ANALYSIS: Progressive Globalism

This is the first concept paper in a series titled “Foreign Policy in the 21st Century" and it will look at some of the challenges facing our increasingly interconnected world. Our hope is that these papers will help spark a dialogue on a diverse range of issues that need to be addressed by our elected leaders.

If the old adage holds true that every crisis creates an opportunity, the current state of U.S. foreign policy provides that opportunity. A vacuum exists for strong leadership to broadly re-shape the direction of U.S. foreign policy for the 21^st Century. What is needed is a leader to fill that vacuum and address the global challenges currently facing our nation.

A change in direction is absolutely necessary. The unilateral philosophy championed by the Bush administration over the past six years is clearly flawed and ill-suited to address the significant challenges facing the country and the global community. The United States finds itself viewed as a self-centered nation with a foreign policy that disregards the needs of other nations. This is not a helpful image for a global leader and stands in stark contrast to the image of the U.S. after World War II when it worked to build the U.N. system and strengthen international law.

The administration has charted a course that, if unchecked, may be viewed by future historians as the beginning of the end of the globalization era. In its place we are seeing the emergence of a 21^st Century equivalent of Europe in the Napoleonic era - a fragmented world in which states fail to trust global systems and institutions, instead securing resources to fuel their own countries while also creating adhoc military alliances and secured borders to contain real and perceived threats.

If this seems too hyperbolic for a time when technology seems to bind us more closely together consider the following, seemingly disparate events, collectively:

1. The roiling nature of a region stretching from Turkey to India (including Israel-Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon) where internationally mandated solutions lack support from key global actors.
2. The collapse of the WTO’s Doha Development talks aimed at ensuring that global trade leads to poverty reduction and economic growth in all corners of the world – and the view of many in the Global South that the West is retreating from its alleged commitment to equitable trade rules.
3. The damage sustained by the United Nations as a consequence of the Iraq debate and the contentious U.N. reform process – in particular the actions of then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.
4. Resource shortages have led to important geopolitical actors such as the U.S., India and China condoning norms violations to secure access to resources across the globe. Other major powers, such as Russia, are leveraging their natural resources to force neighboring countries to remain within their sphere of influence.
5. A global migration policy illustrated by literal and virtual walls being built on the U.S. - Mexico border, around the European Union and between Mexico and the rest of Central America.

In fact, the technology that has created Globalization 3.0 (as it has been defined by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman and others) may only be a superficial sign of connectedness that pales in comparison to the unraveling of the laws and institutions that have evolved over the past 60 years.

To be clear, we do not wish to minimize the strides made to technologically connect the world in recent years. This is best illustrated by the Indian owned Tata group building a call center in Uruguay that is designed to ensure that damage to its Bangalore infrastructure and operations will not impact U.S. clientele. Certainly e-communications and the private sector have worked to connect the global community via commercial initiatives.

Unfortunately for every story about a “Tata triangle” linking India, Uruguay and the United States, is a story on U.S. cable news inflaming public opinion by showcasing the interlinked alleged crises of “outsourcing” and “illegal immigration.”

A similar contradictory approach to public policy can be found in Europe. The success of a borderless European Union has counter intuitively led to a mentality where Europeans wish to block the arrival of non-Europeans. The asylum system has borne the brunt of those who wish to reduce immigration from outside the continent. This has led to a range of disturbing policy decisions including suggestions of European sponsored refugee holding centers in northern Africa and a broader backlash against the Turkish membership application to the European Union.

It seems, for all the reasons outlined above, that those who believe in some form of globalization have a significant challenge before them. What is specifically needed is a clearly articulated alternative to those who wish to see the international community back away from interconnectedness and towards a fragmented world of regional alliances and relationships.

The Challenge for Globalists

Supporters of an interconnected global community can be divided, generally, into two camps. The first includes the business community and those individuals who approach the issue of globalization through an economic lens. The second group includes individuals who take a broader systems (institutions and laws) approach to globalization in order to address global problems. This second group tends to look critically at the imperfections of globalization as we currently know it and see a broader systems oriented approach as a way to address these flaws.

In order to effectively provide an alternative to those in the U.S. and abroad that are, intentionally or other wise, advancing a fragmented world order, this rift between globalists/internationalists/supporters of globalization needs to be closed and a uniform vision should be determined. Fortunately both camps agree that the world is better off working together and that the benefits of international cooperation far outweigh the costs.

A recalibration of globalization in which systems are prioritized and the interconnectedness of issues is recognized can, and must, be achieved without either group feeling as if their core priorities are not being addressed.

Towards a Vision of Globalization Suitable for the 21^st Century

Articulating a vision of globalization suitable for the 21^st Century is the challenge that faces those who believe that the disintegration of the global system we have seen over the past five years needs to be arrested and reversed.

The challenges facing these individuals are both big picture and issue specific. Perhaps the single biggest challenge is to combat the narrative that portrays relationships between individuals in the U.S. and those abroad as a zero sum game; i.e. when others win Americans lose and visa versa.

By articulating specific examples of an interconnected approach to foreign policy, a visionary leader can show that progressive globalism can lead to win-win situations.

By way of illustration, in the American heartland we see U.S. workers who are concerned that their jobs may be outsourced or filled by migrant workers given limited policy prescriptions to support. They are told that legislation limiting outsourcing or the construction of a wall on the southern border is the solution to their problems. In reality such an approach does not serve the U.S. workers well. Ultimately these jobs will be filled by those working abroad, migrant workers on lower wages or by technological advances in the U.S. (we are seeing such advances lead to job cuts in the auto industry); additionally such an approach harms relations with allies both near and far.

A far better approach is for U.S. policy makers to invest significant and sustained resources in innovation and education in America. This will ensure that American workers can fill jobs in new sectors and allow them to remain competitive with foreign workers over the long run. By allowing certain jobs to permanently migrate abroad, including crop production and call centers, economies in the global south will advance to a point where new, U.S. produced technologies will find a viable market. Paying a fair wage to migrant workers in the U.S. leads to remunerations bolstering the migrant’s home countries, something that also creates both good will and a market for U.S. innovation.

This is simply one example of a progressive approach to globalization that emphasizes win-win scenarios. It also is capable of attracting significant public support in the U.S. and abroad. Similar win-wins exist on a broad range of issues ranging from climate change to fighting poverty and infectious diseases.

For instance, in the area of climate change a visionary U.S. leader could develop an agenda that would:

• include support for a coordinating United Nations environmental organization, an idea championed by former British Prime Minister Blair;
• a global market for alternative technologies suitable for use in developing countries, modeled on the advanced market vaccines initiative;
• a global energy reserve, as proposed by David Goldwyn; and,
• a serious fiscal commitment to education, research and development in the U.S. to stimulate production of new technologies in the alternative energy arena for U.S. and global sale.

The crisis of AIDS and extreme poverty in Africa is yet another instance where supporters of “progressive globalization” and visionary leadership could make the case that for many reasons, apart from just the humanitarian ones, investing in the social and economic development of Africa is vital. The medium-term costs of inaction are too high in terms of the environment, peace and security, and the spread of Tb, malaria and HIV/AIDS. The benefits of a healthy and prosperous Africa to the global economy and in particular to the U.S. economy are also very high.

CEOs of multinational corporations, some of globalization’s biggest proponents, should be willing to endorse a new progressive globalism. One way they can lead this effort is to provide leadership in regards to ending the genocide in Darfur. Many of these CEOs were proponents of the successful push to secure Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China and argued that strong ties with China would lead it to embrace a more progressive foreign policy. Unfortunately seven years later, China is stymieing significant U.N. action on Darfur; apparently it is placing its oil needs over the lives of Darfurian victims of genocide. These CEOs should consider working behind the scenes diplomatically with China and make clear that it will gain considerable goodwill in many quarters by working through the U.N. to stop the violence. From U.S. consumers of Chinese products to large swaths of the U.S. government itself, the benefits to China’s image would be significant. With the 2008 Olympics taking place in China, the CEOs are well positioned to embrace the concept of progressive globalism and seek to nudge China to help the people of Darfur.

The mistake some supporters of globalization have made in the past is to look at the issues outlined above in a siloed way – seeking free trade agreements without focusing on poverty alleviation or migration. The interconnected nature of the world makes it vital that a broad coalition of internationalists come together and articulate a new globalization (progressive globalism) that equally emphasizes the cross-cutting nature of challenges such as migration, trade, failing states, terrorism, infectious disease, poverty and specific geopolitical tensions; while also reflecting the need for solutions that recognize this interconnectedness and require the re-energizing of and recommitment to international laws and institutions.

Only by recognizing that globalization must be a process that has broad and lasting buy-in in the U.S. and abroad will it be possible to ensure a course correction from the current path - one that is leading to fragmentation and ad hoc state relationships.

No one group can articulate the components of a progressive globalism agenda; nevertheless we are confident that we are at a critical juncture of international policy making where a credible alternative to unilateralism and walls must be articulated. Such an alternative must be intellectually honest to ensure that people and governments the world over genuinely feel that they are presented with credible solutions to solve the current state of affairs.