MALAYSIA: GLOBALISATION DOESN'T BENEFIT WEAK AND POOR, SAYS MAHATHIR

12:15 PM Jul 29, 1996

MALAYSIA: GLOBALISATION DOESN'T BENEFIT WEAK AND POOR, SAYS MAHATHIR
Penang 26 July (TWN) -- A globalized world is not going to be a very democratic world, but will belong to the powerful dominant countries, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mahathir Mohammad said Wednesday in a speech in Kuala Lumpur while inaugurating the Prime Minister of Malaysia fellowship exchange programme at the Putra World Trade Centre.

And just as the ending of the cold war has brought death and destruction to many people, globalization may do exactly the same and may be more, the Malaysian Prime Minister warned.

In a globalized world, Mahathir said, the rich dominant countries would be able to impose their will on the rest "who will be no better off than when they were colonies of the rich".

Fifty years ago, he recalled, the process of decolonization began and in a space of about 20 years was virtually completed. But even before all the colonies of the West have been liberated, and before any had become truly and fully independent, "recolonization has begun, and it is recolonization by the same people."

"This is what globalization may be about," Mahathir said, conceding that it is a "gloomy prediction" and a "pessimistic one" without much hope for the poor and the weak, unless the weak and the poor fight tooth and nail against it.

There were ways of fighting the powerful and "it will be a kind of guerilla war," Mahathir said.

"But it can succeed and that war can only begin if there is understanding of what globalisation can mean."

Developing nations, most of whom until recently were colonies of the West, Mahathir said, had not forgotten their colonial days when most of their colonial masters had been "overbearing and oppressive".

Prior to colonization, the colonial territories did not exist as States, and the colonial powers delineated territories and defined states, sometimes drawing straight lines on maps without regard to local lores or rights, and with the independent states emerging from this past peopled by a mixture of tribes and races -- with no common culture, history or origins.

And when decolonization took place after World War II, the independent nations were totally artificial. But aware of their artificiality, the sophisticated among them and the educated leaders appreciated the need to prevent a breakup of new nations along tribal or racial lines. And so they determined early on that the territories, ruled as a single entity by the colonial powers, should not be allowed to break up into separate units. Their regional organizations hence affirmed and endorsed this 'no cessation' principle.

During their colonial rule, the only form of government the colonial people knew was authoritarian, complete with detention without trial and banishment to different parts of the world. Nevertheless, these same colonial powers insisted that the newly independent countries adopt democratic forms of government with which they had no experience.

Faced with multifarious problems of tribal and racial divisions, lack of experience in government and understandings of the workings of democracy, it is a miracle that any of these newly independent former colonial territories survive at all, much less prosper. But clearly all have survived, though some have to be propped up. But only a few have managed to prosper, and these are being constantly harassed and badgered for not becoming what their colonial masters wanted them to be. But almost none of these former colonial territories were any better politically and economically than before independence and in many respects they are still very much colonised. While direct political occupation has ceased, colonization in other forms remain.

Still these countries cherish their independence, limited though they be, and believe anything would be better than a return to being colonies of others. "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."

Globalization, Mahathir said, might "bring about Utopia, a paradise on earth. But nothing that has happened so far seems to justify this Utopian dream."

Globalization as being interpreted by the developed countries seemed to mean the breakdown of boundaries as barriers to economic exploitation, with every country, rich or poor, developed or developing, having access to every other country. The poor will 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.

"This sound absolutely fair. The playing field will be level, not tilted in favour of anyone. It will be a orderless world. The whole of planet Earth will be one nation, and everyone will be earthlings...

"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 ofcourse the former imperial or colonial powers. And everyone will be equal, citizens of this globe.

"But will they be truly equal," Dr. Mahathir asked.

After 30 years or more of independence, the former colonies have found out the emptiness of the independence they had won. "They have found that their politics, their economy and their social and behavioural systems are all under the control, directly or indirectly, of the old colonial masters and the great powers."

In the bipolar world of the Cold War period they had atleast the option to switch allegiance, even though this often amounted to acceptance of hegemony. But in a unipolar world, they have lost even the choice to submit and had to submit to the successful superpower, and its cohorts, whether they liked it or not.

"With that experience it is silly to think that globalization will mean more independence for them, or mean more equity for them. Globalisation can only mean one thing - loss of the nominal independence they have with nothing to compensate."

The Malaysian Prime Minister noted that the multilateral trade negotiations in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade had resulted in the establishment of a World Trade Organization.

The only tangible difference between the WTO and the GATT seemed to be that the bilateral and multilateral trade agreements under the old GATT were not internationally binding unless the parties concerned agreed to submit to arbitration, whereas under the WTO the decisions in disputes would be binding on the members, and the member concerned could be punished by all the members acting in unison.

Even now, when Western allies decided to apply sanctions against Iraq, all others were forced to follow suit.

Iraq, Iran and Libya were all labelled as 'rogue states'.

But will only those countries who are similarly guilty in the eyes of the West suffer such economic blockades, Mahathir asked? Will such blockades not be also applied for other 'crimes' -- e.g. human rights violations, infringements of workers rights, exploitation of child labour, environmental degradation etc?

Referring to the attempts to link trade with these issues, the Malaysian Prime Minister said: "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 the suffering for their people.

"Already, the developed West has shown 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 producing nothing that constitutes a threat to the developed countries of the West, the plight of their people in terms of human rights or labour practices or 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 industrializing economies.

"Globalization," Mahathir continued, "would leave these countries totally exposed and unable to protect themselves. Globalization may result in increasing foreign investments in these countries. But such investment will depend on the competitive advantages that these countries have. If investment like trade are linked to labour rights and wages etc, then corrective measures taken by the developing countries will remove their competitive advantage. And without these advantages, why should foreign investors invest in these countries?"

If 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 of developing countries. The huge banks, for example, will push aside the little banks of developing countries. The big banks can afford to lose in a small country when they are making profits in their own or other developed countries. But the local banks can't afford such losses and will either shut down or be forced to merge and lose their identity. The same can happen in telecommunications companies, power companies and construction companies.

The effect of economic globalization will be the demise of the small companies based in developing countries, with the large corporations originating in the developed countries taking over everything.

And while international anti-trust laws could be initiated and big corporations broken up, experience has shown that 'Big Bells' soon grow and each become as big or bigger than the parent company. The same happened to the companies of the Japanese Zaibatsu.

The manufacturing, trading and telecommunication companies together with banks will grow and merge, controlled and run by the huge core companies of the developed world, while the little players from the small countries would be absorbed and disappear.

Nations of the world, Mahathir continued, differ not only because of their geographical and political compositions, but also because of their character and culture which develop through the value systems of the society - the exposure to these values and to the experience and surrounding socio-political environment.

But globalization will result in all societies being exposed to the global culture which is going to become 'more universal' due to the development of Information Technology (IT). Unfortunately, the IT industry, and all that will be disseminated through it, will again by dominated by the big players -- the huge corporations owned by the developed countries. Governments of the world may have the best intentions in terms of disseminating news and information, but the IT corporations have other views.

Violence and sex, the Malaysian leader said, already dominated the screens and attempts to reduce this unwholesome fare have met with little success. The appeal of thrill and sensuality are too great and too effective for profit-oriented companies to eschew these. With globalization, the effect of the 24-hour thousand channel TV would be to standardize world culture as promoted by the broadcasting giants of the world. And they are not likely to be conservative and responsible. Good aspects of foreign culture do not get an airing, and good foreign cultural valuers are fast disappearing, victims of the same assaults by the media.

The present economic problems of 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 and more leisure and mor pay. Naturally their costs go up and they become uncompetitive. Faced with the competition from the East and the newly industrializing countries they lose out, their economies regress and they are unable to recover.

But unwilling to give up the 'good life' as they imagine their way of life to be, they want to reduce competition by others by converting their competitors to their own culture and way of life. This they claim will result in the socalled level playing field, in which they stand more than an even chance to regain their superiority.

And globalization will result in the small nations remaining unable to catch up with the developed world.

Globalization 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. Though the military forces can be a global force belonging to no particular nation, the financing and command and control will be with the most experienced and most skilled.

The law will be enforced by those countries that will be most influential, Mahathir said, and recalled the arrest of the Panamanian President by US military forces and his being brought to trial and imprisoned in the United States -- all involving exercise of extra-territorial powers not provided for by any agreement.

"If the globalized world is dominated by a few countries, then anyone can be arrested and tried by them. Ofcourse criminal leaders should be dealt with. But what if the criminal leaders are from the powerful countries? Will they be apprehended and brought to trial in a small country which has been victim of the crimes of these leaders? It is most unlikely."

A globalized world is not going to be very democratic either. It will belong to the powerful dominant countries who would impose their will on the rest, and the rest will be no better off than when they were colonies.

"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 20 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, recolonization has begun. And it is recolonization by the same people.

"They will ofcourse refer to this as their burden... 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 will not shirk their duty. They are only doing it for the good of everyone."

"1984," Mahathir said (in a reference to George Orwell's novel) has passed and good. 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. It remains for those in control to make use of this technology, and 1984 will become a reality.

"This is what globalization may be about. This is a gloomy prediction. It is pessimistic and does not contain much hope for the weak and the poor. But unfortunately, it is entirely possible... unless the weak and the poor appreciate 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 globalization can mean."