen-based company making tech history is DJI, producing high-end drones for agricultural, surveillance and recreational use. Now the world’s leading drone brand, DJI has taken the American and European markets by storm.
However, both companies faced similar media smear campaigns in the American market. Their crime: being Chinese.
When BYD was pinned as a front-running for winning a contract to supply the California government with a fleet of e-Buses, the local media were outraged. Accused of everything from importing underpaid workers to producing dangerous e-Buses, the company’s first foray into the American market turned into a “PR nightmare.” Similarly, DJI was accused of posing a risk to U.S. security, despite the company installing software that prevents unmanned drones from flying over Washington D.C., nearing the Mexico-U.S. border or flying over army bases.
According to supporters globalization and democracy should go hand in hand. It should be pure business with no colonialist designs.
It seems to be a situation of “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is also mine”, so typical of dominant global economies and so damaging to the post-colonial developing world.
Such claims have been made by mainstream center-left parties as well as the usual coalition of protectionists, environmentalists and anti-biotechnology cranks.
Anthony Gardner, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union (2015)
Though China is equally disinclined to pander to the whims of “cranks” trying to prevent "progress", the U.S. seems reluctant to include it’s Asian counterpart in any moves towards international unity. Engineers in Beijing went so far as to suggest a high-speed rail connecting the capital with the U.S., but such a proposal went without response from the Americans.
An Ironic Silk Road: Less Likely Advocates
It seems as though everyone is wanting a piece of the Silk Road action, with proponents from countries left excluded from the geographic span of the Road still wanting to increase engagement with China.
In an ironic twist, last week’s Silk Road Forum 2015 was held in Madrid, despite the fact that Spain lies a good deal further west than Xi’s Silk Roads of both the overland and maritime variety. That said, Spain is pushing harder than most for a Sino-European shared infrastructure. Last year, operations began on a China-to-Spain railway, the world’s longest railway line which saw it’s first roundtrip completed last Christmas.
Datong Rhetoric and the Dawning of A New Age
Li Wei, Director of the Development Research Centre describes a feat of biblical proportions in eerily Maoist rhetoric. According to Li, the Silk Road project is a “Noah’s Art” resolving the “structural contradictions” inherent on both a domestic and global level. As China becomes increasingly powerful, it seems to be drawing more and more on the traditional rhetoric of da tong, the Great Community. The concept of a global, peaceful, harmonious community founded on the basis of Chinese moral supremacy and “a world shared by all alike.”
Such a founding belief is useful, especially for a country promotes peaceful expansion through economy with one hand, and military might in the other. Conferences such as the Madrid 2015 Silk Road Forum signify radically changing times, in which the British Prime Minister prostrates himself before the emperor of a country he so very recently denounced on moral grounds, and in which the twin pillars of human rights and individual liberty, which once held Europe together through the turmoil of successive revolutions, now crumble beneath the economic might of material gain and GDP.
The creation of a borderless world may in fact threaten the foundations of individual civilisations; but in doing so, could create a new, internationalised culture. Many metropolises around the world are already seeing such multiculturalism, though limited and restricted by the twin forces of national identity and racial perception. However, when economic interests are the basis on which such unity is founded, free from the commitments of political and ethical cooperation, problems arise.
Perhaps the world just isn’t ready yet.