Globalization and The world in turmoil

It was around January 2020 that a new virus was raging through China started making headlines. Soon enough, the virus became a global phenomenon. Skeptics started calling this to be a result of a globalized world. The argument is, if we were not so interlinked and the borders were not as porous as they are today, we would not have to bear through this pandemic. The virus triggered conservationist tendencies worldwide, and everyone started raising travel barriers; trade restrictions soon followed owing to fear of the spread of infection. The globalized supply chains that are the backbone of 21st-century product manufacturing were disrupted. The fiscal expansions by governments worldwide exacerbated the inflationary pressures even further. In February 2022, Russia invades Ukraine, triggering various economic sanctions on it by the US and its allies. Many MNCs shut down their services in Russia. All of the above events have made Globalisation stand at crossroads once again. Those believing in the Swadeshi utopia point out the perils of living in a globalized world. Superficially, all these arguments may look logically sound, but looking at them in a nuanced way exposes the flaws, making the point that Globalisation is here to stay.

Arguments & Counter-Arguments

Globalization, to an extent, can be blamed for supply-side disruptions that we saw in the wake of the pandemic. It may sound counter-intuitive, but the fact of the matter is the globalized supply chain was localized or heavily dependent on one country(To be read, China). So prima facie Globalisation was to blame, but the inherent localization hidden behind the facade of the liberalized supply chain was the actual cause of the disruption.

Vaccines, the only weapon currently in our arsenal in our fight against the virus, is a product of Globalisation. Western nations led the research part, APIs needed for vaccines were sourced from China, India did the manufacturing, and we got our vaccines as a result.

There is this argument that the West, in anticipation, that coupling China economically with the rest of the world will make China, a stakeholder in maintaining stability. China did come to the forefront of the global economy and started leveraging its economic prowess to its advantage and redoing the world order. So, in this case, globalization ended up doing the complete opposite of what it was intended to. But this sword of Globalisation works both ways. China does have a greater amount of leverage, but it also, at the same time, imposes limitations as to how far China can push the boundaries. It is evident in how China is voting at the UNSC on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Despite being strategic allies, the Chinese have abstained from voting instead of vetoing or voting in favor of the resolution. Similarly, the Russian coupling with the rest of the world has put limitations on Putin's horizons.

In a way, globalization follows Newton's third law of motion. Just, in this case, the reaction might not be equal to the action but is better than a situation where there is no reaction at all and is sufficient to limit the scale of action in the first place itself.

Image Credits: University of South Australia