In terms of being resilient to crises its clear that Multilateralism will not deliver the same ambitious results as Globalisation, but its also true that current model become weak and is not flexible enough to adapt to the new challenges.
In the past decades tech have changed many codes but also the own concept of Globalisation. The planet has been transformed into a global virtual space within a truly 4th industrial revolution. Without tech probably we would not even discusses the idea but just being centered on an “Union of Nations”, rather than a full interconnection and counterbalance mechanisms. Is it only now, when supranational structures become ineffective and weak that parts of the citizenship are pretending to go back on time and rescue that first step of the global movement.
Is precisely what a de-globalization trend pretends, to be connected without restrictions and, at the same time, imposing hard limitations to other countries without global structures that forces them to be accountable and being part of a “global crisis”. Its particularly dangerous if we see it under the light of military interests. In addition, undermines a global movement of people creating deep fractures on moral values as solidarity.
This incongruous concept makes as reflect about de-globalization not as a results driven approach but a reaction to crises. This trend its just a response to crises not necessary a solid ideology to be implemented with sense of reality and a results-driven focus. The relentless path of globalization combined with tech and a consolidated culture of addressing local conflicts from a global perspective makes of nationalist/bilateral focus a no updated and ineffective way to move forward within current imbalances.
Is precisely tech that transforms the world into “one” and creates the need for a global system as a way to boost a new revolutionary order. What starts as patrimony of multinationals is it now in the hands of the citizens, although not at its service. Is important to raise awareness of their power and use it with an inclusive focus and multi-stakeholder approach.
A global model is it not a matter of Governments or multinationals but part of the people, unfortunately this is not an “evident” conclusion.
Venezuela is an example of how national crisis become a global threat in which countries and institutions take part of the process. Argumentations coming from Maduro as “you cannot interfere in our national sovereignty” in certain aspects, are correct, although not in the context of a global model. To be inserted means that Nations are accountable to the rest of the countries working as a counterbalance that guarantees democracy. On a world based on bilateralism is not really necessary to do so, but on an interconnected, interlinked world its paramount. Its part of the price that we pay for the benefits of belonging to a global structure: reshaping the concept of national sovereignty.
Tech has crossed boarders and push us to be global and that´s the reality that Nationalists are not able to see, obsessed with the idea of moving forward isolated within a global world, with global rules and global codes.
The excess of political marketization is part of this satirical stage of no tangible models of prosperity but with the determination coming from “super political campaigns” that after a few months collapse dramatically. Brexit is just one of that models.
De-globalization means erasing a global system or just makes different rules for those fields on crisis? Most of the new political trends of a no coordinated performance as isolated national sovereignties come from the fear of being part of financial or security threats not exactly because of a solid conviction that Nationalism it’s the final option.
However, de-globalization would deliver some benefits if we considering under the umbrella of the benefits that multinationals get from “producing in vulnerable countries and selling on Western ones”. Is imperative to gain control over this steady and silent violation of basic human rights and demand responsibility over their privileges through better transparency and accountability processes. It does not necessary supposes a cancellation of a global business model but a strict control coming from all Governments on a multinational effort.
The new normal is represented by the systematic violation of basic standards of Human Rights, which invites to reflect about globalization not as a reason of failure in itself but of a decadent model that needs to be reshaped accordingly to the new challenges. Nationalisms contribute badly to this goal but it represents a logical self-defense reaction that comes precisely because the model is not delivering solutions.
Is it also a break on trust and confidence on their leaders, not necessary on the philosophy of a global model of living,
Therefore de-globalisation and globalization are part of the same: not two contradictory ideologies but a reaction towards crises. A global world demands both: performing global but also the capacity to resolve conflicts bilaterally.
In the end is it just a utopian idea, erasing a consolidated culture of global virtual space, what really matters is if the global model is enough inclusive and resilient for building international balance relations.
As the picture, maybe we need to design a new planet as this house, adapting to the new challenges and accept that all ideologies can make a positive difference if there is enough flexibility within a framework of inclusion and dialogue.