"Globalization: problems and Prospects" was the theme of a joint seminar of the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Committee of ASEAN, held in late November 2001 at the Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The co-organizer was the Moscow Committee of ASEAN, which includes the ambassadors of the Association's member countries in Moscow. This event promised, at first glance, a meeting of two elements. On the one hand, representatives of the countries of South-East Asia that are deeply immersed in globalization and, thanks to this, are far advanced in their development. On the other hand, there is a forge of cadres who have devoted their careers to solving completely different problems and who have recently discovered a predisposition to work particularly closely with closed regimes that completely reject all the postulates of globalization, openness and humanism. The choice of the seminar topic itself was quite thoughtful and fairly accurately reflected the mood of most of its participants.

On the Russian side, globalization has often been presented primarily as a spontaneous process that exacerbates inequality (which is partly true), destroys a distinctive culture, and turns entire regions and countries into"resource donors". According to this view, globalization is to blame for the excessive wealth of some and the poverty of others. Multinational corporations were hit hard. Some would like to oblige the latter "not to earn superprofits, but to feed people." TNCs were portrayed as closed institutions run by a narrow stratum of people, ruthless exploiters, etc.

Meanwhile, an objective observer has long known that industrialization and huge economic progress in a number of ASEAN countries (the original members of this grouping) were achieved to a decisive extent thanks to extra-regional resources, capital inflows and know-how through cross-border operators. They are probably the main carriers of the globalist principle, creating production capacities, export flows and jobs. Seeking profit, they give people a living, not humanitarian aid. It is possible to demand and expect more social responsibility from multinational companies, more attention to the national identity of host countries, but to see them as the embodiment of global evil is to be a retrograde.

How should we proceed in practice, taking into account the fact that globalization is objective, whether we want it or not (as most of the speakers recognized)? Various recipes were presented at the seminar. Thus, it was proposed to turn the UN into an antimonopoly body for managing globalization. Another idea is to use the mechanisms of regional protectionism (represented by ASEAN, for example) to protect against undesirable manifestations of this process.

We doubt that the UN General Assembly or any of its other bodies will be able to effectively manage global economic processes or establish a fair rate of profit. Another thing is that Soviet diplomacy, of course, is used to working through this forum of public policy. As for collective protectionist protection measures at the regional level, they do not work in Southeast Asia. ASEAN member countries have different interests. Without waiting for the creation of a free trade zone in Southeast Asia, Singapore has made great progress in negotiations on duty-free trade with the United States and Japan. This region is not economically self-sufficient, and the degree of complementarity of local economies is low. The main volume of mutual trade is conducted mainly through branches of foreign TNCs. The failure of attempts to reintegrate the economies of the CIS countries, which form a compact geographical area, should also serve as an important lesson. By the way, the customs union of a number of CIS countries is also inefficient.

In addition, globalization is an extremely important outlet for the Southeast Asian countries due to the formation of the East Asian economic space, where Japanese influence is being replaced by Chinese influence.

Those who waited for the conference participants to be "constructive" were rewarded in the end. Russia's contribution to solving the problems of globalization, as one of the speakers noted, should consist, no matter how banal it may sound, in creating a favorable investment climate. That is, in expanding the field of activity for the very cross-border capital that many sincerely denounced. We will also keep in mind that in

page 103

Russia's own cross-border giants are emerging and gaining strength. Multinational corporations following in the footsteps of Western ones are making their presence felt in Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

Some participants drew parallels between globalization and industrialization, anti-globalists and Luddites. Singapore's Ambassador to Moscow, Mr. M. Hong, formulated the current dilemma as follows: either globalization or marginalization. "At a time when many countries were still wondering about the merits of globalization," the diplomat wrote in one of his works, " Singapore has adopted it as a means of ensuring continuous economic development."

Many people will be more comfortable in the case of marginalization. However, what Russia, in our opinion, urgently needs is a deep modernization of all spheres and aspects of life, attracting and skilfully using in its national interests the resources that are represented by such a multifaceted phenomenon as globalization. In the end, globalization has only brought Russia and the ASEAN countries closer together, not further away.

The seminar highlighted various aspects of globalization and allowed ASEAN diplomats to get acquainted with a wide range of opinions of Russian participants. Its undoubted positive outcome is that it demonstrated the openness of the Russian side.

Permanent link to this publication: