Between 1758 and 1760, 103 essays were published under the title of “The Idler” in the London-based weekly magazine “The Universal Chronicle.” The words of Samuel Johnson, the author of 12 of these essays, published in 1758, are striking. “Among the calamities of war are the diminished love and care for truth, and the lies dictated by interests and fostered by foolish naivete.” These words are followed by the 1918 statement of Hiram Warren Johnson, who was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1917. “When war comes, the first loss is ‘truth.'” Could the Russia-Ukraine war be the final blow to the current understanding of “globalization,” which was hit hard by the 2008 global financial crisis and has been fighting for its life since the COVID-19 global pandemic?
If the phenomenon of globalization was imposed on the whole world by the G-7 economies as “the objective is to produce and supply goods for cheap” and if the developed economies base the whole system on the basis of the supply of raw materials, energy, cheap end products and the continuation of competing no matter what, the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war (the two “black swans”) have completely collapsed this fake facilitation. The term “black swan” is defined as an event or a process that causes irreversible and radical changes in the world economy and politics. G-7 economies need to redesign a brand new global production, supply and value chain that prioritizes the global values they champion, leaving the “get it cheap no matter what” approach behind and setting the understanding of the moribund globalization aside.
Isolation or not?
In fact, the phenomenon of globalization requires the leading economies of the world to produce policies and solutions together for the sake of a common future and protection of the earth, instead of a multipolar world based on power centers or a world of isolated blocs that are well separated from each other. This, in turn, calls for creating a common strategy in critical areas such as climate, environment, ecology, green development revolution and sustainable development goals. Therefore, it is no longer possible to maintain the current understanding of globalization. Because insisting on supplying cheap energy, cheap raw materials and cheap products now obliges indifference, desperation and unethical behavior that will trample on the basic concepts of human rights, freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
Well, if the process we are going through further polarizes the world economy if countries abandon the priorities necessary to protect the earth and future generations and to hand over a better world to them, where will the entire global system be drifting? Shouldn’t the world focus on the ability to find common solutions to global issues for generations with “smiling faces”? Shouldn’t children’s ears ring not with the sound of bombs but with the cheerful voices of their peers? For the sake of future generations, shouldn’t the world’s leading countries dedicate more intense efforts to ending wars, stopping crises and expanding the climate of peace?
It is about time to focus on globalization 3.0, based on “conscious capitalism” that is more concerned with “preserving the earth and the future” rather than the moribund “globalization 2.0” that only cares about providing everything for cheap.
Most Commented Posts