আন্তর্জাতিক বিষয়াবলী লিখিত

Nationalism

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2]

The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[3] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.[3] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.

Causes

There are two major bodies of thought on the causes of nationalism, one is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist; the other is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth.[1] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics says that both the primordialist and modernist conception of nationalism both involve an acceptance of three levels of common interest of individuals or groups in national identity. The first level is that at an inter-group level, humans respond to competition or conflict by organizing into groups to either attack other groups or defend their group from hostile groups.[17] The second level is the intragroup level, individuals gain advantage through cooperation with others in securing collective goods that are not accessible through individual effort alone.[17] The third level is the individual level, where self-interested concerns over personal fitness by individuals either consciously or subconsciously motivate the creation of group formation as a means of security.[17] Leadership groups' or elites' behaviour that involves efforts to advance their own fitness when they are involved in the mobilization of an ethnic or national group is crucial in the development of the culture of that group.[17]

Primordialist interpretation

The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.[18] The evolutionary theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution of human beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form the foundation of a nation.[18] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics describes the primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to be unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common ancestry.[19]

The primordialist evolutionary view of nationalism has its origins in the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin that were later substantially elaborated by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.[20] Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological organisms undergo changes in their anatomical features and their characteristic behaviour patterns.[20] Darwin's theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change of organisms is utilized to describe the development of human societies and particularly the development of mental and physical traits of members of such societies.[21]

In addition to evolutionary development of mental and physical traits, Darwin and other evolutionary theorists emphasize the influence of the types of environment upon behaviour.[22] First of all there are ancestral environments that are typically long-term and stable forms of situations that influence mental development of individuals or groups gained either biologically through birth or learned from family or relatives, that cause the emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed due to their necessity the ancestral environment .[22] In national group settings, these ancestral environments can result in psychological triggers in the minds of individuals within a group, such as responding positively to patriotic cues.[22] There are immediate environments that are those situations that confront an individual or group at a given point and activate certain mental responses.[22] In the case of a national group, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation's borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize themselves in response.[22] There are proximate environments where individuals identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both subjective and objective components that affect their decisions.[23] As such proximate environments cause people make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.[23] In the context of the politics of nations and nationalism, a political leader may adopt an international treaty not out of a benevolent stance but in the believe that such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the prestige of their nation.[23] The proximate environment plays a role in the politics of nations that are angry with their circumstances, an individual or group that becomes angry in response to feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored.[23]Nations that are angry with circumstances imposed on them by others are affected by the proximate environment that shapes the nationalism of such nations.[23]

Pierre van der Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981) emphasizes the role of ethnicity and kinship involving family biological ties to members of an ethnic group as being an important element of national identity.[24] Van der Berghe states the sense of family attachments among related people as creating durable, intense, emotional, and cooperative attachments, that he claims are utilized within ethnic groups..[24] Van der Berghe identifies genetic-relatedness as being a basis for the durable attachments of family groups, as genetic ties cannot be removed and they are passed on from generation to generation.[24] Van der Berge identifies common descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most people to not join ethnic groups but are born into them.[24] Berghe notes that this kinship group affiliation and solidarity does not require actual relatedness but can include imagined relatedness that may not be biologically accurate.[19] Berghe notes that feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in small and compact groups whereas there is less solidarity in large and dispersed groups.[25]

There are functionalist interpretations of the primordialist evolutionary theory. The functionalists claim that ethnic and national groups are founded upon individuals' concerns over distribution of resources acquired through individual and collective action.[26] This is resolved by the formation of a clan group that defines who is accepted within the group and defines the boundaries within which the resources will be distributed.[26] This functionalist interpretation does not require genetic-relatedness, and identifies a variety of reasons for ethnic or national group formation.[26] The first reason is that such groups may extend group identity and cooperation beyond the limited of family and kinship out of reciprocal altruism, in the belief that helping other individuals will produce an advantageous situation for both the sender and receiver of that help, this tendency has been noted in studies by Robert Axelrod that are summarized in his book The Evolution of Cooperation(1984).[26] The second reason is that such groups may be formed as a means of defense to insure survival, fears by one group of a hostile group threatening them can increase solidarity amongst that group, R. Paul Shaw and Yuwa Wong in their book The Genetic Seeds of Warfare (1989) identify this as the foundation of xenophobia that they identify as originating in hunter gatherer societies.[27]

[edit]Modernist interpretation

Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greek nationalists against the ruling Ottoman Empire.

The modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building perceives that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies described as being associated with having: an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability of the society, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language or small group of centralized languages understood by a community of people.[28] Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically: lack a modern industrial self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages resulting in many people being unable to communicate with each other.[28]

Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolution and an industrial economy.[29] Marx applied the modern versus traditional parallel to British colonial rule in India that Marx saw in positive terms as he claimed that British colonial rule was developing India, bringing India out of its "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism".[28] However Marx's theories at the time of his writing had little impact on academic thinking on the development of nation states.[28]

Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Henry Maine, Ferdinand Tönnies, Emile Durkheim,Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons.[28]

Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies noted the key distinction between traditional societies defined as "status" societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals; and modern societies defined as "contract" societies where social relations are determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests.[30] Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies.[30]

Ferdinand Tönnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) defined a gemeinschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies, while defining a gessellschaft (society) as an impersonal societies that are modern.[30] While he recognized the advantages of modern societies he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.[30]

Emile Durkheim expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societies based upon "mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on "organic solidarity".[30] Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views.[30]Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.[30] Durkheim claimed that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie.[30]

Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the state.[30] Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.[30]

Liberty Leading the People (Eugène Delacroix, 1830) is a famous example of nationalist art.

Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[31] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily referendum" (frequently translated 'daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people to continue living together".[31]

Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[32] Ernest Renan[33] and John Stuart Mill[34] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[35] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[36]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France(see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).

Ethnocentrism

Separatist murals of Països Catalans in Belfast.

Whereas nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy. Studies have yielded evidence that such behaviour may be derived from innate preferences in humans from infancy.[37][need quotation to verify][verification needed]

The term ethnocentrism is a more accurate and meaningful term.[38]

National purity

Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the 'national community' as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.[39]

Left-wing nationalism

Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with Right-wing national socialism)[40] refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism. Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism links itself closely with this ideology, although many left-wing nationalists refute the assertion that Anti-Revisionists are truly "left-wing nationalists." Practical examples of this anti-revisionist nationalism include Stalin's early work Marxism and the National Question and his Socialism in One Countryedict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or religious divisions. Other examples of left-wing nationalism includeFidel Castro's 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution ousting the American-backed Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Ireland's Sinn Féin, Wales's Plaid Cymru, Scotland's SNP, theAwami League in Bangladesh and the African National Congress in South Africa.[citation needed] Truly left-wing nationalism (that which does not involve authoritarianism and inequality between ethnic groups or citizens, and that which includes public ownership of industries and services) is a type of civic nationalism, although some nationalists who are ostensibly socialist, such as Stalinists, are not civic nationalists. This can give rise to confusion over the nature of left-wing nationalism, even though in its condition of being left-wing is implicit respect for other nations and ethnic groups, and a non-authoritarian state.

Territorial nationalism

Nationalist slogan "Brazil, love it or leave it", often used during the Brazilian military dictatorship.

Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.[41] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes.[42] Citizenship is idealised by territorial nationalist[42] A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values and traditions of the population.[42]

Pan-nationalism

Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on "clusters" of ethnic groups.

Proto-nationalism

Proto-nationalism refers to the nationalism that people feel for a connection to a particular indigenous or ethnic identity which is unconnected from the national identity. It also refers to a "nationalism" that existed before the foundation of a nation-state. It thus describes a nation-less nationalism.[43]

Ultranationalism

Benito Mussolini (left) and Adolf Hitler(right). The two most pre-eminent figures offascism in Europe.

Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations within the nation or its territories, demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, fomenting talk of presumed, real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group, instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics.[citation needed] In its extremist forms ultranationalism is characterized as a call to war against enemies of the nation/state, secession or, in the case of ethnocentrist ultranationalism, genocide.[44][45]

Fascism is a form of palingenetic ultranationalism[46] that promotes "class collaboration" (as opposed to class struggle), a totalitarian state, andirredentism or expansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists sometimes promote ethnic or cultural nationalism. Fascism stresses the subservience of the individual to the state, and the need to absolute and unquestioned loyalty to a strong ruler.[47]

Anti-colonial nationalism

This form of nationalism came about during the decolonialisation of the post war period. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent [48] Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial power, schooled in its "national" history, and staffing the colonial administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial administration.[49]

Criticisms

Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.[50] Philosopher A.C. Grayling describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity".[51]

Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world naming it a 'theoretical and political challenge for the foreseeable future' [52]. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.

At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analysis that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in central andeastern Europe (though a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Vladimir Lenin (a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination).[53]

In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception." [54]

For Orwell the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:

There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.[54]

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943. Most Poles of Volhynia (now in Ukraine) had either been murdered or had fled the area.

In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include The Two World Wars, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective.

The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.[55] Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind." [56]

The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the exclusion of others. This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobia that have often resulted from nationalist sentiment.Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide.[citation needed]

Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialistmovements in Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arenafor their activities.[citation needed]

A snack bar sign advertising "American" fries at Knott's Berry Farm. The sign formerly read "French".

In the Western world, the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national cultures.[citation needed]

While internationalism in the cosmopolitan context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations,proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race

আন্তর্জাতিক বিষয়াবলী লিখিত

International Affairs

আন্তর্জাতিক বিষয়াবলী

ন্যাটো

উত্তর আটলান্টিক নিরাপত্তা জোট বা ন্যাটো (উৎসঃইংরেজি North Atlantic Treaty Organisation বা NATO ) ১৯৪৯ সালে প্রতিষ্ঠিত একটি সামরিক সহযোগিতার জোট। ন্যাটো জোট ভুক্ত দেশগুলো পারস্পরিক সামরিক সহযোগিতা প্রদানে অঙ্গীকারাবদ্ধ। আটলান্টিক মহাসাগরের দুই পারে অবস্থিত উত্তর আমেরিকার মার্কিন যুক্তরাষ্ট্র ও কানাডা এবং ইউরোপের অধিকাংশ দেশ এই জোটের সদস্য। এছাড়াতুরস্ক ও এই জোটের সদস্য। ন্যাটো একটি সম্মিলিত প্রতিরক্ষা গোষ্ঠী। এর সদর দপ্তর বেলজিয়ামের ব্রাসেলসে। ন্যাটোর বর্তমান সদস্য সংখ্যা ২৮। ২০০৯ সালের ১লা এপ্রিল আলবেনিয়া এবং ক্রোয়েশিয়া ন্যাটোতে যোগ দেয়। ন্যাটোর সম্মিলিত সামরিক বাহিনীর খরচ পৃথিবীর সকল সামরিক খরচের প্রায় ৭০ ভাগ। প্রতিষ্ঠার প্রথম দুই বছর ন্যাটো একটি রাজনৈতিক সংগঠন হিসেবে ছিল, কিন্ত কোরিয় যুদ্ধের পর ন্যাটো সদস্যরা চিন্তিত হয়ে পরেন এবং যুক্তরাষ্ট্রের দুই জন সর্বোচ্চ সামরিক কমান্ডারের অধীনে একটি সমন্বিত সামরিক কাঠামো গড়ে তোলা হয়। ন্যাটোর প্রথম মহাসচিব ছিলেন লর্ড ইসমে। নিতি ১৯৪৯ সালে বলেন যে এই প্রতিষ্ঠানের উদ্দেশ্য হল "রাশিয়ানদের দূরে রাখা, আমেরিকানদের কাছে আনা এবং জার্মানদের দাবিয়ে রাখা"।

১৯৮৯ সালে বার্লিন দেয়াল ভেঙ্গে ফেলা হলে ন্যাটো যুগোস্লাভিয়ার দিকে মনোনিবেশ করে। এর পরিপ্রেক্ষিতে ১৯৯১ থেকে ১৯৯৫ পর্যন্ত বসনিয়ায় ন্যাটো মধ্যস্ততামূলক সামরিক অভিযান চালায় এবং পরে ১৯৯৯ সালে যুগোস্লাভিয়ায় অভিযান চালায়।

Nationalism

Nationalism is a political ideology that involves a strong identification of a group of individuals with a nation. There are two main perspectives on the origins and basis of nationalism, one is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth; the other is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist.[1] There are various definitions for what constitutes a nation, however, which leads to several different strands of nationalism. It can be a belief that citizenship in a state should be limited to one ethnic, cultural, religious, or identity group, or that multinationality in a single state should necessarily comprise the right to express and exercise national identity even by minorities.[2]

The adoption of national identity in terms of historical development, has commonly been the result of a response by an influential group or groups that is unsatisfied with traditional identities due to inconsistency between their defined social order and the experience of that social order by its members, resulting in a situation of anomie that nationalists seek to resolve.[3] This anomie results in a society or societies reinterpreting identity, retaining elements that are deemed acceptable and removing elements deemed unacceptable, in order to create a unified community.[3] This development may be the result of internal structural issues or the result of resentment by an existing group or groups towards other communities, especially foreign powers that are or are deemed to be controlling them.

Causes

There are two major bodies of thought on the causes of nationalism, one is the modernist perspective that describes nationalism as a recent phenomenon that requires the structural conditions of modern society, in order to exist; the other is the primordialist perspective that describes nationalism as a reflection of the ancient and perceived evolutionary tendency of humans to organize into distinct grouping based on an affinity of birth.[1] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics says that both the primordialist and modernist conception of nationalism both involve an acceptance of three levels of common interest of individuals or groups in national identity. The first level is that at an inter-group level, humans respond to competition or conflict by organizing into groups to either attack other groups or defend their group from hostile groups.[17] The second level is the intragroup level, individuals gain advantage through cooperation with others in securing collective goods that are not accessible through individual effort alone.[17] The third level is the individual level, where self-interested concerns over personal fitness by individuals either consciously or subconsciously motivate the creation of group formation as a means of security.[17] Leadership groups' or elites' behaviour that involves efforts to advance their own fitness when they are involved in the mobilization of an ethnic or national group is crucial in the development of the culture of that group.[17]

Primordialist interpretation

The primordialist perspective is based upon evolutionary theory.[18] The evolutionary theory of nationalism perceives nationalism to be the result of the evolution of human beings into identifying with groups, such as ethnic groups, or other groups that form the foundation of a nation.[18] Roger Masters in The Nature of Politics describes the primordial explanation of the origin of ethnic and national groups as recognizing group attachments that are thought to be unique, emotional, intense, and durable because they are based upon kinship and promoted along lines of common ancestry.[19]

The primordialist evolutionary view of nationalism has its origins in the evolutionary theories of Charles Darwin that were later substantially elaborated by John Tooby and Leda Cosmides.[20] Central to evolutionary theory is that all biological organisms undergo changes in their anatomical features and their characteristic behaviour patterns.[20] Darwin's theory of natural selection as a mechanism of evolutionary change of organisms is utilized to describe the development of human societies and particularly the development of mental and physical traits of members of such societies.[21]

In addition to evolutionary development of mental and physical traits, Darwin and other evolutionary theorists emphasize the influence of the types of environment upon behaviour.[22] First of all there are ancestral environments that are typically long-term and stable forms of situations that influence mental development of individuals or groups gained either biologically through birth or learned from family or relatives, that cause the emphasis of certain mental behaviours that are developed due to their necessity the ancestral environment .[22] In national group settings, these ancestral environments can result in psychological triggers in the minds of individuals within a group, such as responding positively to patriotic cues.[22] There are immediate environments that are those situations that confront an individual or group at a given point and activate certain mental responses.[22] In the case of a national group, the example of seeing the mobilization of a foreign military force on the nation's borders may provoke members of a national group to unify and mobilize themselves in response.[22] There are proximate environments where individuals identify nonimmediate real or imagined situations in combination with immediate situations that make individuals confront a common situation of both subjective and objective components that affect their decisions.[23] As such proximate environments cause people make decisions based on existing situations and anticipated situations.[23] In the context of the politics of nations and nationalism, a political leader may adopt an international treaty not out of a benevolent stance but in the believe that such a treaty will either benefit their nation or will increase the prestige of their nation.[23] The proximate environment plays a role in the politics of nations that are angry with their circumstances, an individual or group that becomes angry in response to feelings that they are being exploited usually results in efforts to accommodate them, while being passive results in them being ignored.[23]Nations that are angry with circumstances imposed on them by others are affected by the proximate environment that shapes the nationalism of such nations.[23]

Pierre van der Berghe in The Ethnic Phenomenon (1981) emphasizes the role of ethnicity and kinship involving family biological ties to members of an ethnic group as being an important element of national identity.[24] Van der Berghe states the sense of family attachments among related people as creating durable, intense, emotional, and cooperative attachments, that he claims are utilized within ethnic groups..[24] Van der Berghe identifies genetic-relatedness as being a basis for the durable attachments of family groups, as genetic ties cannot be removed and they are passed on from generation to generation.[24] Van der Berge identifies common descent as the basis for the establishment of boundaries of ethnic groups, as most people to not join ethnic groups but are born into them.[24] Berghe notes that this kinship group affiliation and solidarity does not require actual relatedness but can include imagined relatedness that may not be biologically accurate.[19] Berghe notes that feelings of ethnic solidarity usually arise in small and compact groups whereas there is less solidarity in large and dispersed groups.[25]

There are functionalist interpretations of the primordialist evolutionary theory. The functionalists claim that ethnic and national groups are founded upon individuals' concerns over distribution of resources acquired through individual and collective action.[26] This is resolved by the formation of a clan group that defines who is accepted within the group and defines the boundaries within which the resources will be distributed.[26] This functionalist interpretation does not require genetic-relatedness, and identifies a variety of reasons for ethnic or national group formation.[26] The first reason is that such groups may extend group identity and cooperation beyond the limited of family and kinship out of reciprocal altruism, in the belief that helping other individuals will produce an advantageous situation for both the sender and receiver of that help, this tendency has been noted in studies by Robert Axelrod that are summarized in his book The Evolution of Cooperation(1984).[26] The second reason is that such groups may be formed as a means of defense to insure survival, fears by one group of a hostile group threatening them can increase solidarity amongst that group, R. Paul Shaw and Yuwa Wong in their book The Genetic Seeds of Warfare (1989) identify this as the foundation of xenophobia that they identify as originating in hunter gatherer societies.[27]

[edit]Modernist interpretation

Beginning in 1821, the Greek War of Independence began as a rebellion by Greek nationalists against the ruling Ottoman Empire.

The modernist interpretation of nationalism and nation-building perceives that nationalism arises and flourishes in modern societies described as being associated with having: an industrial economy capable of self-sustainability of the society, a central supreme authority capable of maintaining authority and unity, and a centralized language or small group of centralized languages understood by a community of people.[28] Modernist theorists note that this is only possible in modern societies, while traditional societies typically: lack a modern industrial self-sustainable economy, have divided authorities, have multiple languages resulting in many people being unable to communicate with each other.[28]

Karl Marx wrote about the creation of nations as requiring a bourgeois revolution and an industrial economy.[29] Marx applied the modern versus traditional parallel to British colonial rule in India that Marx saw in positive terms as he claimed that British colonial rule was developing India, bringing India out of its "rural idiocy" of its "feudalism".[28] However Marx's theories at the time of his writing had little impact on academic thinking on the development of nation states.[28]

Prominent theorists who developed the modernist interpretation of nations and nationalism include: Henry Maine, Ferdinand Tönnies, Emile Durkheim,Max Weber, and Talcott Parsons.[28]

Henry Maine in his analysis of the historical changes and development of human societies noted the key distinction between traditional societies defined as "status" societies based on family association and functionally diffuse roles for individuals; and modern societies defined as "contract" societies where social relations are determined by rational contracts pursued by individuals to advance their interests.[30] Maine saw the development of societies as moving away from traditional status societies to modern contract societies.[30]

Ferdinand Tönnies in his book Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887) defined a gemeinschaft (community) as being based on emotional attachments as attributed with traditional societies, while defining a gessellschaft (society) as an impersonal societies that are modern.[30] While he recognized the advantages of modern societies he also criticized them for their cold and impersonal nature that caused alienation while praising the intimacy of traditional communities.[30]

Emile Durkheim expanded upon Tönnies' recognition of alienation, and defined the differences between traditional and modern societies as being between societies based upon "mechanical solidarity" versus societies based on "organic solidarity".[30] Durkheim identified mechanical solidarity as involving custom, habit, and repression that was necessary to maintain shared views.[30]Durkheim identified organic solidarity-based societies as modern societies where there exists a division of labour based on social differentiation that causes alienation.[30] Durkheim claimed that social integration in traditional society required authoritarian culture involving acceptance of a social order. Durkheim claimed that modern society bases integration on the mutual benefits of the division of labour, but noted that the impersonal character of modern urban life caused alienation and feelings of anomie.[30]

Max Weber claimed the change that developed modern society and nations is the result of the rise of a charismatic leader to power in a society who creates a new tradition or a rational-legal system that establishes the supreme authority of the state.[30] Weber's conception of charismatic authority has been noted as the basis of many nationalist governments.[30]

Liberty Leading the People (Eugène Delacroix, 1830) is a famous example of nationalist art.

Civic nationalism (also known as liberal nationalism) defines the nation as an association of people who identify themselves as belonging to the nation, who have equal and shared political rights, and allegiance to similar political procedures.[31] According to the principles of civic nationalism, the nation is not based on common ethnic ancestry, but is a political entity whose core identity is not ethnicity. This civic concept of nationalism is exemplified by Ernest Renan in his lecture in 1882 "What is a Nation?", where he defined the nation as a "daily referendum" (frequently translated 'daily plebiscite") dependent on the will of its people to continue living together".[31]

Civic Nationalism is a kind of non-xenophobic nationalism compatible with liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, and individual rights.[32] Ernest Renan[33] and John Stuart Mill[34] are often thought to be early liberal nationalists. Liberal nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need a national identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives[35] and that liberal democratic polities need national identity in order to function properly.[36]

Civic nationalism lies within the traditions of rationalism and liberalism, but as a form of nationalism it is contrasted with ethnic nationalism. Membership of the civic nation is considered voluntary, as in Ernest Renan's "daily referendum" formulation in What is a Nation?. Civic-national ideals influenced the development of representative democracy in countries such as the United States and France(see the United States Declaration of Independence of 1776, and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789).

[edit]Ethnocentrism

See also: Ethnic nationalism

Separatist murals of Països Catalans in Belfast.

Whereas nationalism does not necessarily imply a belief in the superiority of one ethnicity over others, some nationalists support ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric supremacy. Studies have yielded evidence that such behaviour may be derived from innate preferences in humans from infancy.[37][need quotation to verify][verification needed]

The term ethnocentrism is a more accurate and meaningful term.[38]

National purity

Some nationalists exclude certain groups. Some nationalists, defining the national community in ethnic, linguistic, cultural, historic, or religious terms (or a combination of these), may then seek to deem certain minorities as not truly being a part of the 'national community' as they define it. Sometimes a mythic homeland is more important for the national identity than the actual territory occupied by the nation.[39]

Left-wing nationalism

Left-wing nationalism (occasionally known as socialist nationalism, not to be confused with Right-wing national socialism)[40] refers to any political movement that combines left-wing politics with nationalism. Many nationalist movements are dedicated to national liberation, in the view that their nations are being persecuted by other nations and thus need to exercise self-determination by liberating themselves from the accused persecutors. Anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninism links itself closely with this ideology, although many left-wing nationalists refute the assertion that Anti-Revisionists are truly "left-wing nationalists." Practical examples of this anti-revisionist nationalism include Stalin's early work Marxism and the National Question and his Socialism in One Countryedict, which declares that nationalism can be used in an internationalist context, fighting for national liberation without racial or religious divisions. Other examples of left-wing nationalism includeFidel Castro's 26th of July Movement that launched the Cuban Revolution ousting the American-backed Fulgencio Batista in 1959, Ireland's Sinn Féin, Wales's Plaid Cymru, Scotland's SNP, theAwami League in Bangladesh and the African National Congress in South Africa.[citation needed] Truly left-wing nationalism (that which does not involve authoritarianism and inequality between ethnic groups or citizens, and that which includes public ownership of industries and services) is a type of civic nationalism, although some nationalists who are ostensibly socialist, such as Stalinists, are not civic nationalists. This can give rise to confusion over the nature of left-wing nationalism, even though in its condition of being left-wing is implicit respect for other nations and ethnic groups, and a non-authoritarian state.

Territorial nationalism

Nationalist slogan "Brazil, love it or leave it", often used during the Brazilian military dictatorship.

Territorial nationalists assume that all inhabitants of a particular nation owe allegiance to their country of birth or adoption.[41] A sacred quality is sought in the nation and in the popular memories it evokes.[42] Citizenship is idealised by territorial nationalist[42] A criterion of a territorial nationalism is the establishment of a mass, public culture based on common values and traditions of the population.[42]

Pan-nationalism

Pan-nationalism is unique in that it covers a large area span. Pan-nationalism focuses more on "clusters" of ethnic groups.

Proto-nationalism

Proto-nationalism refers to the nationalism that people feel for a connection to a particular indigenous or ethnic identity which is unconnected from the national identity. It also refers to a "nationalism" that existed before the foundation of a nation-state. It thus describes a nation-less nationalism.[43]

Ultranationalism

Benito Mussolini (left) and Adolf Hitler(right). The two most pre-eminent figures offascism in Europe.

Ultranationalism is a zealous nationalism that expresses extremist support for one's nationalist ideals. It is often characterized by authoritarianism, efforts toward reduction or stoppage of immigration, expulsion and or oppression of non-native populations within the nation or its territories, demagoguery of leadership, emotionalism, fomenting talk of presumed, real, or imagined enemies, predicating the existence of threats to the survival of the native, dominant or otherwise idealized national ethnicity or population group, instigation or extremist reaction to crack-down policies in law enforcement, efforts to limit international trade through tariffs, tight control over businesses and production, militarism, populism and propaganda. Prevalent ultranationalism typically leads to or is the result of conflict within a state, and or between states, and is identified as a condition of pre-war in national politics.[citation needed] In its extremist forms ultranationalism is characterized as a call to war against enemies of the nation/state, secession or, in the case of ethnocentrist ultranationalism, genocide.[44][45]

Fascism is a form of palingenetic ultranationalism[46] that promotes "class collaboration" (as opposed to class struggle), a totalitarian state, andirredentism or expansionism to unify and allow the growth of a nation. Fascists sometimes promote ethnic or cultural nationalism. Fascism stresses the subservience of the individual to the state, and the need to absolute and unquestioned loyalty to a strong ruler.[47]

Anti-colonial nationalism

This form of nationalism came about during the decolonialisation of the post war period. It was a reaction mainly in Africa and Asia against being subdued by foreign powers. This form of nationalism took many guises, including the peaceful passive resistance movement led by Gandhi in the Indian subcontinent [48] Benedict Anderson argued that anti-colonial nationalism is grounded in the experience of literate and bilingual indigenous intellectuals fluent in the language of the imperial power, schooled in its "national" history, and staffing the colonial administrative cadres up to but not including its highest levels. Post-colonial national governments have been essentially indigenous forms of the previous imperial administration.[49]

Criticisms

Main article: Anti-nationalism

Critics of nationalism have argued that it is often unclear what constitutes a "nation", or why a nation should be the only legitimate unit of political rule. A nation is a cultural entity, and not necessarily a political association, nor is it necessarily linked to a particular territorial area - although nationalists argue that the boundaries of a nation and a state should, as far as possible, coincide.[50] Philosopher A.C. Grayling describes nations as artificial constructs, "their boundaries drawn in the blood of past wars". He argues that "there is no country on earth which is not home to more than one different but usually coexisting culture. Cultural heritage is not the same thing as national identity".[51]

Much of the early opposition to nationalism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate state for every nation. The classic nationalist movements of the 19th century rejected the very existence of the multi-ethnic empires in Europe. Even in that early stage, however, there was an ideological critique of nationalism. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world naming it a 'theoretical and political challenge for the foreseeable future' [52]. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state.

At the end of the 19th century, Marxists and other socialists (such as Rosa Luxemburg) produced political analysis that were critical of the nationalist movements then active in central andeastern Europe (though a variety of other contemporary socialists and communists, from Vladimir Lenin (a communist) to Józef Piłsudski (a socialist), were more sympathetic to national self-determination).[53]

In his classic essay on the topic George Orwell distinguishes nationalism from patriotism, which he defines as devotion to a particular place. Nationalism, more abstractly, is "power-hunger tempered by self-deception." [54]

For Orwell the nationalist is more likely than not dominated by irrational negative impulses:

There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the U.S.S.R. without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist — that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating — but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him.[54]

Massacres of Poles in Volhynia in 1943. Most Poles of Volhynia (now in Ukraine) had either been murdered or had fled the area.

In the liberal political tradition there is widespread criticism of ‘nationalism’ as a dangerous force and a cause of conflict and war between nation-states. Nationalism has often been exploited to encourage citizens to partake in the nations' conflicts. Such examples include The Two World Wars, where nationalism was a key component of propaganda material. Liberals do not generally dispute the existence of the nation-states. The liberal critique also emphasizes individual freedom as opposed to national identity, which is by definition collective.

The pacifist critique of nationalism also concentrates on the violence of nationalist movements, the associated militarism, and on conflicts between nations inspired by jingoism or chauvinism. National symbols and patriotic assertiveness are in some countries discredited by their historical link with past wars, especially in Germany. Famous pacifist Bertrand Russell criticizes nationalism for diminishing the individual's capacity to judge his or her fatherland's foreign policy.[55] Albert Einstein stated that "Nationalism is an infantile disease... It is the measles of mankind." [56]

The anti-racist critique of nationalism concentrates on the attitudes to other nations, and especially on the doctrine that the nation-state exists for one national group to the exclusion of others. This view emphasizes the chauvinism and xenophobia that have often resulted from nationalist sentiment.Norman Naimark relates the rise of nationalism to ethnic cleansing and genocide.[citation needed]

Political movements of the left have often been suspicious of nationalism, again without necessarily seeking the disappearance of the existing nation-states. Marxism has been ambiguous towards the nation-state, and in the late 19th century some Marxist theorists rejected it completely. For some Marxists the world revolution implied a global state (or global absence of state); for others it meant that each nation-state had its own revolution. A significant event in this context was the failure of the social-democratic and socialistmovements in Europe to mobilize a cross-border workers' opposition to World War I. At present most, but certainly not all, left-wing groups accept the nation-state, and see it as the political arenafor their activities.[citation needed]

A snack bar sign advertising "American" fries at Knott's Berry Farm. The sign formerly read "French".

In the Western world, the most comprehensive current ideological alternative to nationalism is cosmopolitanism. Ethical cosmopolitanism rejects one of the basic ethical principles of nationalism: that humans owe more duties to a fellow member of the nation, than to a non-member. It rejects such important nationalist values as national identity and national loyalty. However, there is also a political cosmopolitanism, which has a geopolitical program to match that of nationalism: it seeks some form of world state, with a world government. Very few people openly and explicitly support the establishment of a global state, but political cosmopolitanism has influenced the development of international criminal law, and the erosion of the status of national sovereignty. In turn, nationalists are deeply suspicious of cosmopolitan attitudes, which they equate with eradication of diverse national cultures.[citation needed]

While internationalism in the cosmopolitan context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations,proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race

Imperialism

Imperialism, as defined by the Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Imperialism, as described by that work is primarily a Western undertaking that employs "expansionist, mercantilist policies".[1]

Cecil Rhodes: Cape-Cairo railway project. Founded the De Beers Mining Company and owned the British South Africa Company, which established Rhodesia for itself. He liked to "paint the mapBritish red," and declared: "all of these stars ... these vast worlds that remain out of reach. If I could, I would annex other planets."[2]

The term as such primarily has been applied to Western political and economic dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries. Some writers, such as Edward Said, use the term more broadly to describe any system of domination and subordination organized with an imperial center and a dominated periphery.

Imperialism has been found in the histories of Japan, the Assyrian Empire, the Chinese Empire, the Roman Empire, Greece, the Byzantine Empire, thePersian Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, ancient Egypt, and India. Imperialism was a basic component to the conquests of Genghis Khan during the Mongol Empire, and other war-lords. Historically recognized Muslim empires number in the dozens. Sub-Saharan Africa has also had dozens of empires that pre-date the European colonial era, for example the Ethiopian Empire, Oyo Empire, Asante Union, Luba Empire, Lunda Empire and Mutapa Empire. The Americas during the pre-Columbian era also had large empires in Mesoamerica, such as the Aztec and the Inca.[edit]Overview

Britain, France, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Spain in Africa, Asia, and the Americas. Imperialism not only describes colonial and territorial policies, but also economic and military dominance and influence.

Although normally used to imply forcible imposition of a more powerful foreign government's control on a weaker country, or over conquered territory that was previously without a unified government, "imperialism" is sometimes also used to describe loose or indirect political or economic influence or control of weak states by more powerful ones.[3] If the dominant country's influence is felt in social and cultural circles, such as "foreign" music being popular with young people, it may be described as cultural imperialism.

"Imperialism has been subject to moral censure by its critics, and thus the term is frequently used in international propaganda as a pejorative for expansionist and aggressive foreign policy."[3]

Colonialism vs imperialism

Territories that were once part of the British Empire

The term 'imperialism' should not be confused with ‘colonialism’ as it often is. Edward Said suggested that imperialism involves “the practice, the theory and the attitudes of a dominating metropolitan centre ruling a distant territory’”. He goes on to say colonialism refers to the “implanting of settlements on a distant territory”. Robert Young supports this thinking as he puts forward that imperialism operates from the center, it is a state policy, and is developed for ideological as well as financial reasons whereas colonialism is nothing more than development for settlement or commercial intentions.[4]

Age of Imperialism

The Age of Imperialism was a time period beginning around 1870 when modern, relatively developed nations were taking over less developed areas, colonizing them, or influencing them in order to expand their own power. Although imperialist practices have existed for thousands of years, the term "Age of Imperialism" generally refers to the activities of nations such as the United Kingdom, France,Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States in the early 18th through the middle 20th centuries, e.g., the "The Great Game" in Persian lands, the "Scramble for Africa" and the "Open Door Policy" in China.[5][6]

Scramble for Africa

The ideas of imperialism put forward by historians John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson during the 19th century. European imperialism were influential,and they rejected the notion that "imperialism" required formal, legal control by one government over another country. "In their view, historians have been mesmerized by formal empire and maps of the world with regions colored red. The bulk of British emigration, trade, and capital went to areas outside the formal British Empire. A key to the thought of Robinson and Gallagher is the idea of empire 'informally if possible and formally if necessary.'"[7]

Europe’s expansion into territorial imperialism had much to do with the great economic benefit from collecting resources from colonies, in combination with assuming political control often by military means. Most notably, the “British exploited the political weakness of the Mughalstate, and, while military activity was important at various times, the economic and administrative incorporation of local elites was also of crucial significance”. Although a substantial number of colonies had been designed or subject to provide economic profit (mostly through the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries), Fieldhouse suggests that in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in places such as Africa and Asia, this idea is not necessarily valid[8]:

Modern empires were not artificially constructed economic machines. The second expansion of Europe was a complex historical process in which political, social and emotional forces in Europe and on the periphery were more influential than calculated imperialism. Individual colonies might serve an economic purpose; collectively no empire had any definable function, economic or otherwise. Empires represented only a particular phase in the ever-changing relationship of Europe with the rest of the world: analogies with industrial systems or investment in real estate were simply misleading.[9]

During this time period, European merchants had the ability to “roam the high seas and appropriate surpluses from around the world (sometimes peaceably, sometimes violently) and to concentrate them in Europe.”[10]

European expansion accelerated greatly in the 19th century. In order to obtain raw materials, Europe began importing them from other countries. Europeans sought raw materials such as dyes, cotton, vegetable oils, and metal ores from overseas. Europe was being transformed into the manufacturing center of the world.[11]

Communication became much more advanced during the European expansion. The invention of railroads and telegraphs made it easier to communicate with other countries. Railroads assisted in transporting goods and in supplying large armies.[11]

Along with advancements in communication, Europe also continued to develop its military technology. European chemists made deadly explosives that could be used in combat, and with the advancement of machinery they were able to create lighter, cheaper guns. The guns were also much faster and more accurate. By the late 19th century (1880s) the machine gun had become an effective battlefield weapon. This technology gave European armies an advantage over their opponents, as armies in less developed countries were still fighting with arrows, swords, and leather shields.[11]

Germany

From their original homelands in Scandinavia and far northern Europe Germanic tribes expanded throughout northern and western Europe in the middle period of classical antiquity, and southern Europe in late antiquity, conquering Celtic and other peoples and forming in 800 the Holy Roman Empire, the first German Empire. However unlike China, there was no real systemic continuity from the western Roman Empire to its German successor which famously was "not holy, not Roman, and not an empire"[12], and numerous small states existed in variously autonomous confederation. Although by 1000 Germanic conquest of central, western, and southern Europe west of and including Italy was complete, excluding only Muslim Iberia, there was no process equivalent to Han sinification, and "Germany" remained largely a conceptual term referring to an amorphous area of central Europe.

Not a maritime power, and not a nation-state, as it became one, Germany's participation in Western imperialism was negligible until the late 19th century and the participation of Austria was primarily as a result of Hapsburg control of the First Empire, the Spanish throne, and other royal houses. After the defeat of Napoleon, who caused the dissolution of that first German Empire, Prussia, and the German states continued to stand aloof from imperialism, preferring to manipulate the European system through polices such as those of Metternich. After Prussia unified the other states into the second German Empire, its long-time leader Otto von Bismarck (1862-90) had long opposed colonial acquisitions, arguing that the burden of obtaining, maintaining and defending such possessions would outweigh any potential benefit. He felt that colonies did not pay for themselves, that the German bureaucratic system would not work well in the easy-going tropics, and the diplomatic disputes over colonies would distract Germany from its central interest, Europe itself.[13] However, in 1883-84 he suddenly reversed himself and overnight built a colonial empire in Africa and the South Pacific, and then lost interest in imperialism. Historians have debated exactly why he made this sudden and short-lived move.[14] He was aware that public opinion had started to demand colonies for reasons of German prestige.[15] Bismarck was influenced by Hamburg merchants and traders, his neighbors at Friedrichsruh. The establishment of the German colonial empire proceeded smoothly, starting with German New Guinea in 1884.[16]

After the collapse of the short-lived Third Reich, and the failure of its attempt to create a great land empire in Eurasia, Germany was split between Western and Soviet spheres of influence untilPerestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russian and Communist imperialism

Soviet Empire

The maximum territorial extent of countries in the world under Soviet influence, after the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and before the official Sino-Soviet split of 1961.

As Germanic tribes conquered western Europe, Slavic peoples gradually expanded their control over eastern Europe and northern Eurasia, and in the form of the Romanov Empire extended that control to the Pacific forming a common border with the Qing Empire.

Bolshevik leaders had effectively reestablished a polity with roughly the same jurisdiction as that empire by 1921, but with an internationalist ideology. Beginning in 1923, the policy of "Indigenization" [korenizatsiia] helped native peoples develop their national cultures within a socialist framework. This was never formally revoked. Its cultural and linguistic concessions to non-Russians, however, stopped being implemented and enforced. After World War II, the Soviet Union installed socialist regimes modelled on those it had installed in 1919–20 in the old Tsarist empire in areas its forces occupied in Eastern Europe.[17] The Soviet Union and People's Republic of China supported post–World War II anti-colonial national-liberation movements to advance their own interests but were not always successful.[18]

Trotsky, and others believed that the revolution could only succeed in Russia as part of a world revolution, which was in fact shortly after the Russian Revolution spreading in the defeated central powers of Europe. Lenin wrote extensively on the matter and famously declared that Imperialism was the highest stage of capitalism, which in his time it was. However after his death Joseph Stalin established Socialism in one country for the Soviet Union creating the model for subsequent inward looking Stalinist states, and purging the early Internationalist elements. The internationalist tendencies of the early revolution would be abandoned until they returned in a negative form in the competition with the United States in the Cold War.

"President McKinley fires a cannon into the Imperialist Strawman", cartoon by W.A. Rogers in Harper's Weekly of September 22, 1900

Though the Soviet Union declared itself anti-imperialist, critics argue that it exhibited tendencies common to historic empires. Some scholars hold that the Soviet Union was a hybrid entity containing elements common to both multinational empires and nation states. It has also been argued that the USSR practiced colonialism as did other imperial powers and was carrying on the old Russian tradition of expansion and control.[19]

The United States as "the world's policeman"

The early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least that distinct from its own Manifest Destiny, in policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. Beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century however, policies such as Woodrow Wilson's mission to "make the world safe for democracy"[20] were often backed by military force, but more often effected from behind the scenes, consistent with the general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical empires.[21][22]. In 1898 Americans who opposed imperialism created the Anti-Imperialist League to oppose the US annexation of the Philippines. A year later a war erupted in the Philippines causing business, labor and government leaders in the US to condemn America's occupation in the Philippines. They also denounced them for causing the deaths of many Filipinos.[23]

After the second world war the United States became identified with Western interests generally in a global conflict of spheres of influence with the Soviet Union. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States did not diminish its global ability to project force, remaining "the sole superpower" and what has been called a "unipolar" situation of domination by it globally came into force.

Since the end of the previous century Battlespace domination has been an open and variously reported policy of the U.S. Department of defense and U.S. Administrations stated and restated in various Quadrennial Reports, force posture statements, etc. in execution of its role as sole remaining superpower[24][25]. The 2010 QDR indicates a change in perspective and it is unclear how the policy of the first decade of the 21st century would be sustained through the anticipated fiscal environment of the second.[26].

In 2005, the United States had 737 military bases in foreign countries, according to official sources.[27] As of 2010 US Military spending is about 43% of the world total.[28]. Only a handful of countries spent a larger portion of GDP on military in 2010 and of these only Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates spent more than US$10 billion.

Justification

A controversial aspect of imperialism is the imperial power’s defense and justification of such actions. Most controversial of all is the justification of imperialism done on rational grounds. J. A. Hobson identifies this justification: “It is desirable that the earth should be peopled, governed, and developed, as far as possible, by the races which can do this work best, i.e. by the races of highest 'social efficiency'.”[29] This is clearly the racial argument, which pays heed to other ideas such as the “White Man’s Burden” prevalent at the turn of the twentieth century.

Technological and economic efficiency were often improved in territories subjected to imperialism through the building of roads and introduction of innovations. However, the majority of the rewards of such infrastructure improvements are usually shipped to the imperial state or utilized by the local administration. Similarly, the rapid adoption of the scientific method throughout the world was partly a side effect of the British Empire.[30]

The principles of imperialism are often deeply connected to the policies and practices of British Imperialism "during the last generation, and proceeds rather by diagnosis than by historical description."[31] British Imperialist strategy often but not always used the concept of terra nullius (Latin expression which stems from Roman law meaning ‘empty land’). The country of Australiaserves as a case study in relation to British imperialism. British settlement and colonial rule of the island continent of Australia in the eighteenth century was premised on terra nullius, for its settlers considered it unused by its sparse inhabitants.

This form of imperialism can also be seen in British Columbia, Canada. In the 1840s, the territory of British Columbia was divided into two regions, one space for the native population, and the other for non-natives. The indigenous peoples were often forcibly removed from their homes onto reserves. These actions were “justified by a dominant belief among British colonial officials that land occupied by Native people was not being used efficiently and productively.”[4]

Colonialism

The pith helmet (in this case, of theSecond French Empire) is an icon of colonialism in tropical lands

Colonialism is the establishment, maintenance, acquisition and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and the social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colonizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and theindigenous population.[1]

The European colonial period was the era from the 1500s to, arguably, the 1990s when several European powers (particularly (but not exclusively) Spain, Portugal, Britain, the Netherlands and France) established colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. At first the countries followed mercantilist policiesdesigned to strengthen the home economy at the expense of rivals, so the colonies were usually allowed to trade only with the mother country. By the mid-19th century, however, the powerful British Empire gave up mercantilism and trade restrictions and introduced the principle of free trade, with few restrictions or tariffs.

Definitions

1541 founding of Santiago de Chile

Collins English Dictionary defines colonialism as "the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker peoples or areas."[2] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers four definitions, including "something characteristic of a colony" and "control by one power over a dependent area or people."[3]

The 2006 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "uses the term 'colonialism' to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia." It discusses the distinction between colonialism and imperialism and states that "given the difficulty of consistently distinguishing between the two terms, this entry will use colonialism as a broad concept that refers to the project of European political domination from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries that ended with the national liberation movements of the 1960s."[4]

In his preface to Jürgen Osterhammel's Colonialism: A Theoretical Overview, Roger Tignor says, "For Osterhammel, the essence of colonialism is the existence of colonies, which are by definition governed differently from other territories such as protectorates or informal spheres of influence."[5] In the book, Osterhammel asks, "How can 'colonialism' be defined independently from 'colony?'"[6] He settles on a three-sentence definition:

Colonialism is a relationship between an indigenous (or forcibly imported) majority and a minority of foreign invaders. The fundamental decisions affecting the lives of the colonized people are made and implemented by the colonial rulers in pursuit of interests that are often defined in a distant metropolis. Rejecting cultural compromises with the colonized population, the colonizers are convinced of their own superiority and their ordained mandate to rule.[7]

Types of colonialism

Dutch family in Java, 1927

Historians often distinguish between two overlapping forms of colonialism:

Settler colonialism involves large-scale immigration, often motivated by religious, political, or economic reasons.

Exploitation colonialism involves fewer colonists and focuses on access to resources for export, typically to the metropole. This category includestrading posts as well as larger colonies where colonists would constitute much of the political and economic administration, but would rely on indigenous resources for labour and material. Prior to the end of the slave trade and widespread abolition, when indigenous labour was unavailable,slaves were often imported to the Americas, first by the Spanish Empire, and later by the Dutch, French and British.

Plantation colonies would be considered exploitation colonialism; but colonizing powers would utilize either type for different territories depending on various social and economic factors as well as climate and geographic conditions.

Surrogate colonialism involves a settlement project supported by colonial power, in which most of the settlers do not come from the mainstream of the ruling power.

Internal colonialism is a notion of uneven structural power between areas of a nation state. The source of exploitation comes from within the state.

Sociocultural evolution

General Berenschot, Indo-European supreme commander of the colonialKNIL army and professor at the Dutch military academy.

See also: Indos in pre-colonial history and Indos in colonial history

As colonialism often played out in pre-populated areas sociocultural evolution included the creation of various ethnically hybrid populations. Colonialism gave rise to culturally and ethnically mixed populations such as the mestizos of the Americas, as well as racially divided populations as found in French Algeria or Southern Rhodesia. In fact everywhere where Colonial powers established a consistent and continued presence hybrid communities existed.

Notable examples in Asia include the Anglo-Burmese people, Anglo-Indian, Burgher people, Eurasian Singaporean, Filipino mestizo, Kristang people and Macanese people. In the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) the vast majority of Dutch settlers were in fact Eurasians known as Indo-Europeans, formally belonging to the European legal class in the colony.[8] [9]

History

Main articles: History of colonialism and Chronology of colonialism

World map of colonialism in 1800

This map of the world in 1914 shows the large colonial empires that powerful nations established across the globe

World map of colonialism at the end of the Second World War in 1945

Activity that could be called colonialism has a long history. The Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans all built colonies in antiquity. The word "metropole" comes from the Greek metropolis [Greek: "μητρόπολις"]—"mother city". The word "colony" comes from the Latin colonia—"a place for agriculture". Between the 11th and 18th centuries, the Vietnamese established military colonies south of their original territory and absorbed the territory, in a process known as nam tiến.[10]

Modern colonialism started with the Age of Discovery. Portugal and Spain discovered new lands across the oceans and built trading posts or conquered large extensions of land. For some people, it is this building of colonies across oceans that differentiates colonialism from other types of expansionism. These new lands were divided between the Portuguese Empire and Spanish Empire, first by the papal bull Inter caetera and then by the Treaty of Tordesillas and the Treaty of Zaragoza (1529).

This period is also associated with the Commercial Revolution. The late Middle Ages saw reforms in accountancy and banking in Italy and the eastern Mediterranean. These ideas were adopted and adapted in western Europe to the high risks and rewards associated with colonial ventures.

The 17th century saw the creation of the French colonial empire and the Dutch Empire, as well as the English colonial empire, which later became the British Empire. It also saw the establishment of a Danish colonial empire and some Swedish overseas colonies.

The spread of colonial empires was reduced in the late 18th and early 19th centuries by the American Revolutionary War and the Latin American wars of independence. However, many new colonies were established after this time, including the German colonial empire andBelgian colonial empire. In the late 19th century, many European powers were involved in the Scramble for Africa.

The Russian Empire, Ottoman Empire and Austrian Empire existed at the same time as the above empires, but did not expand over oceans. Rather, these empires expanded through the more traditional route of conquest of neighbouring territories. There was, though, some Russian colonization of the Americas across the Bering Strait. The Empire of Japan modelled itself on European colonial empires. The United States of America gained overseas territories after the Spanish-American War for which the term "American Empire" was coined.

After the First World War, the victorious allies divided up the German colonial empire and much of the Ottoman Empire between themselves as League of Nations mandates. These territories were divided into three classes according to how quickly it was deemed that they would be ready for independence.[11] However, decolonisation outside the Americas lagged until after the Second World War. In 1962 the United Nations set up a Special Committee on Decolonization, often called the Committee of 24, to encourage this process.

Further, dozens of independence movements and global political solidarity projects such as the Non-Aligned Movement were instrumental in the decolonization efforts of former colonies.

European colonies in 1914

The major European empires consisted of the following colonies at the start of World War I (former colonies of the Spanish Empire became independent before 1914 and are not listed; former colonies of other European empires that previously became independent, such as the former French colony Haiti, are not listed):

British colonies:

Millions of Irish left Ireland for Canada and U.S. following theGreat Famine in the 1840s.

By 1914, Europeans had migrated to the colonies in the millions. Some intended to remain in the colonies as temporary settlers, mainly as military personnel or on business. Others went to the colonies as immigrants. British citizens were by far the most numerous population to migrate to the colonies: 2.5 million settled in Canada; 1.5 million in Australia; 750,000 in New Zealand; 450,000 in the Union of South Africa; and 200,000 in India. French citizens also migrated in large numbers, mainly to the colonies in the north African Maghreb region: 1.3 million settled in Algeria; 200,000 in Morocco; 100,000 in Tunisia; while only 20,000 migrated to French Indochina. Dutch and German colonies saw relatively scarce European migration, since Dutch and German colonial expansion focused upon commercial goals rather than settlement. Portugal sent 150,000 settlers to Angola, 80,000 to Mozambique, and 20,000 to Goa. During the Spanish Empire, approximately 550,000 Spanish settlers migrated to Latin America.[12]

Neocolonialism

The term neocolonialism has been used to refer to a variety of contexts since decolonization that took place after World War II. Generally it does not refer to a type of direct colonization, rather, colonialism by other means. Specifically, neocolonialism refers to the theory that former or existing economic relationships, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, created by former colonial powers were or are used to maintain control of their former colonies and dependencies after the colonial independence movements of the post–World War II period.

[edit]Colonialism and the history of thought

See also: Historiography of the British Empire

Universalism

Paris Colonial Exposition

The conquest of vast territories brings multitudes of diverse cultures under the central control of the imperial authorities. From the time of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, this fact has been addressed by empires adopting the concept of universalism, and applying it to their imperial policies towards their subjects far from the imperial capitol. The capitol, the metropole, was the source of ostensibly enlightened policies imposed throughout the distant colonies.

The empire that grew from Athenian conquest spurred the spread of Greek language, religion, science and philosophy throughout the colonies. The Athenians considered their own culture superior to all others. They referred to people speaking foreign languages as barbarians, dismissing foreign languages as inferior mutterings that sounded to Greek ears like "bar-bar".

Romans found efficiency in imposing a universalist policy towards their colonies in many matters. Roman law was imposed on Roman citizens, as well as colonial subjects, throughout the empire. Latin spread as the common language of government and trade, the lingua franca, throughout the Empire. Romans also imposed peace between their diverse foreign subjects, which they described in beneficial terms as the Pax Romana. The use of universal regulation by the Romans marks the emergence of a European concept of universalism and internationalism. Tolerance of other cultures and beliefs has always been secondary to the aims of empires, however. The Roman Empire was tolerant of diverse cultures and religious practises, so long as these did not threaten Roman authority. Napoleon's foreign minister, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, once remarked: "Empire is the art of putting men in their place".[13]

Colonialism and geography

Settlers acted as the link between the natives and the imperial hegemony, bridging the geographical, ideological and commercial gap between the colonisers and colonised. Advanced technology made possible the expansion of European states. With tools such as cartography, shipbuilding, navigation, mining and agricultural productivity colonisers had an upper hand. Their awareness of the Earth's surface and abundance of practical skills provided colonisers with a knowledge that, in turn, created power.[14]

Painter and Jeffrey argue that geography as a discipline was not and is not an objective science, rather it is based on assumptions about the physical world. Whereas it may have given “The West” an advantage when it came to exploration, it also created zones of racial inferiority. Geographical beliefs such as environmental determinism, the view that some parts of the world are underdeveloped, legitimised colonialism and created notions of skewed evolution.[14] These are now seen as elementary concepts.[clarification needed] Political geographers maintain that colonial behavior was reinforced by the physical mapping of the world, visually separating “them” and “us”. Geographers are primarily focused on the spaces of colonialism and imperialism, more specifically, the material and symbolic appropriation of space enabling colonialism.[15]

[edit]Colonialism and imperialism

Governor-General Félix Ébouéwelcomes Charles de Gaulle to Chad.

A colony is part of an empire and so colonialism is closely related to imperialism. Assumptions are that colonialism and imperialism are interchangeable, however Robert Young suggests that imperialism is the concept while colonialism is the practice. Colonialism is based on an imperial outlook, thereby creating a consequential relationship. Through an empire, colonialism is established and capitalism is expanded, on the other hand a capitalist economy naturally enforces an empire. In the next section Marxists make a case for this mutually reinforcing relationship.

Marxist view of colonialism

Marxism views colonialism as a form of capitalism, enforcing exploitation and social change. Marx thought that working within the global capitalist system, colonialism is closely associated with uneven development. It is an “instrument of wholesale destruction, dependency and systematic exploitation producing distorted economies, socio-psychological disorientation, massive poverty and neocolonial dependency.”[16] According to some Marxist historians, in all of the colonial countries ruled by Western European countries “the natives were robbed of more than half their natural span of life by undernourishment”.[17]Colonies are constructed into modes of production. The search for raw materials and the current search for new investment opportunities is a result of inter-capitalist rivalry for capital accumulation. Lenin regarded colonialism as the root cause of imperialism, as imperialism was distinguished by monopoly capitalism via colonialism and as Lyal S. Sunga explains: "Vladimir Lenin advocated forcefully the principle of self-determination of peoples in his "Theses on the Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination" as an integral plank in the programme of socialist internationalism" and he quotes Lenin who contended that "The right of nations to self-determination implies exclusively the right to independence in the political sense, the right to free political separation from the oppressor nation. Specifically, this demand for political democracy implies complete freedom to agitate for secession and for a referendum on secession by the seceding nation."[18]

Liberalism, capitalism and colonialism

Classical liberals generally opposed colonialism (as opposed to colonization) and imperialism, including Adam Smith, Frédéric Bastiat, Richard Cobden, John Bright, Henry Richard, Herbert Spencer, H. R. Fox Bourne, Edward Morel, Josephine Butler, W. J. Fox and William Ewart Gladstone.[clarification needed] Moreover, American revolution was the first anti-colonial rebellion, inspiring others.[19]

Adam Smith wrote in Wealth of Nations that Britain should liberate all of its colonies and also noted that it would be economically beneficial for British people in the average, although the merchants having mercantilist privileges would lose out.[19]

Post-colonialism

Anzac Day Parade in Brisbane, Australia.

Post-colonialism (or post-colonial theory) can refer to a set of theories in philosophy and literature that grapple with the legacy of colonial rule. In this sense, postcolonial literature may be considered a branch of postmodern literature concerned with the political and cultural independence of peoples formerly subjugated in colonial empires. Many practitioners take Edward Saïd's book Orientalism (1978) as the theory's founding work (although French theorists such as Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon made similar claims decades before Said).

Saïd analysed the works of Balzac, Baudelaire and Lautréamont, exploring how they both absorbed and helped to shape a societal fantasy of European racial superiority. Writers of post-colonial fiction interact with the traditional colonial discourse, but modify or subvert it; for instance by retelling a familiar story from the perspective of an oppressed minor character in the story. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak's Can the Subaltern Speak? (1998) gave its name toSubaltern Studies.

In A Critique of Postcolonial Reason (1999), Spivak explored how major works of European metaphysics (such as those of Kant and Hegel) not only tend to exclude the subaltern from their discussions, but actively prevent non-Europeans from occupying positions as fully human subjects. Hegel'sPhenomenology of Spirit (1807), famous for its explicit ethnocentrism, considers Western civilization as the most accomplished of all, while Kant also allowed some traces of racialism to enter his work.

Impact of colonialism and colonization

The Dutch Public Health Service provides medical care for the natives of the Dutch East Indies, May 1946

The impacts of colonization are immense and pervasive.[20] Various effects, both immediate and protracted, include the spread of virulent diseases, the establishment of unequal social relations, exploitation, enslavement, medical advances, the creation of new institutions, and technological progress.[citation needed] Colonial practices also spur the spread of languages, literature and cultural institutions. The native cultures of the colonized peoples can also have a powerful influence on the imperial country.[citation needed]

Expansion of trade

Imperial expansion has been accompanied by economic expansion since ancient times. Greek trade networks spread throughout the Mediterranean region, while Roman trade expanded with the main goal of directing tribute from the colonized areas towards the Roman metropole. With the development of trade routes under the Ottoman Empire,

Gujari Hindus, Syrian Muslims, Jews, Armenians, Christians from south and central Europe operated trading routes that supplied Persian and Arab horses to the armies of all three empires, Mocha coffee to Delhi and Belgrade, Persian silk to India and Istanbul.[21]

Aztec civilization developed into a large empire that, much like the Roman Empire, had the goal of exacting tribute from the conquered colonial areas. For the Aztecs, the most important tribute was the acquisition of sacrificial victims for their religious rituals.[22]

[edit]Slaves and indentured servants

Further information: Atlantic slave trade and Indentured servant

Slave memorial in Zanzibar. The Sultan of Zanzibar complied with British demands that slavery be banned in Zanzibar and that all the slaves be freed.

European nations entered their imperial projects with the goal of enriching the European metropole. Eploitation of non-Europeans and other Europeans to support imperial goals was acceptable to the colonizers. Two outgrowths of this imperial agenda were slavery and indentured servitude. In the 17th century, nearly two-thirds of English settlers came to North America as indentured servants.[23]

African slavery had existed long before Europeans discovered it as an exploitable means of creating an inexpensive labour force for the colonies. Europeans brought transportation technology to the practise, bringing large numbers of African slaves to the Americas by sail. Spain and Portugal had brought African slaves to work at African colonies such as Cape Verde and the Azores, and then Latin America, by the 16th century. The British, French and Dutch joined in the slave trade in subsequent centuries. Ultimately, around 11 million Africans were taken to the Caribbean and North and South America as slaves by European colonizers.[24]

European empire	Colonial destination	Number of slaves imported[24]
Portuguese Empire	Brazil	3,646,800
British Empire	British Caribbean	1,665,000
French Empire	French Caribbean	1,600,200
Spanish Empire	Latin America	1,552,100
Dutch Empire	Dutch Caribbean	500,000
British Empire	British North America	399,000

Slave traders in Senegal. For centuries Africans had sold other Africans to the Arabs and Europeans as slaves.

Abolitionists in Europe and America protested the inhumane treatment of African slaves, which led to the elimination of the slave trade by the late 19th century. The labour shortage that resulted inspired European colonizers to develop a new source of labour, using a system of indentured servitude. Indentured servantsconsented to a contract with the European colonizers. Under their contract, the servant would work for an employer for a term of at least a year, while the employer agreed to pay for the servant's voyage to the colony, possibly pay for the return to the country of origin, and pay the employee a wage as well. The employee was "indentured" to the employer because they owed a debt back to the employer for their travel expense to the colony, which they were expected to pay through their wages. In practice, indentured servants were exploited through terrible working conditions and burdensome debts created by the employers, with whom the servants had no means of negotiating the debt once they arrived in the colony.

India and China were the largest source of indentured servants during the colonial era. Indentured servants from India travelled to British colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, and also to French and Portuguese colonies, while Chinese servants travelled to British and Dutch colonies. Between 1830 and 1930, around 30 million indentured servants migrated from India, and 24 million returned to India. China sent more indentured servants to European colonies, and around the same proportion returned to China.[25]

[edit]Military innovation

Imperial expansion follows military conquest in most instances. Imperial armies therefore have a long history of military innovation in order to gain an advantage over the armies of the people they aim to conquer. Greeks developed the phalanx system, which enabled their military units to present themselves to their enemies as a wall, with foot soldiers using shields to cover one another during their advance on the battlefield. Under Philip II of Macedon, they were able to organize thousands of soldiers into a formidable battle force, bringing together carefully trained infantry and cavalry regiments.[26] Alexander the Great exploited this military foundation further during his conquests.

The Spanish Empire held a major advantage over Mesoamerican warriors through the use of weapons made of stronger metal, predominantly iron, which was able to shatter the blades of axes used by the Aztec civilization and others. The European development of firearms using gunpowder cemented their military advantage over the peoples they sought to subjugate in the Americas and elsewhere.

The end of empire

Gandhi having tea with Lord Mountbatten, 1947

The populations of some colonial territories, such as Canada, enjoyed relative peace and prosperity as part of a European power, at least among the majority; however, minority populations such as First Nations peoples and French-Canadians experienced marginalization and resented colonial practises. Francophone residents of Quebec, for example, were vocal in opposing conscription into the armed services to fight on behalf of Britain during World War I, resulting in the Conscription crisis of 1917. Other European colonies had much more pronounced conflict between European settlers and the local population. Rebellions broke out in the later decades of the imperial era, such as India's Sepoy Rebellion.

The territorial boundaries imposed by European colonizers, notably in central Africa and south Asia, defied the existing boundaries of native populations that had previously interacted little with one another. European colonizers disregarded native political and cultural animosities, imposing peace upon people under their military control. Native populations were relocated at the will of the colonial administrators. Once independence from European control was achieved, civil war erupted in some former colonies, as native populations fought to capture territory for their own ethnic, cultural or political group. The Partition of India, a 1947 civil war that came in the aftermath of India's independence from Britain, became a conflict with 500,000 killed. Fighting erupted between Hindu, Sikh and Muslim communities as they fought for territorial dominance. Muslims fought for an independent country to be partitioned where they would not be a religious minority, resulting in the creation of Pakistan.[27]

Post-independence population movement

The annual Notting Hill Carnival in Londonis a celebration led by the Trinidadian and Tobagonian British community.

In a reversal of the migration patterns experienced during the modern colonial era, post-independence era migration followed a route back towards the imperial country. In some cases, this was a movement of settlers of European origin returning to the land of their birth, or to an ancestral birthplace. 900,000 French colonists (known as the Pied-Noirs) resettled in France following Algeria's independence in 1962. A significant number of these migrants were also of Algerian descent. 800,000 people of Portuguese origin migrated to Portugal after the independence of former colonies in Africa between 1974 and 1979; 300,000 settlers of Dutch origin migrated to the Netherlands from the Dutch West Indies after Dutch military control of the colony ended.[28]

After WWII 300,000 Dutchmen from the Dutch East Indies, of which the majority were people of Eurasian descent called Indo Europeans, repatriated to the Netherlands. A significant number later migrated to the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.[29][30]

Global travel and migration in general developed at an increasingly brisk pace throughout the era of European colonial expansion. Citizens of the former colonies of European countries may have a privileged status in some respects with regard to immigration rights when settling in the former European imperial nation. For example, rights to dual citizenship may be generous,[31] or larger immigrant quotas may be extended to former colonies.

In some cases, the former European imperial nations continue to foster close political and economic ties with former colonies. The Commonwealth of Nations is an organization that promotes cooperation between and among Britain and its former colonies, the Commonwealth members. A similar organization exists for former colonies of France, the Francophonie; the Community of Portuguese Language Countries plays a similar role for former Portuguese colonies, and the Dutch Language Union is the equivalent for former colonies of the Netherlands.

Migration from former colonies has proven to be problematic for European countries, where the majority population may express hostility to ethnic minorities who have immigrated from former colonies. Cultural and religious conflict have often erupted in France in recent decades, between immigrants from the Maghreb countries of north Africa and the majority population of France. Nonetheless, immigration has changed the ethnic composition of France; by the 1980s, 25% of the total population of "inner Paris" and 14% of the metropolitan region were of foreign origin, mainly Algerian.[32]

Impact on health

See also: Globalization and disease, Columbian Exchange, and Impact and evaluation of colonialism and colonization

Aztecs dying of smallpox, (“The Florentine Codex” 1540–85)

Encounters between explorers and populations in the rest of the world often introduced new diseases, which sometimes caused local epidemics of extraordinary virulence.[33] For example, smallpox, measles, malaria, yellow fever, and others were unknown in pre-Columbian America.[34]

Disease killed the entire native (Guanches) population of the Canary Islands in the 16th century. Half the native population of Hispaniola in 1518 was killed by smallpox. Smallpox also ravaged Mexico in the 1520s, killing 150,000 in Tenochtitlan alone, including the emperor, and Peru in the 1530s, aiding the European conquerors. Measles killed a further two million Mexican natives in the 17th century. In 1618–1619, smallpox wiped out 90% of theMassachusetts Bay Native Americans.[35] Smallpox epidemics in 1780–1782 and 1837–1838 brought devastation and drastic depopulation among thePlains Indians.[36] Some believe that the death of up to 95% of the Native American population of the New World was caused by Old World diseases.[37]Over the centuries, the Europeans had developed high degrees of immunity to these diseases, while the indigenous peoples had no time to build such immunity.[38]

Smallpox decimated the native population of Australia, killing around 50% of indigenous Australians in the early years of British colonisation.[39] It also killed many New Zealand Māori.[40] As late as 1848–49, as many as 40,000 out of 150,000 Hawaiians are estimated to have died of measles, whooping cough and influenza. Introduced diseases, notably smallpox, nearly wiped out the native population of Easter Island.[41] In 1875, measles killed over 40,000 Fijians, approximately one-third of the population.[42] The Ainu population decreased drastically in the 19th century, due in large part to infectious diseases brought by Japanese settlers pouring into Hokkaido.[43]

Conversely, researchers concluded that syphilis was carried from the New World to Europe after Columbus's voyages. The findings suggested Europeans could have carried the nonvenereal tropical bacteria home, where the organisms may have mutated into a more deadly form in the different conditions of Europe.[44] The disease was more frequently fatal than it is today; syphilis was a major killer in Europe during the Renaissance.[45] The first cholera pandemic began in Bengal, then spread across India by 1820. Ten thousand British troops and countless Indians died during this pandemic.[46] Between 1736 and 1834 only some 10% of East India Company's officers survived to take the final voyage home.[47] Waldemar Haffkine, who mainly worked in India, who developed and used vaccines against cholera and bubonic plague in the 1890s, is considered the first microbiologist.

Countering disease

As early as 1803, the Spanish Crown organised a mission (the Balmis expedition) to transport the smallpox vaccine to the Spanish colonies, and establish mass vaccination programs there.[48]By 1832, the federal government of the United States established a smallpox vaccination program for Native Americans.[49] Under the direction of Mountstuart Elphinstone a program was launched to propagate smallpox vaccination in India.[50] From the beginning of the 20th century onwards, the elimination or control of disease in tropical countries became a driving force for all colonial powers.[51] The sleeping sickness epidemic in Africa was arrested due to mobile teams systematically screening millions of people at risk.[52] In the 20th century, the world saw the biggest increase in its population in human history due to lessening of the mortality rate in many countries due to medical advances.[53] The world population has grown from 1.6 billion in 1900 to over 7 billion today.

Globalization

Eastern Telegraph Company 1901 chart of undersea telegraph cabling. An example of early globalizing technology in the beginning of the 20th century.

Globalization (or globalisation) is the process of international integration.[1][2] Human interaction over long distances has existed for thousands of years. The overland Silk Road that connected Asia, Africa and Europe is a good example of the transformative power of international exchange. Philosophy, religions, language, arts, and other aspects of culture spread and mixed as nations exchanged products and ideas. In the 15th and 16th centuries, Europeans made important discoveries in their exploration of the World ocean and in beginning cross-Atlantic travel to the "New World" of theAmericas. Global movement of people, goods, and ideas expanded significantly in the following centuries. Early in the 19th century, the development of new forms of transportation (such as the steamship and railroads) and telecommunications that "compressed" time and space allowed for increasingly rapid rates of global interchange.[3][4] In the 20th century, road vehicles and airlines made transportation even faster, and the advent of electronic communications, most notably mobile phones and the Internet, connected billions of people in new ways leading into the 21st century.

Etymology and usage

The term derives from the root word "globe", with the meaning of "sphere," which came to English from the Latin globus: "round mass, sphere, ball," carrying the sense of "planet earth," or a three-dimensional map of it, from around 1550. One of the earliest known usages of the term as the noun "globalization" was in 1930, in a publication entitled Towards New Education, to denote a holistic view of human experience in education.[5] A related term, 'corporate giants', was coined byCharles Taze Russell in 1897[6] to describe the largely national trusts and other large enterprises of the time. By the 1960s, both terms began to be used synonymously by economists and other social scientists. It then reached the mainstream press in the later half of the 1980s. Since its inception, the concept of globalization has inspired competing definitions and interpretations, with antecedents dating back to the great movements of trade and empire across Asia and the Indian Ocean from the 15th century onwards.[7]

Due to the complexity of the concept, research projects, articles, and discussions often remain focused on a single aspect of globalization.[1]

Roland Robertson, professor of sociology at University of Aberdeen, was the first person to define globalization as "the compression of the world and the intensification of the consciousness of the world as a whole." [8]

Sociologists Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King define globalization as:

…all those processes by which the peoples of the world are incorporated into a single world society.[2]

In The Consequences of Modernity, Anthony Giddens uses the following definition:

Globalization can thus be defined as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.[9]

In Global Transformations David Held, et al., study the definition of globalization:

Although in its simplistic sense globalization refers to the widening, deepening and speeding up of global interconnectedness, such a definition begs further elaboration. … Globalization can be located on a continuum with the local, national and regional. At one end of the continuum lie social and economic relations and networks which are organized on a local and/or national basis; at the other end lie social and economic relations and networks which crystallize on the wider scale of regional and global interactions. Globalization can be taken to refer to those spatio-temporal processes of change which underpin a transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking together and expanding human activity across regions and continents. Without reference to such expansive spatial connections, there can be no clear or coherent formulation of this term. … A satisfactory definition of globalization must capture each of these elements: extensity (stretching), intensity, velocity and impact.[10]

Swedish journalist Thomas Larsson, in his book The Race to the Top: The Real Story of Globalization, states that globalization:

is the process of world shrinkage, of distances getting shorter, things moving closer. It pertains to the increasing ease with which somebody on one side of the world can interact, to mutual benefit, with somebody on the other side of the world.[11]

The journalist Thomas L. Friedman popularized the term "flat world", arguing that globalized trade, outsourcing, supply-chaining, and political forces had permanently changed the world, for better and worse. He asserted that the pace of globalization was quickening and that its impact on business organization and practice would continue to grow.[12]

Economist Takis Fotopoulos defined "economic globalization" as the opening and deregulation of commodity, capital and labour markets that led toward present neoliberal globalization. He used "political globalization" to refer to the emergence of a transnational elite and a phasing out of the nation-state. "Cultural globalization", he used to reference the worldwide homogenization of culture. Other of his usages included "ideological globalization", "technological globalization" and "social globalization".[13]

In 2000, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) identified four basic aspects of globalization:[14]

Trade and transactions: Developing countries increased their share of world trade, from 19 percent in 1971 to 29 percent in 1999. But there is great variation among the major regions. For instance, the newly industrialized economies (NIEs) of Asia prospered, while African countries as a whole performed poorly. The makeup of a country's exports is an important indicator for success. Manufactured goods exports soared, dominated by developed countries and NIEs. Commodity exports, such as food and raw materials were often produced by developing countries: commodities' share of total exports declined over the period.

Capital and investment movements: Private capital flows to developing countries soared during the 1990s, replacing "aid" or development assistance which fell significantly after the early 1980s. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) became the most important category. Both portfolio investment and bank credit rose but they have been more volatile, falling sharply in the wake of the financial crisis of the late 1990s.

Migration and movement of people: In the period between 1965–90, the proportion of the labor forces migrating approximately doubled. Most migration occurred between developing countries and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The flow of migrants to advanced economic countries was claimed to provide a means through which global wages converge. They noted the potential for skills to be transferred back to developing countries as wages in those a countries rise.

Dissemination of knowledge (and technology): Information and technology exchange is an integral aspect of globalization. Technological innovations (or technological transfer) benefit most the developing and Least Developing countries (LDCs), as for example the advent of mobile phones.

History

Extent of the Silk Road and Spice traderoutes blocked by the Ottoman Empire in 1453 spurring exploration

There are both distal and proximate causes that can be traced in the historical factors affecting globalization. Large-scale globalization began in the 19th century.[3]

Archaic

The German historical economist and sociologist Andre Gunder Frank argues that a form of globalization began with the rise of trade links betweenSumer and the Indus Valley Civilization in the third millennium B.C.E.[15] This archaic globalization existed during the Hellenistic Age, when commercialized urban centers enveloped the axis of Greek culture that reached from India to Spain, including Alexandria and the other Alexandrinecities. Very early on, the geographic position of Greece and the necessity of importing wheat forced the Greek world to engage in maritime trade. Trade in ancient Greece was free: the state controlled only the supply of grain.

There were trade links between the Roman Empire, the Parthian Empire, and the Han Dynasty. The increasing commercial links between these powers took form in the Silk Road, which started in western China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued to Rome.[16] As many as three hundred Greek ships sailed each year between the Greco-Roman world and India. Annual trade volume may have reached 300,000 tons.[17]

By traveling past the Tarim Basin region, the Chinese of the Han Dynasty learned of powerful kingdoms in Central Asia, Persia, India, and the Middle East with the travels of the Han Dynastyenvoy Zhang Qian in the 2nd century BC. From 104 BC to 102 BC Emperor Wu of Han waged war against the Yuezhi who controlled Dayuan, a Hellenized kingdom of Fergana established byAlexander the Great in 329 BC. Gan Ying, the emissary of General Ban Chao, perhaps traveled as far as Roman-era Syria in the late 1st century AD. After these initial discoveries the focus of Chinese exploration shifted to the maritime sphere, although the Silk Road leading all the way to Europe continued to be China's most lucrative source of trade.

From about the 1st century, India started to strongly influence Southeast Asian countries. Trade routes linked India with southern Burma, central and southern Siam, lower Cambodia and southernVietnam and numerous urbanized coastal settlements were established there.

The Islamic Golden Age added another stage of globalization, when Radhanite (Jewish) and Muslim traders and explorers established trade routes, resulting in a globalization of agriculture, trade, knowledge and technology. Crops such as sugar and cotton became widely cultivated across the Muslim world in this period, while widespread knowledge of Arabic and the Hajj created a cosmopolitan culture.[18]

Portuguese carrack in Nagasaki, 17th century Japanese Nanban art

Native New World crops exchanged globally: Maize, tomato, potato,vanilla,rubber, cacao, tobacco

The advent of the Mongol Empire, though destabilizing to the commercial centers of the Middle East and China, greatly facilitated travel along the Silk Road. The Pax Mongolica of the thirteenth century included the first international postal service, as well as the rapid transmission of epidemic diseases such as bubonic plague across Central Asia.[19] Up to the sixteenth century, however, the largest systems of international exchange were limited to southern Eurasia (an area where the Balkans and Greece interact with Turkey, Egypt, the Levant, Persia and the Arabian Peninsula, continuing over the Arabian Sea to India).

Many Chinese merchants chose to settle down in the Southeast Asian ports such as Champa, Cambodia, Sumatra, Java, and married the native women. Their children carried on trade.[20][21]

Italian city states embraced free trade and merchants established trade links with faraway places, giving birth to the Renaissance. Marco Polo was a merchant traveler[22][23] from the Venetian Republic in modern-day Italy whose travels are recorded in Il Milione, a book that played a significant role in introducing Europeans to Central Asia and China. The pioneering journey of Marco Polo inspired Christopher Columbus[24] and other European explorers of the following centuries.

Proto-globalization

The next phase, known as proto-globalization, was characterized by the rise of maritime European empires, in the 16th and 17th centuries, first the Portuguese and Spanish Empires, and later theDutch and British Empires. In the 17th century, world trade developed further when chartered companies like the British East India Company (founded in 1600) and the Dutch East India Company(founded in 1602, often described as the first multinational corporation in which stock was offered) were established.[25]

The Age of Discovery added the New World to the equation,[26] beginning in the late 15th century. Portugal and Castile sent the first exploratory voyages[27] around the Horn of Africa and to the Americas, reached in 1492 by the Italian explorer Christopher Columbus. Global trade growth continued with the European colonization of the Americas initiating the Columbian Exchange,[28] the exchange of plants, animals, foods, human populations (including slaves), communicable diseases, and culture between the Eastern and Western hemispheres. New crops that had come from the Americas via the European seafarers in the 16th century significantly contributed to world population growth.[29]

Animated map showing the development of European colonial empires from 1492 to present

19th century Great Britain become the first global economic superpower, because of superior manufacturing technology and improved global communications such assteamships and railroads.

Modern

In the 19th century, steamships reduced the cost of international transport significantly and railroads made inland transport cheaper. The transport revolution occurred some time between 1820 and 1850.[3] More nations embraced international trade.[3] Globalization in this period was decisively shaped by nineteenth-century imperialism such as in Africa and Asia.

Globalization took a big step backwards during the First World War, the Great Depression, and the Second World War. Integration of rich countries didn't recover to previous levels before the 1980s.

After the Second World War, work by politicians led to the Bretton Woods conference, an agreement by major governments to lay down the framework for international monetary policy, commerce and finance, and the founding of several international institutions intended to facilitate economic growth multiple rounds of trade opening simplified and lowered trade barriers. Initially, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), led to a series of agreements to remove trade restrictions. GATT's successor was the World Trade Organization (WTO), which created an institution to manage the trading system. Exports nearly doubled from 8.5% of total gross world product in 1970 to 16.2% in 2001.[30] The approach of using global agreements to advance trade stumbled with the failure of the Doha round.[31] Many countries then shifted to bilateral or smaller multilateral agreements, such as the 2011 South Korea–United States Free Trade Agreement.

Since the 1970s, aviation has become increasingly affordable to middle classes in developed countries. Open skies policies and low-cost carriers have helped to bring competition to the market.

In the 1990s, the growth of low cost communication networks cut the cost of communicating between different countries. More work can be performed using a computer without regard to location. This included accounting, software development, and engineering design. In late 2000s, much of the industrialized world entered into the so-called Great Recession,[32] which may have slowed the process, at least temporarily.[33][34][35]

Aspects

Global business organization

Global Competitiveness Index (2008-2009): competitiveness is an important determinant for the well-being of nation-states in an international environment

With improvements in transportation and communication, international business grew rapidly after the beginning of the 20th century. International business includes all commercial transactions (private sales, investments, logistics,and transportation) that take place between two or more regions,countries and nations beyond their political boundary. Usually, private companies undertake such transactions for profit.[36] Such business transactions involve economic resources such as capital, natural and human resources used for international production of physical goods and services such asfinance, banking, insurance, construction and other productive activities.[37]

Such international business arrangements have led to the formation of multinational enterprises (MNE), companies that have a worldwide approach to markets and production or one with operations in more than one country. An MNE is often called multinational corporation (MNC) or transnational company (TNC). Well known MNCs include fast food companies such as McDonald's and Yum Brands, vehicle manufacturers such as General Motors,Ford Motor Company and Toyota, consumer electronics companies like Samsung, LG and Sony, and energy companies such as ExxonMobil, Shelland BP. Most of the largest corporations operate in multiple national markets.

Increasingly, businesses argue that survival in the new global marketplace requires companies to source goods, services, labor and materials overseas to continuously upgrade their products and technology in order to survive increased competition.

International trade

Singapore, the top country in the Enabling Trade Index, embraced globalization and became a highly developed country

An absolute trade advantage exists when countries can produce a commodity with less costs per unit produced than could its trading partner. By the same reasoning, it should import commodities in which it has an absolute disadvantage.[38] While there are possible gains from trade with absolute advantage, comparative advantage—that is, the ability to offer goods and services at a lower marginal and opportunity cost—extends the range of possible mutually beneficial exchanges. In today's business environment, many companies would argue that comparative advantages offered by international trade have become essential to staying in business.

Trade agreements, economic blocks and special trade zones

A Special Economic Zone (SEZ) is a geographical region that has economic and other laws that are more free-market-oriented than a country's typical or national laws. "Nationwide" laws may be suspended inside these special zones. The category 'SEZ' covers many areas, including Free Trade Zones(FTZ), Export Processing Zones (EPZ), Free Zones (FZ), Industrial parks or Industrial Estates (IE), Free Ports, Urban Enterprise Zones and others. Usually the goal of a structure is to increase foreign direct investment by foreign investors, typically an international business or a multinational corporation (MNC). These are designated areas in which companies are taxed very lightly or not at all in order to encourage economic activity. Free ports have historically been endowed with favorable customs regulations, e.g., the free port of Trieste. Very often free ports constitute a part of free economic zones.

A FTZ is an area within which goods may be landed, handled, manufactured or reconfigured, and reexported without the intervention of the customs authorities. Only when the goods are moved to consumers within the country in which the zone is located do they become subject to the prevailing customs duties. Free trade zones are organized around major seaports, international airports, and national frontiers—areas with many geographic advantages for trade.[39] It is a region where a group of countries has agreed to reduce or eliminate trade barriers.[40]

A free trade area is a trade bloc whose member countries have signed a free-trade agreement, which eliminates tariffs, import quotas, and preferences on most (if not all) goods and services traded between them. If people are also free to move between the countries, in addition to free-trade area, it would also be considered an open border. The European Union, for example, a confederation of 27 member states, provides both a free trade area and an open border.

Qualifying Industrial Zones (QIZ) are industrial parks that house manufacturing operations in Jordan and Egypt. They are a special free trade zones established in collaboration with neighboringIsrael to take advantage of the free trade agreements between the United States and Israel. Under the trade agreements with Jordan as laid down by the United States, goods produced in QIZ-notified areas can directly access US markets without tariff or quota restrictions, subject to certain conditions. To qualify, goods produced in these zones must contain a small portion of Israeli input. In addition, a minimum 35% value to the goods must be added to the finished product. The brainchild of Jordanian businessman Omar Salah, the first QIZ was authorized by the United States Congress in 1997.

A Billboard in Jakarta welcoming ASEAN Summit 2011 delegates.

The Asia-Pacific has been described as "the most integrated trading region on the planet" because its intra-regional trade accounts probably for as much as 50-60% of the region's total imports and exports.[41] It has also extra-regional trade: consumer goods exports such as televisions, radios, bicycles, and textiles into the United States, Europe, and Japan fueled the economic expansion.[42]

The ASEAN Free Trade Area[43] is a trade bloc agreement by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations supporting local manufacturing in all ASEAN countries. The AFTA agreement was signed on 28 January 1992 in Singapore. When the AFTA agreement was originally signed, ASEAN had six members, namely, Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. Vietnam joined in 1995, Laos and Myanmar in 1997 and Cambodia in 1999.

Drug trade

In 2010 the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that the global drug trade generated more than $320 billion a year in revenues.[44]Worldwide, the UN estimates there are more than 50 million regular users of heroin, cocaine and synthetic drugs.[45] The international trade of endangered species was second only to drug trafficking among smuggling "industries".[46] Traditional Chinese medicine often incorporates ingredients from all parts of plants, the leaf, stem, flower, root, and also ingredients from animals and minerals. The use of parts of endangered species (such as seahorses, rhinoceros horns, saiga antelope horns, and tiger bones and claws) resulted in a black market of poachers who hunt restricted animals.[47][48]

Information systems

Multinational corporations face the challenge of developing global information systems for global data processing and decision-making. The Internet provides a broad area of services to business and individual users. Because the World Wide Web (WWW) can reach any Internet-connected computer in the world, the Internet is closely related to global information systems. A global information system is a data communication network that crosses national boundaries to access and process data in order to achieve corporate goals and strategic objectives.[49]

Across companies and continents, information standards ensure desirable characteristics of products and services such as quality, environmental friendliness, safety, reliability, efficiency and interchangeability at an economical cost. For businesses, widespread adoption of international standards means that suppliers can develop and offer products and services meeting specifications that have wide international acceptance in their sectors. According to the ISO, businesses using their International Standards are competitive in more markets around the world. The ISO develops standards by organizing technical committees of experts from the industrial, technical and business sectors who have asked for the standards and which subsequently put them to use. These experts may be joined by representatives of government agencies, testing laboratories, consumer associations, non-governmental organizations and academic circles.[50]

International tourism

Modern aviation has made it possible to travel long distances quickly.

Tourism is travel for recreational, leisure or business purposes. The World Tourism Organization defines tourists as people "traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes".[51] There are many forms of tourism such as agritourism, birth tourism, culinary tourism, cultural tourism, extreme tourism, geotourism, heritage tourism, LGBT tourism, medical tourism, nautical tourism, pop-culture tourism, religious tourism, slum tourism, war tourism, and wildlife tourism

Globalization has made tourism a popular global leisure activity. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that up to 500,000 people are in flight at any one time.[52] In 2010, international tourism reached $919B, growing 6.5% over 2009.[53] In 2010, there were over 940 million international tourist arrivals worldwide, representing a growth of 6.6% when compared to 2009.[54] International tourism receipts grew to US$919 billion (€693 billion) in 2010, corresponding to an increase in real terms of 4.7%.[54]

As a result of the late-2000s recession, international travel demand suffered a strong slowdown from the second half of 2008 through the end of 2009. After a 5% increase in the first half of 2008, growth in international tourist arrivals moved into negative territory in the second half of 2008, and ended up only 2% for the year, compared to a 7% increase in 2007.[55] This negative trend intensified during 2009, exacerbated in some countries due to the outbreak of the H1N1 influenza virus, resulting in a worldwide decline of 4.2% in 2009 to 880 million international tourists arrivals, and a 5.7% decline in international tourism receipts.[56]

Economic globalization

Main article: Economic globalization

Economic globalization refers to increasing economic interdependence of national economies across the world through a rapid increase in cross-border movement of goods, service, technology and capital.[57] Whereas globalization is centered around the diminution of international trade regulations as well as tariffs, taxes, and other impediments that suppresses global trade, economic globalization is the process of increasing economic integration between countries, leading to the emergence of a global marketplace or a single world market.[58] Depending on the paradigm, economic globalization can be viewed as either a positive or a negative phenomenon.

Economic globalization comprises the globalization of production, markets, competition, technology, and corporations and industries.[57] Current globalization trends can be largely accounted for by developed economies integrating with less developed economies, by means of foreign direct investment, the reduction of trade barriers as well as other economic reforms and, in many cases,immigration.

As an example, Chinese economic reform began to open China to the globalization in the 1980s. Scholars find that China has attained a degree of openness that is unprecedented among large and populous nations", with competition from foreign goods in almost every sector of the economy. Foreign investment helped to greatly increase quality, knowledge and standards, especially in heavy industry. China's experience supports the assertion that globalization greatly increases wealth for poor countries.[59] As of 2005–2007, the Port of Shanghai holds the title as the World's busiest port.[60][61][62]

Economic liberalization in India refers to ongoing economic reforms in India that started in 1991. As of 2009, about 300 million people—equivalent to the entire population of the United States—have escaped extreme poverty.[63] In India, business process outsourcing has been described as the "primary engine of the country’s development over the next few decades, contributing broadly to GDP growth, employment growth, and poverty alleviation".[64][65]

Measures

Indices

Measurement of economic globalization focuses on variables such as trade, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), portfolio investment, and income. However, newer indices attempt to measure globalization in more general terms, including variables related to political, social, cultural, and even environmental aspects of globalization.[66]

One index of globalization is the KOF Index, which measures the three main dimensions of globalization: economic, social, and political.[67]

2010 List by the KOF Index of Globalization	2006 List by the A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Magazine
Rank Country 1  Belgium 2  Austria 3  Netherlands 4  Switzerland 5  Sweden 6  Denmark 7  Canada 8  Portugal 9  Finland 10  Hungary	Rank Country 1  Singapore 2  Switzerland 3  United States 4  Ireland 5  Denmark 6  Canada 7  Netherlands 8  Australia 9  Austria 10  Sweden

Measuring free trade policies

Main article: Global Enabling Trade Report

The Enabling Trade Index measures the factors, policies and services that facilitate the trade in goods across borders and to destination. It is made up of four sub-indexes: market access; border administration; transport and communications infrastructure; and business environment. The top 20 countries are:[68]

Singapore 6.06  Hong Kong 5.70  Denmark 5.41  Sweden 5.41  Switzerland 5.37  New Zealand 5.33  Norway 5.32  Canada 5.29  Luxembourg 5.28  Netherlands 5.26

Iceland 5.26  Finland 5.25  Germany 5.20  Austria 5.17  Australia 5.13  United Arab Emirates 5.12  United Kingdom 5.06  Chile 5.06  United States 5.03  France 5.02

Sociocultural

Culture

Shakira, a Colombian multilingual singer-songwriter, playing outside her home country.

Cultural globalization has increased cross-cultural contacts but may be accompanied by a decrease in the uniqueness of once-isolated communities: sushi is available in Germany as well as Japan, but Euro-Disney outdraws the city of Paris, potentially reducing demand for "authentic" French pastry.[69][70][71]Globalisation's contribution to the alienation of individuals from their traditions may be modest compared to the impact of modernity itself, as alleged byexistentialists such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Globalization has expanded recreational opportunities by spreading pop culture, particularly via the Internet and satellite television.

Religious movements were among the earliest cultural forces to globalize, spread by force, migration, evangelists, imperialists and traders. Christianity, Islam,Buddhism and more recently sects such as Mormonism have taken root and influenced endemic cultures in places far from their origins.[72]

A McDonald's in Osaka, Japan illustrates the McDonaldization of global society

Conversi claimed in 2010 that globalization was predominantly driven by the outward flow of culture and economic activity from the United States and was better understood as Americanization,[73][74] or Westernization. For example, the two most successful global food/beverage outlets are American companies, McDonald's and Starbucks, are often cited as examples of globalization, with over 32,000[75] and 18,000 locations operating worldwide, respectively as of 2008.[76]

The term globalization implies transformation. Cultural practices including traditional music can be lost and/or turned into a fusion of traditions. Globalization can trigger a state of emergency for the preservation of musical heritage. Archivists must attempt to collect, record or transcribe repertoire before melodies are assimilated or modified. Local musicians struggle for authenticity and to preserve local musical traditions. Globalization can lead performers to discard traditional instruments. Fusion genres can become interesting fields of analysis.[77]

Globalization gave support to the World Music phenomenon by allowing locally-recorded to reach western audiences searching for new ideas and sounds. For example, Western musicians have adopted many innovations that originated in other cultures.[78]

The term was originally intended for ethnic-specific music, though globalization is expanding its scope; it now often includes hybrid sub-genres such as World fusion,Global fusion, Ethnic fusion[79] and Worldbeat[80][81]

Music flowed outward from the west as well. Anglo-American pop music spread across the world through MTV. Dependency Theory explained that the world was an integrated, international system. Musically, this translated into the loss of local musical identity.[82]

A Coca-Cola stall outside the Grand Gateway 66 shopping mall in Xujiahui,Shanghai

Bourdieu claimed that the perception of consumption can be seen as self-identification and the formation of identity. Musically, this translates into each being having his own musical identity based on likes and tastes. These likes and tastes are greatly influenced by culture as this is the most basic cause for a person’s wants and behavior. The concept of one’s own culture is now in a period of change due to globalization. Also, globalization has increased the interdependency of political, personal, cultural and economic factors.[83]

A 2005 UNESCO report[84] showed that cultural exchange is becoming more frequent from Eastern Asia but Western countries are still the main exporters of cultural goods. In 2002, China was the third largest exporter of cultural goods, after the UK and US. Between 1994 and 2002, both North America's and the European Union's shares of cultural exports declined, while Asia's cultural exports grew to surpass North America. Related factors are the fact that Asia's population and area are several times that of North America. Americanization related to a period of high political American clout and of significant growth of America's shops, markets and object being brought into other countries. So globalization, a much more diversified phenomenon, relates to a multilateral political world and to the increase of objects, markets and so on into each others countries.

Multilingualism and the emergence of lingua francas

Main articles: Multilingualism, Lingua franca, and List of lingua francas

Multilingual speakers outnumber monolingual speakers in the world's population. Multilingualism is becoming a social phenomenon governed by the needs of globalization and cultural openness.[86] Thanks to the ease of access to information facilitated by the Internet, individuals' exposure to multiple languages is getting more and more frequent, and triggering therefore the need to acquire more and more languages.

A lingua franca is a language systematically used to make communication possible between people not sharing a mother tongue, in particular when it is a third language, distinct from both mother tongues.[87]

Today, the most popular second language is English. Some 3.5 billion people have some acquaintance of the language.[88] English is the dominant language on the Internet.[89] About 35% of the world's mail, telexes, and cables are in English. Approximately 40% of the world's radio programs are in English.

Language contact occurs when two or more languages or varieties interact. Multilingualism has likely been common throughout much of human history, and today most people in the world are multilingual.[90] Language contact occurs in a variety of phenomena, including language convergence, borrowing, and relexification. The most common products are pidgins, creoles, code-switching, and mixed languages.

Politics

The United Nations Headquarters in New York City.

In general, globalization may ultimately reduce the importance of nation states. Sub-state and supra-state institutions such as the European Union, the WTO, the G8 or the International Criminal Court, replace national functions with international agreement.[91] Some observers attribute the relative decline in US power to globalization, particularly due to the country's high trade deficit. This led to a global power shift towards Asian states, particularly China, which unleashed market forces and achieved tremendous growth rates. As of 2011, China was on track to overtake the United States by 2025.[92]

Increasingly, non-governmental organizations influence public policy across national boundaries, including humanitarian aid and developmental efforts.[93]

As a response to globalization, some countries have embraced isolationist policies. For example, the North Korean government makes it very difficult for foreigners to enter the country and strictly monitors their activities when they do. Aid workers are subject to considerable scrutiny and excluded from places and regions the government does not wish them to enter. Citizens cannot freely leave the country.[94][95]

Media and public opinion

Main articles: Media (communication) and Public opinion

A 2005 study by Peer Fiss and Paul Hirsch found large increase in articles negative towards globalization in the years prior. By 1998, negative articles outpaced positive articles by two to one.[96] In 2008 Greg Ip claimed this rise in opposition to globalization can be explained, at least in part, by economic self-interest.[97]The number of newspaper articles showing negative framing rose from about 10% of the total in 1991 to 55% of the total in 1999. This increase occurred during a period when the total number of articles concerning globalization nearly doubled.[96]

A number of international polls have shown that residents of developing countries tend to view globalization more favorably.[98] The BBC found a growing feeling in developing countries that globalization was proceeding too rapidly. Only a few countries, including Mexico, the countries of Central America, Indonesia, Brazil and Kenya, where a majority felt that globalization is growing too slowly.[99]

Philip Gordon stated that “(as of 2004) a clear majority of Europeans believe that globalization can enrich their lives, while believing the European Union can help them take advantage of globalization’s benefits while shielding them from its negative effects.”[100] The main opposition consisted of socialists, environmental groups, and nationalists.

Residents of the EU did not appear to feel threatened by globalization in 2004. The EU job market was more stable and workers were less likely to accept wage/benefit cuts. Social spending was much higher than in the US.[101]

In a Danish poll in 2007, 76% responded that globalisation is a good thing.[102]

Fiss, et al., surveyed U.S. opinion in 1993. Their survey showed that in 1993 more than 40% of respondents were unfamiliar with the concept of globalization. When the survey was repeated in 1998, 89% of the respondents had a polarized view of globalization as being either good or bad. At the same time, discourse on globalization, which began in the financial community before shifting to a heated debate between proponents and disenchanted students and workers. Polarization increased dramatically after the establishment of the WTO in 1995; this event and subsequent protests led to a large-scale anti-globalization movement.[96] Initially, college educated workers were likely to support globalization. Less educated workers, who were more likely to compete with immigrants and workers in developing countries, tended to be opponents. The situation changed after the financial crisis of 2007. According to a 1997 poll 58% of college graduates said globalization had been good for the U.S. By 2008 only 33% thought it was good. Respondents with high school education also became more opposed.[97]

According to Takenaka Heizo and Chida Ryokichi, as of 1998 there was a perception in Japan that the economy was “Small and Frail”. However Japan was resource poor and used exports to pay for its raw materials. Anxiety over their position caused terms such as internationalization and globalization to enter everyday language. However, Japanese tradition was to be as self-sufficient as possible, particularly in agriculture.[103]

The situation may have changed after the 2007 financial crisis. A 2008 BBC World Public Poll as the crisis began suggested that opposition to globalization in developed countries was increasing. The BBC poll asked whether globalization was growing too rapidly. Agreement was strongest in France, Spain, Japan, South Korea, and Germany. The trend in these countries appears to be stronger than in the United States. The poll also correlated the tendency to view globalization as proceeding too rapidly with a perception of growing economic insecurity and social inequality.[99]

Many in the Third World see globalization as a positive force that lifts countries out of poverty.[104] The opposition typically combined environmental concerns with nationalism. Opponents consider governments as agents of neo-colonialism that are subservient to multinational corporations.[105] Much of this criticism comes from the middle class; the Brookings Institute suggested this was because the middle class perceived upwardly mobile low-income groups to threaten their economic security.[106]

Although many critics blame globalization for a decline of the middle class in industrialized countries, the middle class is growing rapidly in the Third World.[107] Coupled with growing urbanization, this led to increasing disparities in wealth between urban and rural areas.[108] In 2002, in India 70% of the population lived in rural areas and depended directly on natural resources for their livelihood.[105] As a result, mass movements in the countryside at times objected to the process.[109]

Internet

Both a product of globalization as well as a catalyst, the Internet connects computer users around the world. From 2000 to 2009, the number of Internet users globally rose from 394 million to 1.858 billion.[110] By 2010, 22 percent of the world's population had access to computers with 1 billion Google searches every day, 300 million Internet users reading blogs, and 2 billion videos viewed daily on YouTube.[111]

An online community is a virtual community that exists online and whose members enable its existence through taking part in membership ritual. Significant socio-technical change may have resulted from the proliferation of such Internet-based social networks.[112]

Population growth

Main articles: World population and Overpopulation

The world population has experienced continuous growth since the end of the Great Famine and the Black Death in 1350, when it stood at around 370 million.[113] The highest rates of growth – global population increases above 1.8% per year – were seen briefly during the 1950s, and for a longer period during the 1960s and 1970s. The growth rate peaked at 2.2% in 1963, and had declined to 1.1% by 2011. Total annual births were highest in the late 1980s at about 138 million,[114] and are now expected to remain essentially constant at their 2011 level of 134 million, while deaths number 56 million per year, and are expected to increase to 80 million per year by 2040.[115] Current projections show a continued increase in population (but a steady decline in the population growth rate), with the global population expected to reach between 7.5 and 10.5 billion by 2050.[116][117]

World energy consumption & predictions, 1970-2025. Source: International Energy Outlook 2004.

With human consumption of seafood having doubled in the last 30 years, seriously depleting multiple seafood fisheries and destroying the marine ecosystem as a result, awareness is prompting steps to be taken to create a more sustainable seafood supply.[118]

The head of the International Food Policy Research Institute, stated in 2008 that the gradual change in diet among newly prosperous populations is the most important factor underpinning the rise in global food prices.[119] From 1950 to 1984, as the Green Revolution transformed agriculture around the world, grain production increased by over 250%.[120] World population has grown by about 4 billion since the beginning of the Green Revolution and without it, there would be greater famine and malnutrition than the UN presently documents (approximately 850 million people suffering from chronic malnutrition in 2005).[121][122]

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain food security in a world beset by a confluence of "peak" phenomena, namely peak oil, peak water, peak phosphorus, peak grain and peak fish. Growing populations, falling energy sources and food shortages will create the "perfect storm" by 2030, according to UK chief government scientist John Beddington. He noted that food reserves were at a 50-year low and the world would require 50% more energy, food and water by 2030.[123][124] The world will have to produce 70% more food by 2050 to feed a projected extra 2.3 billion people and as incomes rise according to the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).[125] Social scientists have warned of the possibility that global civilization is due for a period of contraction and economic re-localization, due to the decline in fossil fuels and resulting crisis in transportation and food production.[126][127][128] Helga Vierich predicted that a restoration of sustainable local economic activities based on hunting and gathering, shifting horticulture, and pastoralism.[129]

Health

SARS checkpoint at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport's International Arrivals in Terminal 1

Global health is the health of populations in a global context and transcends the perspectives and concerns of individual nations.[130] Health problems that transcend national borders or have a global political and economic impact, are often emphasized.[131] It has been defined as 'the area of study, research and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving equity in health for all people worldwide'.[132] Thus, global health is about worldwide improvement of health, reduction of disparities, and protection against global threats that disregard national borders.[133] The application of these principles to the domain of mental health is called Global Mental Health.[134]

The major international agency for health is the World Health Organization (WHO). Other important agencies with impact on global health activities include UNICEF, World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations University International Institute for Global Health and the World Bank. A major initiative for improved global health is the United Nations Millennium Declaration and the globally endorsed Millennium Development Goals.[135]

International travel has helped to spread some of the deadliest infectious diseases.[136] Modern modes of transportation allow more people and products to travel around the world at a faster pace, but they also open the airways to the transcontinental movement of infectious disease vectors.[137] One example of this occurring is AIDS/HIV.[138] Due to immigration, approximately 500,000 people in the United States are believed to be infected withChagas disease.[139] In 2006, the tuberculosis (TB) rate among foreign-born persons in the United States was 9.5 times that of U.S.-born persons.[140]Starting in Asia, the Black Death killed at least one-third of Europe's population in the 14th century.[141] Even worse devastation was inflicted on the American supercontinent by European arrivals. 90% of the populations of the civilizations of the "New World" such as the Aztec, Maya, and Inca were killed by small pox brought by European colonization.

Sports

1996 Summer Paralympics

Main articles: Olympic Games and List of world championships

Globalization has continually increased international competition in sports.

The FIFA World Cup is the world's most widely viewed sporting event; an estimated 715.1 million people watched the final match of the 2006 FIFA World Cup held in Germany.[142]

The Ancient Olympic Games were a series of competitions held between representatives of several city-states and kingdoms from Ancient Greece, which featured mainly athletic but also combat and chariot racing events. During the Olympic games all struggles against the participating city-states were postponed until the games were finished.[143] The origin of these Olympics is shrouded in mystery and legend.[144] During the 19th century Olympic Games became a popular event.

Global natural environment

Main articles: Global warming, Climate change, and Deforestation

Plot based on the NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) data set.

Environmental challenges such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution and over-fishing of the ocean, require trans-national/global solutions. Since factories in developing countries increased global output and experienced less environmental regulation, globalism substantially increased pollution and impact on water resources.[145]

State of the World 2006 report said India and China's high economic growth was not sustainable. The report stated:

The world's ecological capacity is simply insufficient to satisfy the ambitions of China, India, Japan, Europe and the United States as well as the aspirations of the rest of the world in a sustainable way[146] In a 2006 news story, BBC reported, "...if China and India were to consume as much resources per capita as United States or Japan in 2030 together they would require a full planet Earth to meet their needs.[146] In the longterm these effects can lead to increased conflict over dwindling resources[147] and in the worst case a Malthusian catastrophe.

Burning forest in Brazil. The removal of forest to make way for cattle ranching was the leading cause of deforestation in theBrazilian Amazon from the mid 1960s.Soybeans have become one of the most important contributors to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.[148]

The advent of global environmental challenges that might be solved with international cooperation include climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Since many factories are built in developing countries with less environmental regulation, globalism and free trade may increase pollution and impact on precious fresh water resources.[145][149]

International foreign investment in developing countries could lead to a “race to the bottom” as countries lower their environmental and resource protection laws to attract foreign capital.[150][151] The reverse of this theory is true, however, when developed countries maintain positive environmental practices, imparting them to countries they are investing in and creating a “race to the top” phenomenon.[150]

The distances are shrinking between continents and countries due to globalization, causing developing and developed countries to find ways to solve problems on a global rather than regional scale. Agencies like the United Nations now must be the global regulators of pollution, whereas before, regional governance was enough.[152] Action has been taken by the United Nations to monitor and reduce atmospheric pollutants through the Kyoto Protocol, the Clean Air Initiative, and studies of air pollution and public policy.[153]

Global traffic, production, and consumption are causing increased global levels of air pollutants. The northern hemisphere is the leading producer of carbon monoxide and sulfur oxides.[154]

China and India substantially increased their fossil fuel consumption as their economies switched from subsistence farming to industry and urbanization.[155][156] Chinese oil consumption grew by 8% yearly between 2002 and 2006, doubling from 1996–2006.[157] In 2007, China surpassed the United States as the top emitter of CO2.[158] Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city inhabitants (2007) breathe air deemed safe by the European Union. In effect, this means that developed countries may "outsource" some of the pollution associated with consumption in countries where pollution-intensive industries have been moved.

A major source of deforestation is the logging industry, driven by China and Japan.[159]

Societies utilize forest resources in order to reach a sustainable level of economic development. Historically, forests in earlier developing nations experience “forest transitions”, a period of deforestation and reforestation as a surrounding society becomes more developed, industrialized and shift their primary resource extraction to other nations via imports. For nations at theperiphery of the globalized system however, there are no others to shift their extraction onto, and forest degradation continues unabated. Forest transitions can have an effect on the hydrology, climate change, and biodiversity of an area by impacting water quality and the accumulation of greenhouse gases through the re-growth of new forest into second and third growth forests.[160]

Without more recycling, zinc could be used up by 2037, both indium and hafnium could run out by 2017, and terbium could be gone before 2012.[161]

In 2003, 29% of open sea fisheries were in a state of collapse.[162] The journal Science published a four-year study in November 2006, which predicted that, at prevailing trends, the world would run out of wild-caught seafood in 2048.[163] Conversely, globalisation created a global market for farm-raised fish and seafood, which as of 2009 was providing 38% of global output, potentially reducing fishing pressure.[164]

Global Workforce

Global workforce refers to the international labor pool of immigrant workers or those employed by multinational companies and connected through a global system of networking and production. As of 2005, the global labor pool of those employed by multinational companies consisted of approximately 3 billion workers.[165]

The current global workforce is competitive as ever. Some go as far as to describe it as "A war for talent."[166] This competitiveness is due to specialized jobs becoming available world wide due tocommunications technology. As workers get more adept at using technology to communicate, they give themselves the options to be employed in an office half way around the world. These newer technologies not only benefit the workers, but companies may now find highly specialized workers that are very skilled with greater ease, as opposed to limiting their search locally.

However, production workers and service workers have been unable to compete directly with much lower-cost workers in developing countries.[167] Low-wage countries gained the low-value-added element of work formerly done in rich countries, while higher-value work remained; for instance, the total number of people employed in manufacturing in the US declined, but value added per worker increased.[168]

Imported crude oil as a percent of U.S. consumption.

In 2011, the United States imported $332 billion worth of crude oil, up 32% from 2010.[169] Chinese success cost jobs in developing countries as well as in the West.[170] From 2000 to 2007, the U.S. lost a total of 3.2 million manufacturing jobs.[171] As of 26 April 2005 "In regional giant South Africa, some 300,000 textile workers have lost their jobs in the past two years due to the influx of Chinese goods".[172]

International migration

About 85% of Dubai's population consists of foreign migrants, a majority of whom are from India.

Main articles: Immigration, Emigration, Foreign worker, and List of countries by net migration rate

Many countries have some form of guest worker program with policies similar to those found in the U.S. that permit U.S. employers to sponsor non-U.S. citizens as laborers for approximately three years, to be deported afterwards if they have not yet obtained a green card.

As of 2009, over 1,000,000 guest workers reside in the U.S.; the largest program, the H-1B visa, has 650,000 workers in the U.S.[173] and the second-largest, the L-1 visa, has 350,000.[174] Many other United States visas exist for guest workers as well, including the H-2A visa, which allows farmers to bring in an unlimited number of agricultural guest workers.

The United States ran a Mexican guest-worker program in the period 1942–1964, known as the Bracero Program.

An article in The New Republic criticized a guest worker program by equating the visiting workers to second-class citizens, who would never be able to gain citizenship and would have less residential rights than Americans.[175]

Migration of educated and skilled workers is called brain drain. For example, the U.S.welcomes many nurses to come work in the country.[176] The brain drain from Europe to the United States means that some 400,000 European science and technology graduates now live in the U.S. and most have no intention to return to Europe.[177] Nearly 14 million immigrants came to the United States from 2000 to 2010.[178]

Immigrants to the United States and their children founded more than 40 percent of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies. They founded seven of the ten most valuable brands in the world.[179][180]

Reverse brain drain is sometimes used to refer to the movement of human capital from a more developed country to a less developed country. It is also termed as a logical outcome of a calculated strategy, where migrants accumulate savings, also known as remittances, and develop skills overseas that can be used in their home country.[181]

Reverse brain drain can occur when scientists, engineers, or other intellectual elites migrate to a less developed country to learn in its universities, perform research, or gain working experience in areas where education and employment opportunities are limited in their home country. These professionals then return to their home country after several years of experience to start a related business, teach in a university, or work for a multi-national in their home country.[182]

A remittance is a transfer of money by a foreign worker to his or her home country. Remittances are playing an increasingly large role in the economies of many countries, contributing to economic growth and to the livelihoods of less prosperous people (though generally not the poorest of the poor). According to World Bank estimates, remittances totaled US$414 billion in 2009, of which US$316 billion went to developing countries that involved 192 million migrant workers.[183] For some individual recipient countries, remittances can be as high as a third of their GDP.[183] As remittance receivers often have a higher propensity to own a bank account, remittances promote access to financial services for the sender and recipient, an essential aspect of leveraging remittances to promote economic development. The top recipients in terms of the share of remittances in GDP included many smaller economies such as Tajikistan (45%), Moldova (38%), andHonduras (25%).[184]

The IOM found more than 200 million migrants around the world in 2008,[185] including illegal immigration.[186][187] Remittance flows to developing countries reached $328 billion in 2008.[188]

A transnational marriage is a marriage between two people from different countries. A variety of special issues arise in marriages between people from different countries, including those related tocitizenship and culture, which add complexity and challenges to these kinds of relationships. In an age of increasing globalization, where a growing number of people have ties to networks of people and places across the globe, rather than to a current geographic location, people are increasingly marrying across national boundaries. Transnational marriage is a by-product of the movement and migration of people.

Support and criticism

Reactions to processes contributing to globalization have varied widely with a history as long as extraterritorial contact and trade. Philosophical differences regarding the costs and benefits of such processes give rise to a broad-range of ideologies and social movements. Proponents of economic growth, expansion and development, in general, view globalizing processes as desirable or necessary to the well-being of human society[189] Antagonists view one or more globalizing processes as detrimental to social well-being on a global or local scale;[189] this includes those who question either the social or natural sustainability of long-term and continuous economic expansion, the social structural inequality caused by these processes, and the colonial, Imperialistic, orhegemonic ethnocentrism, cultural assimilation and cultural appropriation that underlie such processes.

As summarized by Noam Chomsky:

The dominant propaganda systems have appropriated the term "globalization" to refer to the specific version of international economic integration that they favor, which privileges the rights of investors and lenders, those of people being incidental. In accord with this usage, those who favor a different form of international integration, which privileges the rights of human beings, become "anti-globalist." This is simply vulgar propaganda, like the term "anti-Soviet" used by the most disgusting commissars to refer to dissidents. It is not only vulgar, but idiotic. Take the World Social Forum [(WSF)], called "anti-globalization" in the propaganda system – which happens to include the media, the educated classes, etc., with rare exceptions. The WSF is a paradigm example of globalization. It is a gathering of huge numbers of people from all over the world, from just about every corner of life one can think of, apart from the extremely narrow highly privileged elites who meet at the competing World Economic Forum, and are called "pro-globalization" by the propaganda system.[190]

Proponents

In general, corporate businesses, particularly in the area of finance, see globalization as a positive force in the world. Many economists cite statistics that seem to support such positive impact. For example, per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth among post-1980 globalizing countries accelerated from 1.4 percent a year in the 1960s and 2.9 percent a year in the 1970s to 3.5 percent in the 1980s and 5.0 percent in the 1990s. This acceleration in growth seems even more remarkable given that the rich countries saw steady declines in growth from a high of 4.7 percent in the 1960s to 2.2 percent in the 1990s. Also, the non-globalizing developing countries seem to fare worse than the globalizers, with the former's annual growth rates falling from highs of 3.3 percent during the 1970s to only 1.4 percent during the 1990s. This rapid growth among the globalizers is not simply due to the strong performances of China and India in the 1980s and 1990s—18 out of the 24 globalizers experienced increases in growth, many of them quite substantial.[191]

Economic liberalism and free trade

Economic liberals generally argue that higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of free trade in the developed world are ends in themselves, produce higher levels of overall material wealth. Globalization is seen as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism.[192] Jagdish Bhagwati, a former adviser to the U.N. on globalization, holds that, although there are obvious problems with overly rapid development, globalization is a very positive force that lifts countries out of poverty by causing a virtuous economic cycle associated with faster economic growth.[104]Economist Paul Krugman is a another staunch supporter of globalization and free trade with a record of disagreeing with many critics of globalization. He argues that many of them lack a basic understanding of comparative advantage and its importance in today's world.[193]

[edit]Global democracy

Main article: Democratic globalization

Democratic globalization is a movement towards an institutional system of global democracy that would give world citizens a say in political organizations. This would, in their view, bypass nation-states, corporate oligopolies, ideological Non-governmental organizations (NGO), political cults and mafias. One of its most prolific proponents is the British political thinker David Held. Supporters of democratic globalization believe that the economic expansion and development is the first phase of democratic globalization, which should be followed by a phase of building global political institutions. Dr. Francesco Stipo, Director of the United States Association of the Club of Rome, advocates unifying nations under a world government, suggesting that it "should reflect the political and economic balances of world nations. A world confederation would not supersede the authority of the State governments but rather complement it, as both the States and the world authority would have power within their sphere of competence".[194] Former Canadian Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., viewed globalization as inevitable and advocated creating institutions such as a directly elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.[195]

Global multiculturalism

Monument to Multiculturalism by Francesco Perilli in Toronto, Canada. Four identical sculptures are located in Buffalo City, South Africa; Changchun, China;Sarajevo, Bosnia and Sydney, Australia

Main article: Multiculturalism

Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality. A person who adheres to the idea of cosmopolitanism in any of its forms is called a cosmopolitan or cosmopolite.[196] A cosmopolitan community might be based on an inclusive morality, a shared economic relationship, or a political structure that encompasses different nations. In its more positive versions, the cosmopolitan community is one in which individuals from different places (e.g. nation-states) form relationships of mutual respect. As an example, Kwame Anthony Appiah suggests the possibility of a cosmopolitan community in which individuals from varying locations (physical, economic, etc.) enter relationships of mutual respect despite their differing beliefs (religious, political, etc.).[197]

World citizen has a variety of similar meanings, often referring to a person who disapproves of traditional geopolitical divisions derived from nationalcitizenship. An early incarnation of this sentiment can be found in Socrates, who Plutarch quoted as saying: "I am not an Athenian, or a Greek, but a citizen of the world."[198]

Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan popularized the term Global Village beginning in 1962.[199] His view suggested that globalization would lead to a world where people from all countries will become more integrated and aware of common interests and shared humanity.[200]

Critiques

Critiques of globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet as well as the human costs. They challenge directly traditional metrics, such as GDP, and look to other measures, such as the Gini coefficient or the Happy Planet Index,[201][202] and point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences–social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"[203] which they claim are the unintended consequences of globalization.

Differences in national income equality around the world as measured by the national Gini coefficient, 2009

Criticisms have arisen from church groups, national liberation factions, peasant unionists, intellectuals, artists, protectionists, anarchists, those in support of relocalization (e.g., consumption of nearby production) and others. Some have been reformist in nature, (arguing for a more moderate form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (power shift from private to public control) or reactionary (public to private).

Some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as the promotion of corporatist interests.[204] They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political policy of countries.[205][206] They advocate global institutions and policies that they believe better address the moral claims of poor and working classes as well as environmental concerns.[207] Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.[208]

Critics argue that globalization results in:

Poorer countries suffering disadvantages: While it is true that free trade encourages globalization among countries, some countries try to protect their domestic suppliers. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural goods. Larger countries often subsidise their farmers (e.g., the EU's Common Agricultural Policy), which lowers the market price for foreign crops.[209]

The shift to outsourcing: Globalization allowed corporations to move manufacturing and service jobs from high cost locations, creating economic opportunities with the most competitive wages and worker benefits.[64]

Weak labor unions: The surplus in cheap labor coupled with an ever growing number of companies in transition weakened labor unions in high-cost areas. Unions lose their effectiveness and workers their enthusiasm for unions when membership begins to decline.[209]

An increase in exploitation of child labor: Countries with weak protections for children are vulnerable to infestation by rogue companies and criminal gangs who exploit them. Examples include quarrying, salvage, and farm work as well as trafficking, bondage, forced labor, prostitution and pornography.[210]

Helena Norberg-Hodge, the director and founder of ISEC criticizes globalization in many ways. In her book "Ancient Futures," Helena Hodge claimed that "centuries of ecological balance and social harmony are under threat from the pressures of development and globalization." She also criticizes the standardization and rationalization of globalization, as it does not always yield the expected growth outcomes. Although globalization takes similar steps in most countries, scholars such as Hodge claim that it might not be effective to certain countries, for globalization has actually moved some countries backward instead of developing them.[211]

Anti-globalization movement

Main article: Anti-globalization movement

Anti-globalization, or counter-globalisation,[212] consists of a number of criticisms of globalization but, in general, is critical of the globalization of corporate capitalism.[213] The movement is also commonly referred to as the alter-globalization movement, anti-globalist movement, anti-corporate globalization movement,[214] or movement against neoliberal globalization. Although British sociologist Paul Q. Hirst and political economist Grahame F. Thompson note the term is vague;[215] "anti-globalization movement" activities may include attempts to demonstrate sovereignty, practice local democratic decision-making, or restrict the international transfer of people, goods and capitalist ideologies, particularly free market deregulation. Canadian author and social activistNaomi Klein argues that the term could denote either a single social movement or encompass multiple social movements such as nationalism and socialism.[216] Bruce Podobnik, a sociologist at Lewis and Clark College, states that "the vast majority of groups that participate in these protests draw on international networks of support, and they generally call for forms of globalization that enhance democratic representation, human rights, and egalitarianism."[217] Economists Joseph Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton write:

The anti-globalization movement developed in opposition to the perceived negative aspects of globalization. The term 'anti-globalization' is in many ways a misnomer, since the group represents a wide range of interests and issues and many of the people involved in the anti-globalization movement do support closer ties between the various peoples and cultures of the world through, for example, aid, assistance for refugees, and global environmental issues.[218]

In general, opponents of globalization in developed countries are disproportionately middle-class and college-educated. This contrasts sharply with the situation in developing countries, where the anti-globalization movement has been more successful in enlisting a broader group, including millions of workers and farmers.[219]

Opposition to capital market integration

World Bank Protester, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Capital markets have to do with raising and investing moneys in various human enterprises. Increasing integration of these financial markets between countries leads to the emergence of a global capital marketplace or a single world market. In the long run, increased movement of capital between countries tends to favor owners of capital more than any other group; in the short run, owners and workers in specific sectors in capital-exporting countries bear much of the burden of adjusting to increased movement of capital.[220] It is not surprising that these conditions lead to political divisions about whether or not to encourage or increase international capital market integration.

Those opposed to capital market integration on the basis of human rights issues are especially disturbed by the various abuses which they think are perpetuated by global and international institutions that, they say, promote neoliberalism without regard to ethical standards. Common targets include the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) and free trade treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), theMultilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). In light of the economic gap between rich and poor countries, movement adherents claim “free trade” without measures in place to protect the non-capitalized will contribute only to the strengthening the power of industrialized nations (often termed the "North" in opposition to the developing world's "South").

General Assembly meeting of the Occupy movement in Washington Square Park, New York City, USA, on October 8, 2011

Global justice and inequality

The global justice movement describes the loose collection of individuals and groups—often referred to as a “movement of movements”—who advocatefair trade rules and are negative to current institutions of global economic integration.[221] The movement is often labeled an anti-globalization movement by the mainstream media. Those involved, however, frequently deny that they are anti-globalization, insisting that they support the globalization of communication and people and oppose only the global expansion of corporate power.[222] The movement is based in the idea of social justice, which generally refers to creating a society or institution based on the principles of equality and solidarity, the values of human rights, and the dignity of every human being.[223][224][225] Social inequality within and between nations, including a growing global digital divide, is a focal point of the movement.

The global digital divide: Computers per 100 people.

Anti-consumerism

Anti-consumerism refers to the socio-political movement against the equating of personal happiness with consumption and the purchase of material possessions. The term "consumerism" was first used in 1915 to refer to "advocacy of the rights and interests of consumers" (Oxford English Dictionary), but here the term "consumerism" refers to the sense first used in 1960, "emphasis on or preoccupation with the acquisition of consumer goods" (Oxford English Dictionary). Consumerism is a term used to describe the effects of the market economy on the individual. Concern over the treatment of consumers has spawned substantial activism, and the incorporation of consumer education into school curricula. Anti-consumerist activism draws parallels with environmental activism, anti-globalization, and animal-rights activism in its condemnation of modern corporations, or organizations that pursue a solely economic interest. One variation on this topic is activism by postconsumers, with the strategic emphasis on moving beyond addictive consumerism.[4]

In recent years, there have been an increasing number of books (Naomi Klein's 2000 No Logo for example) and films (e.g. The Corporation & Surplus), popularizing an anti-corporate ideology to the public.

Opposition to economic materialism comes primarily from two sources: religion and social activism. Some religions assert materialism interferes with connection between the individual and thedivine, or that it is inherently an immoral lifestyle. Social activists believe materialism is connected to global retail merchandizing and supplier convergence, war, greed, anomie, crime, environmental degradation, and general social malaise and discontent.

Anti-global governance

Since the two world wars, there has been solid opposition to the idea of a world government, as advocated by organizations such as the World Federalist Movement (WFM). Those who oppose global governance do so on objections that the idea is infeasible, inevitably oppressive, or simply unnecessary.[226] In general, these opponents are wary of the concentration of power or wealth that such governance might represent. Religious reasons are also cited, in which global governance is seen as the Biblical Antichrist or a representation thereof (see New World Order (conspiracy theory)). Such reasoning dates back to the founding of the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Environmentalist opposition

Deforestation of the MadagascarHighland Plateau has led to extensivesiltation and unstable flows of westernrivers.

Environmentalism is a broad philosophy, ideology[227][228][229] and social movement regarding concerns for environmental conservation and improvement of the health of the environment, particularly as the measure for this health seeks to incorporate the concerns of non-human elements. Environmentalism advocates the preservation, restoration and/or improvement of the natural environment in an attempt to balance relations between humanity and their broader natural environment. The exact nature of this balance is controversial and there are many different ways for environmental concerns to be expressed in practice. Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green,[230] but this association has been appropriated by the marketing industries and is a key tactic in the art of Greenwashing. Environmentalist concerns with globalization include issues such as global warming, climate change, global water supply and water crises, inequity in energy consumption and energy conservation, transnationalair pollution and pollution of the world ocean, overpopulation, world habitat sustainability, deforestation, biodiversity and species extinction.