By Pascal Lamy
GENEVA, Nov 30 2010 (IPS)

Is globalisation, which is shaping our societies whether we like it or not, a threat to identity? If we were to believe all that we hear, the winds of globalisation are wreaking havoc everywhere, uprooting identities and cultures which for centuries have been shaping human relations, sweeping away all local values and customs, writes Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

This globalisation, often seen as a pervasive homogenizing force that threatens the enormous diversity of identities that contributes so much to the world we live in, appears to be provoking a sudden reassertion of identity as a counter reaction to the perceived domination of one culture over another, depriving us of what makes each one of us unique. In a world where physical boundaries are disappearing, identification with a place or a group becomes the only refuge against the threat of uniformity.

Is the revival of nationalism, the emergence or resurgence of political movements defending national, ethnic or religious identity, not concrete proof of this trend?

But is there really a clash? When it comes to new information technologies, capital movements, the opening up of trade, and the increasingly globalised production chains that go hand in hand with economic globalisation, borders and proximity no longer count. Identity, on the other hand, has its roots in a location, in history, in culture, in values, in a language, or in a belief. Globalisation means movement, perpetual change, while identity means roots. Identity is sedentary while technological progress is nomadic.

(*) Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

//NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN CANADA, CZECH REPUBLIC, IRELAND, POLAND, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM// (END)

Excerpt:

By Pascal Lamy and - -
GENEVA, Nov 23 2010 (IPS)

Is globalisation, which is shaping our societies whether we like it or not, a threat to identity? If we were to believe all that we hear, the winds of globalisation are wreaking havoc everywhere, uprooting identities and cultures which for centuries have been shaping human relations, sweeping away all local values and customs.

According to this view, globalisation is a sort of homogenization that is sapping our strength and causing us to decline. There are plenty of examples to illustrate this widespread view. Thanks to the spectacular development of transportation and new information technologies, our planet has apparently become a village whose inhabitants are developing increasingly similar lifestyles and consumption patterns. In Paris, Brasilia, Shanghai or Montreal, the same restaurant and clothing chains are invading the shopping districts, the same films are flooding the cinemas, and the same music has taken over the radio waves.

This globalisation, often seen as a pervasive homogenizing force that threatens the enormous diversity of identities that contributes so much to the world we live in, appears to be provoking a sudden reassertion of identity as a counter reaction to the perceived domination of one culture over another, depriving us of what makes each one of us unique. In a world where physical boundaries are disappearing, identification with a place or a group becomes the only refuge against the threat of uniformity.

Is the revival of nationalism, the emergence or resurgence of political movements defending national, ethnic or religious identity, not concrete proof of this trend?

The question is a perfectly legitimate one. It is indeed tempting to interpret these events as a “clash of civilizations”, to quote the well known phrase of Samuel Huntington.

But is there really a clash? Do globalisation and identity belong to two diametrically opposed universes? When it comes to new information technologies, capital movements, the opening up of trade, and the increasingly globalised production chains that go hand in hand with economic globalisation, borders and proximity no longer count. Identity, on the other hand, has its roots in a location, in history, in culture, in values, in a language, or in a belief. Globalisation means movement, perpetual change, while identity means roots. Identity is sedentary while technological progress is nomadic.

As I see it, there are three ways of managing the relationship between globalisation and identities.

The first consists of reflecting on global values, the values that guide our actions, whether we live in Ouagadougou or Moscow. These values are of three kinds. First of all, there is “togetherness” which, in connection with governance, means the shared feeling of belonging to a community.

This feeling, generally strong at the local level, tends to weaken significantly as the entity involved expands. How many people today, when asked which country they come from, would answer, like the ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes of Sinope, “I am a citizen of the world”?

There is also “common believing”, involving shared values. This notion, for a long time alien to our societies, emerged with force after World War II. The adoption of the United Nations Charter in 1945 marked the foundation of a system of common values and principles that has been growing in size and strength ever since.

The dissemination of human rights values and of the economic and social rights from which, in my view, they are inseparable, is unquestionably one of the most spectacular successes of globalisation.

Finally, there is the concept of “global civics”, the idea that in an increasingly interdependent world, where the actions of some will inevitably have an impact on the welfare of others when it comes to the environment, for instance, each one of us has a civic responsibility towards everyone else.

The second way to give more weight to the concept of identity involves the negotiation of specific global agreements that allow for the expression of identities. I have in mind, in particular, the 2005 UNESCO Convention on cultural diversity, which is now an integral part of the arsenal of rules governing international relations.

The third way of promoting the expression of identity in a globalised world is to incorporate flexibilities in the rules governing globalisation so as to preserve margins for manoeuvre in specific cases. In this respect the World Trade Organisation, for many the symbol of globalisation, is a good example: the WTO agreements provide for a whole range of flexibilities. The Agreement on Trade in Services, for instance, leaves WTO members considerable leeway. They are free to exclude whatever sectors they choose from the scope of their commitments to open up trade. Thus, the vast majority of members, have chosen not to assume commitments in the cultural services area so as to preserve the room they feel they need to protect and promote what for them constitute a key component of their identity.

Moreover, a number of WTO Members, actively support their cultural industry in the interests of preserving their identity, through minimum “national content” quotas for films, television or radio, and exemptions or subsidies for the audiovisual industries.

These are some of the areas that help us resist the fatalistic attitude that we so often encounter when it comes to the relationship between globalisation and identity.

Globalisation that respects the values, the cultures and the numerous histories that make up the fabric of our world is not a utopia. It is up to each one of us to work towards that goal, to contribute to the development of a “project identity. (END)

(*) Pascal Lamy, Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Excerpt: