Oleh/By : DATO' SERI DR. MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
Tempat/Venue : PUTRA WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
KUALA LUMPUR
Tarikh/Date : 24/07/96
Tajuk/Title : THE INAUGURAL LECTURE OF THE PRIME
MINISTERS OF MALAYSIA FELLOWSHIP
EXCHANGE PROGRAMME
1. There has been much talk of late about
globalisation, a process or a state of affairs that
holds much promise for the future of planet earth
and not a little trepidation among the peoples of
many countries for whom even nationhood has not
delivered the things that they had expected. They
are yet hardly nations, and now they are asked to
forget their nationhood, some only recently gained,
and go for globalisation, something that they cannot
yet comprehend but which they know would be too big
for them to handle.
2. The developing nations of the world far
outnumber the developed. Most of them were until
recently colonised by the imperial powers, all of
whom were developed and all from the wealthy West.
They, the colonised, had not forgotten those
colonial days not so very long ago. They cannot
forget that for centuries they had had colonial
masters. Some were fair and proper, but most were
overbearing and oppressive. But without exception
they made it clear that they were the masters and
the inhabitants of the colonial territories were
subject people.
3. Admittedly most of these colonial territories
did not exist as states prior to their
colonialisation. They were just vast tracts of
land, without defined territories and boundaries and
thus sovereignty and Government. The inhabitants
largely had no concept of nation states; rather they
were divided into tribes, which moved freely over
whole continents sometimes, sharing the territory
with numerous other tribes. Their loyalties were
tribal and not territorial.
4. It was the colonial powers who delineated the
colonial territories and created well-defined
states, disregarding completely tribal claims. The
boundaries were straight lines drawn on maps without
any regard for local lores or rights. And so the
independent states which emerged from these
delineations were peopled by mixtures of tribes and
races with no common culture, history or origins.
Thus two independent states next to each other may
have the same cocktail of races and yet be totally
unrelated legally or politically. That these tribes
and races never really accepted the dividing lines
and boundaries was considered irrelevant. It suited
the tidy minds of the imperialists to divide and
separate them and to regard them as different
entities and administrative units, and so they must
accept the boundaries as fait accompli.
5. When decolonisation took place after World War
II the independent nations which emerged were
totally artificial. The inhabitants of different
races and tribes had got along with each other
during the colonial period, but this was not by
choice. The colonial masters imposed from above a
semblance of unity. Traditional tribal enemies had
to live with each other at peace or face the wrath
of the authoritarian colonial Government adept at
playing them against each other or using one race to
impose the rule of the colonial masters on the other
and on the rest.
6. The artificial peace and harmony of the
colonial territories were taken as real.
Superficially together against the colonial masters,
the different races seemed united enough to be the
citizens of the newly independent nations. But deep
under the old animosities and enmities burnt.
7. Still these territories were aware of the
artificiality of their boundaries and the entities
they formed. The sophisticated among them, the
educated leaders, appreciated the need to prevent a
break-up of their new nation along tribal or racial
lines. And so they determined very early on that the
territories, ruled as a single entity by the
colonials, should not be allowed to break-up to form
separate states, whether the different races wish to
or not. The regional organisations that these new
countries formed affirmed and endorsed this `no
cecession' principle.
8. Not all of these regional organisations
subscribed to this `no cecession' principle. Some
of these colonial entities did break up into
separate states, while others broke up after
independence. Only a few managed to stay whole
despite the tribal and racial loyalties which tended
to break them up.
9. But whether the ethnic, racial and tribal
groups remained in the same entity or not, they had
problems managing relations between them. The
problem was compounded if the races were also
unequally developed.
10. During the colonial period the only form of
Government these peoples and territories knew were
authoritarian colonial rule complete with detention
without trial and banishment to remote parts of the
world. Nevertheless these authoritarian colonial
powers and their metropolitan Governments insisted
that the newly independent countries adopt
democratic forms of Government with which they had
had no experience.
11. It is doubtful of course that the newly
independent countries would be able to manage
whatever the form of Government they were to adopt.
A local version of the authoritarian form of
Government with which they were familiar would
probably result in abuses of power and tyrannies.
But trying to rule their countries through
democratically elected representatives was certainly
not the easiest thing for them to do. Besides, the
previous masters were not going to allow them to
manage even if they seemed able to adopt the
democratic system. They were consistently harassed
and badgered for not being democratic enough. And
if they have minorities then they would be
constantly accused of oppressing these minorities
irrespective of the problems created by them.
Nothing that the independent Government did was
right in the eyes of the former colonial masters.
The fact that they, the former colonial powers, had
never practised democratic administration was
regarded as purely historical and irrelevant. The
new countries must be perfect democracies according
to the definition of the former masters.
12. Faced with the multifarious problems of tribal
and racial divisions, lack of experience in
Government and understanding of democracy and its
workings, it is a miracle that any of these newly
independent former colonial territories survive at
all, much less prosper. But clearly all have
survived even though some have to be propped up.
Home are able to avoid civil strife and break-ups,
though almost none have been able to resolve their
problems. Only a few manage to prosper despite their
past colonial problems, but these are constantly
harassed and badgered for not becoming what their
previous colonial masters wanted them to be.
13. The fact is that almost none of these former
colonial territories are any better politically and
economically than they were before they became
independent. In many aspects they were still very
much colonised. Direct political occupation has
ceased but colonialisation in other forms remains.
The struggle for independence is therefore far from
over.
14. Even those non-European countries which had
never been colonised are not free from political,
economic and social diminution. They too are being
told how to run their countries, how to behave
socially, how to maintain an environment safe for
the rest of the world.
15. Devastated by tribal and civil wars, their
resources manipulated through a market system
controlled in far away places, unskilled in
Government and economic management, these developing
countries look set to remain developing economies
forever. Some indeed have regressed and are likely
to continue regressing. Debts piled up,
accumulating until whatever revenue they collect
merely goes towards paying off their loans. Whole
countries have been made debt-slaves of the rich
nations, working for their masters with no prospect
of ever securing their release.
16. But still these countries cherish their
independence, limited though it may be. It seems to
them that anything would be better than a return to
being colonies of others no matter how much better
off they would be. And now these countries are
faced with globalisation, a single world in which
they know they will have little say, their voices
drowned, and their interest ignored in the pursuit
of global interest and objectives as defined by
others.
17. What does globalisation hold in store for the
developing countries? As interpreted by the
developed countries globalisation means the break
down of boundaries as barriers to economic
exploitation. Every country rich or poor, developed
or developing would have access to every other
country. The poor countries would have access to
the markets of the rich, unrestricted. In return,
or rather by right the rich will have access to the
markets of the poor.
18. This sounds absolutely fair. The playing field
will be level, not tilted to favour anyone. It will
be a borderless world. It will be just one world.
The whole of planet Earth will be as one nation, and
everyone will be earthlings, not subjects of
countries or nations. Thus will globalisation be
achieved.
19. But if there is only one global entity, there
cannot be nations. Certainly there cannot be
independence of nations. The newly independent
nations will disappear together with the old
nations, including of course the former imperial or
colonial powers. Everyone would be equal, citizens
of the globe. But will they be truly equal?
20. After thirty years or more of `independence'
the former colonies of the West have found out the
emptiness of the independence they had won. They
have found that they are even more dependent than
when they were colonies. They have found that their
politics, their economy, their social and behavioral
systems are all under the control, directly or
indirectly of the old colonial masters and the great
powers.
21. In the bipolar world of the Cold War period
they had at least the option to switch allegiance
even though allegiance often amounted to acceptance
of hegemony. In a unipolar world they have lost
even the choice to submit. They have to submit to
the successful superpower and its cohorts whether
they like it or not.
22. With that experience it is silly to think that
globalisation will mean more independence for them,
or mean more equitability for them. Globalisation
can only mean one thing - loss of the nominal
independence they have with nothing to compensate.
23. The GATT negotiations which held so much
promise have resulted in the WTO, the World Trade
Organisation. What is the difference between WTO
and GATT? The only tangible difference is that
whereas the bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements under the GATT were not internationally
binding unless the parties concerned agree to submit
to arbitration, the decisions of the WTO will be
binding on all the members. Member countries will
be punished by all the other members acting in
unison. If for example the WTO decides to apply
sanction then everyone would be bound to enforce the
sanction.
24. Even now when the Western allies decided to
apply sanction against Iraq, all other countries are
forced to follow suit. If a decision is taken in
the WTO there can be no exception.
25. Iraq, Iran, Libya are all labelled as rogue
states. But will only those countries who are
similarly guilty in the eyes of the West suffer such
economic blockades? Will such blockades not be also
applied for other `crimes' e.g. human rights
violations, infringement of workers rights,
exploitation of child labour, environmental
degradation, etc?
26. Already attempts are being made to link trade
with these issues. It is clear that the developed
countries wish to use the WTO to impose conditions
on the developing countries which will result not in
improving human rights or labour practices or
greater care for the environment but in stunting
their growth and consequently suffering for their
people. Already the developed West have shown that
they are not interested in these matters in
themselves, but are interested in these only in
those countries which pose a threat to the West. If
these countries are absolutely poor and produce
nothing that constitute a threat to the developed
countries of the West, the plight of their people in
terms of human rights or labour practices or the
environment matter not at all. But if these
countries are competing with the West in any way
then their records are scrutinised and threats
issued. The net effect is to prevent the
development of these countries and their emergence
as newly industrialising economies.
27. Globalisation would leave these countries
totally exposed and unable to protect themselves.
True globalisation may result in increasing foreign
investments in these countries. But such investment
will depend on the competitive advantages that these
countries have. If investments like trade are
linked to labour rights and wages etc. then
corrective measures taken by the developing
countries will remove their competitive advantage.
Without these advantages why should foreign
investors invest in these countries.
28. On the other hand if a fairly successful
developing countries were to open their economies to
all and sundry, the huge corporations in the
developed countries will overwhelm the small
companies in the developing countries. The huge
banks for example will push aside the little banks
of the developing countries. The big banks can
afford to lose in a small country when they are
making profits in their own country or in other
developed countries. The local banks cannot afford
such losses and will either shut down or be forced
to merge and lose their identity. The same thing
can happen to telecomunications companies, power
companies, construction companies etc.
29. The effect of economic globalisation would be
the demise of the small companies based in the
developing countries. Large international
corporations originating in the developed countries
will take over everything.
30. Perhaps international anti-trust laws would be
initiated and big corporations broken up. But
experience has shown that the `Baby Bells' soon grow
and each becomes as big or bigger than their parent
company. The same happened to the companies of the
Japanese Zaibatsu.
31. The manufacturing, trading and
telecommunications companies together with the banks
will grow and merge, controlled and run by the huge
core companies of the developed world. The little
players from the small countries would be absorbed
and would disappear. Their shareholders, big
players when they were in the small companies, will
wield insignificant authority in the huge
conglomerates. And so will their CEOs and other
executives, reduced to mere names on the payroll.
32. Nations differ not only because of their
geographical and political compositions but more
significantly because of their character and
culture. Character and culture develop through the
value systems of the society - the exposure to
these values and of course to the experience and
surrounding socio-political environment which
members of a given society are exposed to.
33. Globalisation will result in all societies
being exposed to the global culture. This is going
to become more universal because of the development
of Information Technology (IT). The unfortunate
thing is that the IT industry, and all that will be
disseminated through it, will again be dominated by
the big players - the huge corporations owned by the
developed countries. Governments and the world may
have the best of intentions in terms of
disseminating news and information but the IT
corporations may have other views.
34. Today violence and sex already dominate the
screens. Attempts to reduce this unwholesome fare
have met with little success. The appeal of thrill
and sensuality are too great and too effective for
the profit-oriented companies to eschew these
themes. With globalisation the effect of the 24-hour
thousand channel TV would be to standardise world
culture as promoted by the broadcasting giants of
the world. They are not likely to be conservative
and responsible. They are going to ensure that
their companies outbid each other in terms of
profits.
35. Today's youth already wear the same uniforms -
the jeans. They keep their hair long and as untidy
as possible. They only care for the pleasures of
life. They have little regard for traditional
values, for age and the family and institutions such
as marriage and family. The problems of `lepak' and
`bohsia', the careless disregard for virtuous life-
style -- all these are related to the exposure to
foreign cultures.
36. The good aspects of foreign culture do not get
an airing. They are not interesting and
entertaining. Besides, good foreign cultural
values are fast disappearing, victims of the same
assaults by the media.
37. The present economic problems in the Western
countries are the result of the changes in their
culture. From being a disciplined and hard-working
people they have become totally uncaring and
unrestrained, demanding always less and less work,
more leisure and more and more pay. Naturally their
costs go up and they become uncompetitive. Faced
with competition from the East and the new
industrialised countries, they lose out. Their
economy regress and they are unable to recover
because their new culture has set in and cannot be
changed back to the old values which had brought
about their success in the first place.
38. Unwilling to give up the `good life' as they
imagine their way of life to be, they want to reduce
competition by others through converting their
competitors to their culture, their way of life.
This they claim will result in their so-called level
playing field, in which they stand more than an even
chance to regain their superiority. And so again
globalisation will result in the small nations
remaining unable to catch up with the developed
world.
39. But globalisation will not be confined to the
economic and cultural field alone. The breaking
down of borders will result in the powerful truly
dominating the weak. Although the military forces
can be a global force belonging to no particular
nation, the fact remains that the financing and the
command and control will be with the most
experienced and the most skilled. And the poor
nations are unlikely to dominate the military forces
which will oversee the peaceful relations between
countries and regions. We have already seen what
happens to Bosnia, where the fate of the Bosnians
has been sidelined by the political interests of the
European Powers.
40. The law will be enforced by those countries
which will be the most influential. Already we have
seen how the President of a country had been
arrested through a military operation by a powerful
neighbour, taken back for trial and subsequently
committed to prison in the neighbour's country.
This involves the exercise of extraterritorial
powers not provided for by any agreement. But there
is nothing that anyone can do but accept the
extraterritorial rights of the powerful.
41. If the globalised world is dominated by a few
countries then anyone can be arrested and tried by
them. Of course criminal leaders should be dealt
with but what if the criminal leaders are from the
powerful countries which control the global military
force. Will the leaders be apprehended and brought
to trial in a small country which has been the
remote victim of the crimes of these leaders? It is
most unlikely.
42. A globalised world is not going to be a very
democratic world. A globalised world is going to
belong to the powerful dominant countries. They
will impose their will on the rest. And the rest
will be no better off than when they were colonies
of the rich.
43. History would have turned a full circle within
just two generations. Fifty years ago the process
of decolonisation began and in a space of about
twenty years was virtually completed. But even
before all the colonies of the West have been
liberated, indeed before any had become truly and
fully independent, recolonisation has begun. And it
is recolonisation by the same people.
44. They will of course refer to this as their
burden, a responsibility which they have imposed on
themselves. They will tell the world, the global
community that they have no wish to impose
themselves on anyone. But in a world where there is
so much poverty, turmoil, riots and instability and
frequent massacres, those responsible must not shirk
their duty. They are only doing it for the good of
everyone.
45. 1984 has passed and gone. Big brother did not
make his appearance. But that does not mean that
Big Brother cannot appear after 1984. The
technology for global scrutiny by Big Brother is
available now. It remains for those in control to
make use of this technology, and 1984 will become a
reality.
46. This is what globalisation may be about. This
is a gloomy prediction. It is pessimistic. It does
not contain much hope for the weak and the poor.
But unfortunately it is entirely possible. And it
will be unless the weak and the poor appreciates now
this possibility and fight tooth and nail against
it. There are ways of fighting the powerful. It will
be a kind of guerilla war. But it can succeed. And
that war can only begin if there is understanding of
what globalisation can mean.
47. Of course globalisation may bring about Utopia,
a paradise on earth, a world of plenty in which
everyone can have everything. But nothing that has
happened so far seems to justify this utopian dream.
48. Just as the ending of the Cold War has brought
death and destruction to many people, globalisation
may do exactly the same and maybe more.
|
|