Contemporary Module - SemiFinal and Final

ST.
VINCENT’S COLLEGE INCORPORATED

Padre Ramon Street, Estaka, Dipolog City 7100 Philippines
w w w. s v c . e d u. p h | ( 0 6 5 ) 2 1 2 - 6 2 9 2 | | F a x # 9 0 8 - 1 1 3 3 | s v c i _ 1 9 1 7 @ s v c . e d u . p h
____________________________________________________________________
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course introduces

students to the contemporary
world by examining the
multifaceted phenomenon of
globalization. Using the
various disciplines of the
social sciences, it examines
the economic, social,
political, technological, and
other transformations that
have created an increasing
awareness of the
interconnectedness of
peoples and places around
the globe. To this end, the
course provides an overview
of the various debates in
global governance,
development, and
THE sustainability. Beyond

exposing the student to the
world outside the
Philippines, it seeks to
CONTEMPORAR inculcate a sense of global

citizenship and global ethical
responsibility. This course
includes mandatory topics
Y WORLD
on population education in
the context of population
and demography.
MODULE 3 & 4
JUNRIE MARK B. SUMALPONG , MBA, LPT

Email Address: svci.junriemarksumalpong@gmail.com
Contact Number: 0917-124-0871
Lesson 5: Interstate System
In This Lesson
 Define interstate or international system.
 Discuss the history of the interstate or international system.
 Discuss international organizations and the various types of NGOs.
 Differentiate globalism from internationalism.
International System (excerpt) from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

by Ryūhei Hatsuse
An international system] are “groups of independent states held together by a web of

economic and strategic interests and pressures so that they are forced to take account of each
other and those which make a conscious social contract by instituting rules and machinery to
make their relations more orderly and predictable and to further certain shared principles and
values.” – Hedley Ball and Adam Watson – The Expansion of International Society
The Concept of System
In studies of international politics, the conception of “system” has been used mainly in two ways,
international system, and world system(s). First, the term “international system” is a concept for analysis
or description of international politics or relations, but therein lies a sense of prescription for diplomatic
or military action too. Used as an analytical term, it is predicated upon a definite notion of system. But it
is not necessarily so when it is used to describe situations of international relations at a given time.
Second, the term “world system(s)” is a concept with which to analyze or describe mainly politico-
economic global situations, while its implications for political action are derived but only indirectly.
Third, “international system” came to be accepted as an academic term in the late 1950s, soon becoming
fashionable, but more or less obsolete in the late 1990s. “World system(s)” began to be discussed in the
1970s, still maintaining popularity in the academe. Terms such as “international regimes” and “global
governance” seem to have taken the place of “international system” as an academic keyword in the 1990s,
although the latter still holds validity. The new terms are more normative and descriptive than analytic,
having explicit implications for promoting international cooperation.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “system” to be (a) a set or assemblage of things
connected, associated, or interdependent, so as to form a complex unity, or (b) a whole composed of parts
in an orderly arrangement according to some scheme or plan. This is a well-conceived definition, but
when we apply this to these systemic approaches, we find it insufficient. As a basic definition, it is fairly
useful and satisfying, but it is not fully sufficient, in that it does not take into consideration what powers,
military, economic, political or cultural, circulate among the parts so as to connect or disconnect them.
Besides, it greatly matters how deeply a structure exerts influences on its constitutive units. Here the
problem is whether the influences reach just the surface only to change the behavior patterns of the units,
or whether they penetrate deeply enough to transform even the inner structures. Within the framework of
international system, they are assumed to impose restraints on the freedom of action of states, and in
1 | P a g e Prepared by: JUNRIE MARK B. SUMALPONG, MBA, LPT February 28, 2021
terms of world system(s), to change the nature of the units. The conception of system in the former is, so
to speak, mechanical or of the modern Western origin, but that in the latter can be said to be organic, and
of the classical Asian origin.
1.2 International System and Society
While the first part of OED definition is more extensive in usage, the second is limited to such
cases as can be related to a preconceived scheme or plan. When we extrapolate this contrast to
international relations, we reach the argument developed by Hedley Bull in elaborating on the distinction
between international system and society. As to the former, he defines: a system of states (or international
system) is formed when two or more states have sufficient contact between them, and have sufficient
impact on one another’s decisions, to cause them to behave—at least in some measure—as parts of a
whole. This corresponds very well to the first definition of system noted in the above. Turning to
international society, he defines: a society of states (or international society) exists when a group of states,
conscious of certain common interests and common values, form a society, in the sense that they conceive
themselves to be bound by a common set of rules in their relations with one another, and share in the
working of common institutions. Thus he notes that an international society in this sense presupposes an
international system, but an international system may exist that is not an international society. This usage
is quite similar to the second definition of system cited from the OED in the above. His distinction
between the two is more persuasive in the light of the change in international relations since the end of the
Cold War (1989).
The term “international system” in Bull’s sense was very popular among the academics of all
nations during the Cold War period. But it has increasingly lost popularity in the 1990s, the role of which
is beginning to be taken over by such terms as international regimes or global governance, reflective of
formative changes in international society. We see international schemes or plans more activated in the
post-Cold War world than ever before. If we borrow Bull’s concepts, international relations have been
rapidly changing from international system to international society. However, we should not forget that
the notion “international system” still holds some validity, regardless of changes in real politics and
academic fashions, because inter-state relations compose an integral part of the current international
relations. So, to analyze or depict them, we need both the terms of international system and international
society in Bull’s sense. (Hatsuse 2004)
History of the International System

from sparknotes.com
States engage with one another in an environment known as the International System. All states are
considered to be sovereign, and some states are more powerful than others. The system has a number of
informal rules about how things should be done, but these rules are not binding. International relations
have existed as long as states themselves. But the modern international system under which we live today
is only a few centuries old. Significant events have marked the milestones in the development of the
international system.
The Peace of Westphalia (1648)

In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years’ War between Catholic states and
Protestant states in western and central Europe, established our modern international system. It declared
that the sovereign leader of each nation-state could do as she or he wished within its borders and
established the state as the main actor in global politics. From that point forward, the international system
has consisted primarily of relations among nation-states.
Shifting Balances of Power (1600–1800)
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the nation-state emerged as the dominant political unit of the
international system. A series of powerful states dominated Europe, with the great powers rising and
falling. Weaker states often banded together to prevent the dominant power from becoming too strong, a
practice known as preserving the Balance Of Power. Frequent wars and economic competition marked
this era. Some nations—notably France and England—were powerful through most of the modern age,
but some—such as Spain and the Ottoman Empire—shrank in power over time.
Emergence of Nationalism (1800–1945)
The nineteenth century brought two major changes to the international system:
Nationalism emerged as a strong force, allowing nation-states to grow even more powerful.
Italy and Germany became unified countries, which altered the balance of military and economic power
in Europe.
The problems raised by the unification of Germany contributed to World War I (1914–1918). In the
aftermath of the war, the international system changed dramatically again. The major powers of Europe
had suffered greatly, whereas the United States began to come out of its isolation and transform into a
global power. At the same time, the end of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires created a series of
new nations, and the rise of communism in Russia presented problems for other nations. These factors
contributed to the Treaty of Versailles, the rise of Nazism and communism, and World War II (1939–
1945).
New World Orders (1945–Present)
The end of World War II marked a decisive shift in the global system. After the war, only two great world
powers remained: the United States and the Soviet Union. Although some other important states existed,
almost all states were understood within the context of their relations with the two superpowers. This
global system was called Bipolar because the system centered on two great powers.
Since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the nature of the world has changed again.
Only one superpower remains, leading some scholars to label the new international system Unipolar.
Others point to the increasing economic power of some European and Asian states and label the new
system Multipolar. To some extent, both terms are accurate. The United States has the world’s most
powerful military, which supports the unipolar view, but the U.S. economy is not as powerful, relative to
the rest of the world, lending credence to the multipolar view.
Contemporary International Systems
System Number Of Nations Nations With Dates

With Power Power
Unipolar One United States Post-1989
Bipolar Two United States and the 1945–1989
Soviet Union
Multi-Polar Several United States, Pre–World War I

United Kingdom,
France, Russia,
Germany, Italy,
Japan
United States, Post-1989
European Union,
China, India
A Plethora of Politics
Political scientists usually use the terms international politics and global politics synonymously,
but technically the terms have different meanings. International Politics, strictly speaking, refers to
relationships between states. Global Politics, in contrast, refers to relationships among states and other
interest groups, such as global institutions, corporations, and political activists. Comparative Politics
seeks to understand how states work by comparing them to one another. While international relations
studies how states relate to one another, comparative politics compare the internal workings of a state, its
political institutions, its political culture, and the political behavior of its citizens. (sparknotes.com
“International System,” 2018)
International Organizations
An international organization is an organization created either by a treaty or other instrument
governed by international law and possessing its own international legal personality. There are two types
of international organizations:
International Governmental Organizations (IGOs); and
International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs or, more commonly, NGOs).
IGOs are formed when governments make an agreement or band together. Only governments or
nation-states belong to IGOs. On the other hand, INGOs are made up of individuals and are not affiliated
with governments. IGOs and INGOs exist for a variety of reasons, such as controlling the proliferation of
conventional and nuclear weapons, supervising trade, maintaining military alliances, ending world
hunger, and fostering the spread of democracy and peace, etc.
Below are some examples of important international organizations:
Name Type Date Members As Of 2006

Founded
Amnesty International INGO 1961 1.8 million members in 150
countries
European Union (EU) IGO 1992 25 states, including the United
Kingdom, Sweden, and Estonia
International Olympic INGO 1894 115 individuals, who represent the
Committee (IOC) IOC in their home countries
Organization of IGO 1960 11 states, including Venezuela,

Petroleum Exporting Qatar, and Indonesia
Countries (OPEC)
Salvation Army INGO 1878 Runs programs in more than 100

countries; has 3.5 million volunteers
Save the Children INGO 1932 Helps children in poverty around

the world, including the United
States and Nepal
United Nations (UN) IGO 1946 191 states, including Burkina Faso,
Denmark, the Philippines, and
Jamaica
World Bank IGO 1945 Offers loans to more than 100
states, including Cameroon and
Senegal
(sparknotes.com “International Organizations,” 2018)
Types of NGOs
Below is a variety of acronyms to define specific types of NGOs:
INGO: international nongovernmental organization

BINGO: business-oriented nongovernmental organization
RINGO: religious-oriented nongovernmental organization
ENGO: environmental nongovernmental organization
GONGO: government-operated nongovernmental organization
QUANGO: quasi-autonomous nongovernmental organization
Image: Vince Cinches / Greenpeace Philippines
Name___________________________________________________________ Score _________
Subject and Section ________________________________________________Date _________
Research: Globalism vs. Internationalism
Use the Internet to compare and contrast globalism and internationalism.
Globalism Internationalism
Lesson 6: Global Governance
In This Lesson
 Define global governance.
 Explain the relevance of the state/government amid globalization.
 Identify the issues and challenges of global governance in the 21st century.
The World Health Organization defines global governance as “…the way in which global affairs
are managed. As there is no global government, global governance typically involves a range of actors
including states, as well as regional and international organizations. However, a single organization may
nominally be given the lead role on an issue, for example the World Trade Organization in world trade
affairs. Thus global governance is thought to be an international process of consensus-forming which
generates guidelines and agreements that affect national governments and international corporations.
Examples of such consensus would include WHO policies on health issues” (World Health Organization,
2015).
This lesson will discuss global governance and the role of government within the context of
globalization as well as the issues and challenges to effective global governance.
What is Global Governance?

from Global Challenges Foundation
Global governance brings together diverse actors to coordinate collective action at the level of the
planet. The goal of global governance, roughly defined, is to provide global public goods, particularly
peace and security, justice and mediation systems for conflict, functioning markets and unified standards
for trade and industry. One crucial global public good is catastrophic risk management – putting
appropriate mechanisms in place to maximally reduce the likelihood and impact of any event that could
cause the death of 1 billion people across the planet, or damage of equivalent magnitude.
The leading institution in charge of global governance today is the United Nations. It was
founded in 1945, in the wake of the Second World War, as a way to prevent future conflicts on that scale.
The United Nations does not directly bring together the people of the world, but sovereign nation states,
and currently counts 193 members who make recommendations through the UN General Assembly. The
UN’s main mandate is to preserve global security, which it does particularly through the Security
Council. In addition the UN can settle international legal issues through the International Court of Justice,
and implements its key decisions through the Secretariat, led by the Secretary General.
The United Nations has added a range of areas to its core mandate since 1945. It works through a
range of agencies and associated institutions particularly to ensure greater shared prosperity, as a
desirable goal in itself, and as an indirect way to increase global stability. As a key initiative in that
regard, in 2015, the UN articulated the Sustainable Development Goals, creating common goals for the
collective future of the planet.
Beyond the UN, other institutions with a global mandate play an important role in global
governance. Of primary importance are the so-called Bretton Woods institutions: the World Bank and the
IMF, whose function is to regulate the global economy and credit markets. Those institutions are not
without their critics for this very reason, being often blamed for maintaining economic inequality.
Global governance is more generally effected through a range of organizations acting as
intermediary bodies. Those include bodies in charge of regional coordination, such as the EU or ASEAN,
which coordinate the policies of their members in a certain geographical zone. Those also include
strategic or economic initiatives under the leadership of one country – NATO for the US or China’s Belt
and Road Initiative for instance – or more generally coordinating defense or economic integration, such
as APEC or ANZUS. Finally, global governance relies on looser norm-setting forums, such as the G20,
the G7, the World Economic Forum: those do not set up treaties, but offer spaces for gathering,
discussing ideas, aligning policy and setting norms. This last category could be extended to multi-
stakeholder institutions that aim to align global standards, for instance the Internet Engineering Taskforce
(IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
In summary, global governance is essential but fragmented, complex and little understood. In this
context, the key questions raised by the Global Challenges Foundation are, how to reform institutions,
how to develop alternative institutions, and how to use the new possibilities of technology to improve
governance. (Global Challenges Foundation 2020)
Core Principles of Global Governance
Five principles are critical to guiding the reforms of global governance and global rules according
to the United Nations’ Committee for Development Policy to wit:
(i) Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capacities: This principle calls for
recognizing differences among countries in terms of their contribution and historical responsibilities in
generating common problems, as well as divergences in financial and technical capacities, in order to
address shared challenges. This principle also acknowledges the diversity of national circumstances and
policy approaches—a diversity which should be embedded in the architecture of global governance as an
intrinsic feature of the global community, not as an exception to general rules.
(ii) Subsidiarity: Issues ought to be addressed at the lowest level capable of addressing them. This
principle implies that some problems can be handled well and efficiently at the local, national,
subregional and regional levels reducing the number of issues that need to be tackled at the international
and supranational level. Subsidiarity suggests an important role for regional cooperation in addressing
issues of mutual concern.
(iii) Inclusiveness, transparency, accountability: Global governance institutions need to be
representative of, and accountable to, the entire global community, while decision-making procedures
need to be democratic, inclusive and transparent. Robust governance implies mutual accountability,
verified by transparent and credible mechanisms and processes to ensure that agreed commitments and
duties are fulfilled.
(iv) Coherence: Definitions of global rules and processes need to rest on comprehensive
approaches, including the assessment of possible trade-offs, so that actions in different areas will not
undermine or disrupt one another, but instead be mutually reinforcing. Enhanced coherence is also needed
between the international and national spheres of policymaking. This also requires improved coordination
among various stakeholders and enhanced information sharing.
(v) Responsible sovereignty: This principle recognizes that policy cooperation is the best way to
achieve national interests in the global public domain. It also requires Governments and States to be fully
respectful of the sovereignty of other nations so as to fulfil agreed policy outcomes. (The UN Committee
for Development Policy 2014)
The Role of Government
from globalization101.org
As with many issues pertaining to globalization, concerns and hopes about international
investment revolve in many ways around what governments may do. This means both what governments
may do to regulate foreign investment, perhaps to make it less volatile, as well as actions government
may take simply to get out of the way of the market, clearing the existing barriers to capital. In addition,
the role of government refers not only to individual nations, but to international institutions such as the
WTO and the IMF, which serve functions relating to global governance.
Some of the steps these institutions of governance can take to help influence the choices made by
international investors include:
The creation of new infrastructure and other facilities to attract foreign investment. As described
earlier, an array of services can help promote foreign investment in a country, ranging from basic services
such as the provision of electricity and clean water, to fair and effective dispute resolution systems.
The ability of governments to prevent or reduce financial crises also has a great impact on the
growth of capital flows. Steps to address these crises include strengthening banking supervision, requiring
more transparency in international financial transactions, reducing the risk of moral hazard, and ensuring
adequate supervision and regulation of financial markets. The majority view among economists is that
financial sector reform must precede capital account liberalization. Other steps have been suggested to
help limit the volume of volatile short-term capital such as small taxes on foreign exchange transactions.
One prominent advocate of this idea was Nobel Prize winning economist James Tobin. Although many
countries have imposed limits or taxes on capital outflows, another creative way to address volatility was
applied by Chile, which imposed a small transaction fee on capital inflows. This measure served to limit
the amount of short-term investment, but did not create a risk of deep concern to investors, namely, of
having trouble getting their money out of the country at some point in the future.
Working with developing country governments in particular to help establish more stringent labor
and environmental standards to prevent either one from being exploited.
Protecting domestic infant-industries only long enough to allow them to become competitive
internationally. This step remains controversial, but some economists have pointed out that a number of
developing countries—indeed many of the countries that have recorded the highest long-term growth
rates—have done so after resorting to some protection of sectors of domestic industry.
As you can see from this list of policy options, people from almost the entire spectrum of beliefs
about globalization have prescriptions for government policy, even those who advise that governments
need only act to remove market-distorting tariff and regulatory barriers. And this list is by no means
comprehensive.
Ongoing events are leading an increasing number of analysts of globalization to suggest that we
explore the challenges and opportunities of globalization more fully, to better understand its
consequences and learn how to maximize its potential benefits while mitigating its disruptions.
Economic events such as the East Asian financial crisis and more recent incidents such as the
collapse of the Argentinian economy in late 2001 have made many economists argue for improved market
mechanisms, such as regulatory measures and oversight. The fact that different countries encountering
similar problems have received different prescriptions from the international community has also led
many to argue for a more firmly established set of ground rules.
Coordination between governments will be crucial for dealing with the global financial and
economic crisis of 2007-2009. According to UNCTAD, “the challenge is to restore the credibility and
stability of the international and financial system, to provide stimulus to economic growth in order to
prevent the risk of a spiraling depression, to renew a pragmatic commitment to an open economy,
potentially put at risk by rising protectionist tensions, and to encourage investment and innovation”
(United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 2009).
In addition, political events such as the large protests in 1999 at the Seattle WTO meeting or in
2001 at the G8 meeting in Genoa, Italy, have led some political leaders to conclude that certain kinds of
market interventions or regulations are necessary to assist those who are endangered by globalization,
simply to sustain political support for continued liberalization.
Joseph Stiglitz, formerly chief economist of the World Bank and Nobel Prize winner for
economics in 2001, has characterized the globalization of international finance as suffering from “global
governance without global government.” He notes that the nationalization of the U.S. economy, which
began 150 years ago and was analogous in many ways to the process of globalization, was accompanied
by a significant expansion in government oversight and regulation, to help temper crises and provide
accountability.
One surefire prediction about the globalization debate is that much of the discussion will continue
to revolve around appropriate government policies. (SUNY 2017)
Name___________________________________________________________ Score _________
Subject and Section ________________________________________________ Date _________
Activity: Issue/Challenge in Global Governance: A SWOT Analysis
A SWOT analysis is a strategic planning technique used to help a person or organization identify
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to business competition or project planning.
Strengths and weakness are frequently internally-related, while opportunities and threats commonly focus
on the external environment. The name is an acronym for the four parameters the technique examines:
Strengths: characteristics of the business or project that give it an advantage over others.
Weaknesses: characteristics of the business that place the business or project at a disadvantage relative to
others.
Opportunities: elements in the environment that the business or project could exploit to its advantage.
Threats: elements in the environment that could cause trouble for the business or project. (Wikipedia
“SWOT Analysis,” 2019)
Choose one issue/challenge in global governance from the following: rogue state, ethnic
conflict, infectious disease, terrorism, climate change, food and water scarcity, international
migration, human trafficking, drug trafficking, piracy and proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and then use the SWOT analysis template below.
Identified Issue/Challenge in Global Governance: _______________________________________
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Rubric
3 - Full Accomplishment - Students identified an issue/challenge in global governance and
applied the SWOT analysis in a clear and consistent manner.
2 - Substantial Accomplishment - Students identified an issue/challenge in global governance
and applied the SWOT analysis and do so in a somewhat consistent manner.
1 - Little or Partial Accomplishment - Students have difficulty identifying an issue/challenge in
global governance and applied the SWOT analysis consistently.
Unit 3 – A TALE OF TWO WORLDS
There are two lessons which make up this unit: “Global North-South Divide” and “Asian
Regionalism.
The first lesson explains the Global North-South dynamic and critically examines the
issues/challenges currently faced by the Global North and Global South in order to bridge their gap or
divide. The lesson also considers the experiences of Latin American countries particularly the South-
South connection.
The global North refers to developed societies of Europe and North America, which are
characterized by established democracy, wealth, technological advancement, political stability, aging
population, zero population growth and dominance of world trade and politics. The global South
represents mainly agrarian economies in Africa, India, China, Latin America and others that are not as
economically sound and politically stable as their global North counterparts and tend to be characterized
by turmoil, war, conflict, poverty, anarchy and tyranny. In short, the global North is synonymous with
development, while the global South is associated with underdevelopment. (Odeh 2019)
The second lesson tackles Asian regionalism and the driving forces for regional cooperation
among states in general, and in the East Asian region in particular.
Regionalism and globalization are two very different concepts: yet they inevitably work together.
Regionalism is the process through which geographical regions become significant political and/or
economic units serving as the basis for cooperation and possibly identity whereas globalization is the
interconnectedness and interdependence of states, forming a process of international integration arising
from the interchange of world views, products, ideas, and other aspects of culture.
Regionalism is inevitably linked with globalization. While globalization is the increased

interdependence of states, regionalism allows this dependence. Regional economic blocs have tended to
be formed in part because of the impact of globalization on the economic independence of states. As
borders have become porous and economic sovereignty has declined, states have been inclined to work
more closely with other states within the same region. (wordpress.com 2014)
Lesson 7: The Global North-South Divide
In This Lesson
 Define the Global North-South divide.
 Discuss the history of the Global North-South dynamic.
 Critically challenge the accuracy of the Global North–South divide.
 Analyze how a new conception of global relations emerged from the experiences
of Latin American countries particularly the South-South connection.
What is the North-South Divide?

by Benjamin Elisha Sawe
The North-South Divide is a socio-economic and political categorization of countries. The Cold-
War-era generalization places countries in two distinct groups; The North and the South. The North is
comprised of all First World countries and most Second World countries while the South is comprised of
Third World countries. This categorization ignores the geographic position of countries with some
countries in the southern hemisphere such as Australia and New Zealand being labeled as part of the
North.
History
The origin of dividing countries into the North-South Divide arose during the Cold War of the
mid-20th century. During this time, countries were primarily categorized according to their alignment
between the Russian East and the American West. Countries in the East like the Soviet Union and China
which became classified as Second World countries. In the west, the United States and its allies were
labelled as First World countries. This division left out many countries which were poorer than the First
World and Second World countries. The poor countries were eventually labeled as Third World countries.
This categorization was later abandoned after the Second World countries joined the First World
countries. New criteria was established to categorize countries which was named the North-South Divide
where First World countries were known as the North while Third World countries comprised the South.
The Brandt line, a definition from the 1980s dividing the world into the wealthy north and the poor
south.
The North (First World Countries)
The North of the Divide is comprised of countries which have developed economies and account
for over 90% of all manufacturing industries in the world. Although these countries account for only one-
quarter of the total global population, they control 80% of the total income earned around the world. All
the members of the G8 come from the North as well as four permanent members of the UN Security
Council. About 95% of the population in countries in The North have enough basic needs and have access
to functioning education systems. Countries comprising the North include The United States, Canada, all
countries in Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand as well as the developed countries in Asia such as
Japan and South Korea.
The South (Third World Countries)
The South is comprised of countries with developing economies which were initially referred to
as Third World countries during the Cold War. An important characteristic of countries in the South is the
relatively low GDP and the high population. The Third World accounts for only a fifth of the globally
earned income but accounts for over three-quarters of the global population. Another common
characteristic of the countries in the South is the lack of basic amenities. As little as 5% of the population
is able to access basic needs such as food and shelter. The economies of most countries in the South rely
on imports from the North and have low technological penetration. The countries making up the South are
mainly drawn from Africa, South America, and Asia with all African and South American countries being
from the South. The only Asian countries not from the South are Japan and South Korea.
Criticism
The North-South Divide is criticized for being a way of segregating people along economic lines
and is seen as a factor of the widening gap between developed and developing economies. However,
several measures have been put in place to contract the North-South Divide including the lobbying for
international free trade and globalization. The United Nations has been at the forefront in diminishing the
North-South Divide through policies highlighted in its Millennium Development Goals. (Sawe 2017).
Challenges
The accuracy of the North–South divide has been challenged on a number of grounds. Firstly,
differences in the political, economic and demographic make-up of countries tend to complicate the idea
of a monolithic South. Globalization has also challenged the notion of two distinct economic spheres.
Following the liberalization of post-Mao China initiated in 1978, growing regional cooperation between
the national economies of Asia has led to the growing decentralization of the North as the main economic
power. The economic status of the South has also been fractured. As of 2015, all but roughly the bottom
60 nations of the Global South were thought to be gaining on the North in terms of income,
diversification, and participation in the world market. Globalization has largely displaced the North–
South divide as the theoretical underpinning of the development efforts of international institutions such
as the IMF, World Bank, WTO, and various United Nations affiliated agencies, though these groups
differ in their perceptions of the relationship between globalization and inequality. Yet some remain
critical of the accuracy of globalization as a model of the world economy, emphasizing the enduring
centrality of nation-states in world politics and the prominence of regional trade relations. (Wikipedia
“North-South Divide” 2019)
What is South-South cooperation and why does it matter?

from The United Nations' Department of Economic and Social Affairs
his week in Argentina’s capital, Buenos Aires, over one thousand people, including high-level
government delegations and representatives from the private sector and civil society, will gather for the
Second High-level United Nations Conference on South-South Cooperation, or BAPA+40.
The Conference marks the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Conference on Technical
Cooperation Among Developing Countries, which was also held in Buenos Aires.
The central theme of discussion will be how South-South cooperation represents an opportunity
to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the globally-agreed blueprint for peace and
prosperity for people and the planet.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, who will participate in the opening ceremony of the
event, strongly believes in the importance of South-South cooperation to generate both new ideas and
concrete projects and also as a means to enable voices from the Global South to drive innovation and
promote development.
UN News has put together a handy guide to answer some questions regarding this
important meeting.
1. Let’s start with the basics, what is South-South Cooperation?
South-South cooperation refers to the technical cooperation among developing countries in the
Global South. It is a tool used by the states, international organizations, academics, civil society and the
private sector to collaborate and share knowledge, skills and successful initiatives in specific areas such
as agricultural development, human rights, urbanization, health, climate change, etc.
2. What happened in Argentina 40 years ago?

During the 1960s and 1970s, with the global socio-economic climate entangled with Cold War
politics, developing countries began seeking ways to chart the course of their own development;
alternatives to the existing economic and political order.
Technical cooperation among these Southern States started as a pioneering associative effort to
strengthen their diplomatic and international negotiating power through political dialogue.
What is now known as South-South cooperation, derives from the adoption of the Buenos Aires
Plan of Action for Promoting and Implementing Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries
(BAPA) by 138 UN Member States in Argentina, on September 18, 1978.
The plan established a scheme of collaboration among least developed countries, mostly located
in the south of the planet. It also established for the first time a framework for this type of cooperation and
incorporated in its practice the basic principles of relations between sovereign States: respect for
sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs and equality of rights, among others.
The BAPA defined as well a series of new and concrete recommendations aimed at establishing
legal frameworks and financing mechanisms at the national, regional, interregional and global levels.
Technical cooperation was defined in Buenos Aires as “an instrument capable of promoting the
exchange of successful experiences among countries that share similar historical realities and similar
challenges”.
3. But what about North-South cooperation and Triangular cooperation?
The division of “North” and “South” is used to refer to the social, economic and political
differences that exist between developed countries (North) and developing countries (South).
Although most of the high-income countries are indeed located in the northern hemisphere, it
should be noted that the division is not totally faithful to the actual geographical division. A country is
defined as North or South not by location, but depending on certain economic factors and the quality of
life of its population.
North-South cooperation, which is the most traditional type of cooperation, occurs when a
developed country supports economically or with another kind of resources a less favored one, for
example, with financial aid during a natural disaster or a humanitarian crisis.
Triangular cooperation, as the name implies, involves three actors, two from the South and one
from the North. The latter, which can also be an international organization, provides the financial
resources so that the countries of the South can exchange technical assistance on a specific topic.
For example, in what is considered a successful experience, Japan International Cooperation
Agency (JICA) made it possible financially for demining Cambodian experts to travel to Colombia and
exchange their knowledge and experience in that field. Both Cambodia and Colombia had a major issue
with anti-personnel-mines in different moments of their history.
4. What is the importance of South-South cooperation?

“Innovative forms of knowledge exchange, technology transfer, emergency response and
recovery of livelihoods led by the South are transforming lives,” said the Secretary-General in November
2018, during the inauguration of the 10th South-South Development Expo at UN Headquarters in New
York.
“The facts speak for themselves”, António Guterres said. The countries of the South have
contributed to more than half of the world’s growth in recent years; intra-south trade is higher than ever,
accounting for more than a quarter of all world trade; the outflows of foreign direct investment from the
South represent a third of the global flows; and remittances from migrant workers to low and middle-
income countries reached 466 billion dollars last year, which helped lift millions of families out of
poverty.
The UN chief believes that the ambitious and transformational 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development cannot be achieved without the ideas, energy and tremendous ingenuity of the countries of
the Global South.
5. What can South-South cooperation achieve?
Together with political dialogue and financial cooperation, South-South cooperation has
promoted a large number of knowledge and expertise exchanges through programs, projects, and
initiatives that have helped solve specific problems in the countries of the Global South.
Last November, the UN Office for South-South Cooperation published a document gathering
more than 100 successful experiences that have contributed to the development of countries around the
world.
The publication contains examples from all regions of the world that demonstrate the potential
success of South-South cooperation such as Cuba’s support in the fight against Ebola in West Africa;
Mexico’s experience in diversifying corn products to improve health and nutrition in Kenya; the
knowledge of strategies to reduce hunger shared by Colombia to Mesoamerican countries; and the lessons
from Chile to the Caribbean countries on product labeling as a measure to end obesity, among many
others.
6. What is going to happen this week in Argentina?

The Member States will meet again in Buenos Aires for the Second High-Level Conference on
South-South Cooperation, BAPA+40, to review four decades of trends and launch a new strategy in order
to implement the 2030 Agenda.
BAPA+40, provides a unique opportunity to review the lessons learned since 1978, identify new
areas and mechanisms where South-South and Triangular cooperation can add value and have a greater
impact, and commit to building an adequate and systematic follow-up in the framework of the United
Nations system.
For three days, world leaders will meet to discuss a political declaration that is expected to call
for an increase in South-South cooperation, as well as institutional strengthening of reporting and
monitoring systems for this type of partnership.
The event will also feature panel discussions and a pavilion of different countries that will share
successful experiences, demonstrating the effectiveness of this type of cooperation, and the potential of
the ideas of the countries in the Global South. (The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs
2019)
Name__________________________________________________________Score _________
Subject and Section _____________________________________________ Date _________
Essay: “Global Stratification & Poverty” Video Evaluation Chart
Watch Crash Course Sociology #27: Global Stratification & Poverty hosted by Nicole Sweeney
during your free time. Use this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rts_PWIVTU and then
read the instructions below carefully and answer the following questions cogently.
I. Reaction (Check the blank below)
____Very Favorable
____ Favorable
____Unfavorable
____Uncertain
II. Your response to the video in six words:
______________________________________________________________________________
III. In just six words, explain the purpose/theme/aim of the video as you see it.
______________________________________________________________________________
IV. Make a summary of the video in ten words.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
V. In ten words, what are the values you learned from this video?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Rubric
3 - Full Participation - Students wrote their reflection essays about the video in a clear and
consistent manner.
2 - Substantial Participation - Students wrote their reflection essays about the video and do so in
a somewhat consistent manner.
1 - Little or Partial Participation - Students have difficulty writing their reflection essays about
the video consistently.
Name__________________________________________________________Score _________
Subject and Section ______________________________________________Date _________
Essay: “Theories of Global Stratification” Video Evaluation Chart
Watch Crash Course Sociology #28: Theories of Global Stratification hosted by Nicole Sweeney
during your free time. Use this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b350ljkYWrU and then
read the instructions below carefully and answer the following questions cogently.
I. Reaction (Check the blank below)
____Very Favorable
____ Favorable
____Unfavorable
____Uncertain
II. Your response to the video in six words:
______________________________________________________________________________
III. In just six words, explain the purpose/theme/aim of the video as you see it.
______________________________________________________________________________
IV. Make a summary of the video in ten words.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
V. In ten words, what are the values you learned from this video?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Rubric
3 - Full Participation - Students wrote their reflection essays about the video in a clear and
consistent manner.
2 - Substantial Participation - Students wrote their reflection essays about the video and do so in
a somewhat consistent manner.
1 - Little or Partial Participation - Students have difficulty writing their reflection essays about
the video consistently.
Name__________________________________________________________Score _________
Subject and Section ______________________________________________Date _________
Quiz: Essay
Answer each question in exactly 140 words:
(1) In what ways did the global north-south divide?
(2) What way or method do you recommend to resolve the gap/divide between the Global North
and the Global South?
1.
2.
Lesson 8: Asian Regionalism
In This Lesson
 Differentiate between regionalization and globalization.
 Identify the main characteristics of regionalism.
 Understand the driving forces for regional cooperation among states in general, and in the
East Asian region in particular.
Globalization, The New Regionalism and East Asia

from United Nations University Global Seminar '96 Shonan Session
by Björn Hettne
I. The New Regionalism: A Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
Over the last decade, the issue of regionalism has once again "been brought back in", albeit in a
different form compared to the debate on regional integration some three decades ago. Thus, I shall argue
that we are dealing with a "new" regionalism. I shall also argue that this regionalism can be seen as a
response to the process of globalization and the social eruptions associated with this process. The second
part of the paper applies the framework to the case of East Asia.
Globalism versus Regionalism

Globalism can be defined as programmatic globalization, the vision of a borderless world. I see
globalization as a qualitatively new phenomenon. If globalization implies a tendency towards a global
social system, its origins may be traced far back in history, but one could also argue that the process
reached a new stage in the post-Second World War era. The subjective sense of geographical distance is
dramatically changed, some even speak of "the end of geography". Also in ecological terms, the world is
experienced as one. Economic interdependence was made possible by the political stability of the
American world order, which lasted from the end of the Second World War until the late '60s or early
'70s. Basically, globalization indicates a qualitative deepening of the internationalization process,
strengthening the functional and weakening of the territorial dimension of development.
Globalism thus implies the growth of a world market, increasingly penetrating and dominating
the "national" economies, which in the process are bound to lose some of their "nationness". This means
the dominance of the world market over structures of local production, as well as the increasing
prevalence of Western-type consumerism. From this, there may emerge a political will to halt or to
reverse the process of globalization, in order to safeguard some degree of territorial control and cultural
diversity. One way of achieving such a change could be through the New Regionalism.
The two processes of globalization and regionalization are articulated within the same larger
process of global structural transformation, the outcome of which depends on a dialectical rather than
linear development. It can therefore not be readily extrapolated or easily foreseen. But rather it expresses
the relative strength of contending social forces involved in the two processes. They deeply affect the
stability of the Westphalian state system; and therefore they at the same time contribute to both disorder
and, possibly, a future world order.
There is an intricate relationship between regionalization and globalization. Compared to
"regionalism", with an impressive theoretical tradition behind it, "globalism" is a more recent concept in
social science. Whether its consequences are seen as catastrophic or as the ultimate unification of the
world, the concept of globalization is often used in a rather loose and ideological sense.
However, there are also many definitions of the new regionalism, and, just as is the case with
globalization, some are enthusiastic, some more alarmist. For the critics, the regionalist trend constitutes a
threat to the multilateral system. For the enthusiasts, on the other hand, the new regionalism could form
the basis for an improved multilateral system. The basic problem with globalization is its selectiveness.
Exclusion is inherent in the process, and the benefits are evenly balanced by misery, conflict, and
violence. The negative effects are incompatible with the survival of civil society, and thus in the longer
run a threat to all humanity.
The New Face of Regionalism
What do I mean by the new regionalism? The new regionalism differs from the "old" regionalism
in a number of ways, and I want to emphasize the following five contrasts:
1. Whereas the old regionalism was formed in a bipolar Cold War context, the new is taking
shape in a multipolar world order. The new regionalism and multipolarity are, in fact, two sides of the
same coin. The decline of US hegemony and the breakdown of the Communist subsystem created a room-
for-maneuver, in which the new regionalism could develop. It would never have been compatible with the
Cold War system since the "quasi-regions" of that system tended to reproduce bipolarity within
themselves. This old pattern of hegemonic regionalism was, of course, most evident in Europe before
1989, but at the height of the Cold War discernible in all world regions. There are still remnants of it here
in East Asia.
2. Whereas the old regionalism was created "from above" (often through superpower
intervention), the new is a more spontaneous process from within the regions, where the constituent states
now experience the need for cooperation in order to tackle new global challenges. Regionalism is thus
one way of coping with global transformation since most states lack the capacity and the means to
manage such a task on the "national" level.
3. Whereas the old regionalism was inward-oriented and protectionist in economic terms, the new
is often described as "open", and thus compatible with an interdependent world economy. However, the
idea of a certain degree of preferential treatment of countries within the region is implied in the idea of
open regionalism. How this somewhat contradictory balance between the principle of multilateralism and
the more particularistic regionalist concerns shall be maintained remains somewhat unclear. I would
rather stress the ambiguity between "opened" and "closed" regionalism.
4. Whereas the old regionalism was specific with regard to its objectives (some organizations
being security-oriented, others economically oriented), the new is a more comprehensive,
multidimensional process. This process includes not only trade and economic development but also
environment, social policy, and security, just to mention some imperatives pushing countries and
communities towards cooperation within new types of regionalist frameworks.
5. Whereas the old regionalism was concerned only with relations between nation-states, the new forms
part of a global structural transformation in which non-state actors (many different types of institutions,
organizations, and movements) are also active and operating at several levels of the global system.
In sum, the new regionalism includes economic, political, social and cultural aspects, and goes far
beyond free trade. Rather, the political ambition of establishing regional coherence and regional identity
seems to be of primary importance. The new regionalism is linked to globalization and can therefore not
be understood merely from the point of view of the single region. Rather it should be defined as a world
order concept, since any particular process of regionalization in any part of the world has systemic
repercussions on other regions, thus shaping the way in which the new world order is being organized.
The new global power structure will thus be defined by the world regions, but regions of different types.
Core and Periphery
A rough distinction can be made between three structurally different types of regions: core
regions, peripheral regions and, between them, intermediate regions. How do they differ from each other?
The core regions are politically stable and economically dynamic. They organize for the sake of
being better able to control the rest of the world, the world outside their own region.
The intermediate regions are closely linked to the core regions. They will be incorporated as soon
as they conform to the criterion of "core-ness", that is, economic development and political stability.
The peripheral regions, in contrast, are politically turbulent and economically stagnant.
Consequently, they must organize in order to arrest a process of marginalization. Their regional
arrangements are at the same time fragile and ineffective. Their overall situation makes "security
regionalism" and "developmental regionalism" more important than the creation of free trade regimes.
They are necessarily more introverted.
The core regions are those regions which are politically capable, no matter whether such
capability is expressed in the form of a political organization or not. So far only one of the three core
regions, namely Europe, aspires to build such an organization. The other two, that is North America and
East Asia, are both economically strong, but so far they lack a regional political order.
Structurally close to the core are the intermediate regions, all in preparation for being
incorporated in the core, the speed depending on their good, "core-like", behavior. They are:
Central Europe, obediently waiting first in line for membership in the European Union, Latin
America and the Caribbean, in the process of becoming "North Americanized", China, South-East Asia,
and the "European Pacific", or Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), all now being drawn by Japanese
capital into the East Asia economic space.
Remaining in the periphery are thus the following five regions: the post-Soviet area, the major
parts of it now in the process of being reintegrated in the form of Commonwealth of Independent States
(perhaps laying the ground for a future core region), the Balkans, where the countries have lost whatever
little tradition of cooperation they once might have been involved in, the Middle East, a region defined
from outside and with a most unsettled regional structure, South Asia, with a very low level of
"regionness", because of the "cold war" (sometimes getting hot) between the two major powers, India and
Pakistan, and finally, Africa, wherein many countries the political structures called "states" are falling
apart.
Levels of Regionness
Thus, the peripheral regions are "peripheral" because they are stagnant, turbulent and war-prone.
The only way for these regions to become less peripheral is to become more regionalized, i.e. to increase
their levels of "regionness". Otherwise, their only power resource would rest in their capacity to create
problems for the core regions ("chaos power"), and thereby inviting some sort of external engagement.
What shall we then understand by "regionness"? It means that a region can be a region more or less.
There are five degrees of "regionness":
1. Region as a geographical unit, delimited by more or less natural physical barriers and marked
by ecological characteristics: "Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals", "Africa South of the Sahara" or
"the Indian subcontinent". This first level can be referred to as a "proto-region", or a "pre-regional zone",
since there is no organized society. In order to further regionalize, this particular territory must,
necessarily, be inhabited by human beings, maintaining some kind of relationship. This brings us to the
social dimension.
2. Region as social system implies trans-local relations between human groups. These relations
constitute a security complex, in which the constituent units, as far as their own security is concerned, are
dependent on each other, as well as the overall stability of the regional system. Thus the social relations
may very well be hostile. The region, just like the international system of which it forms a part, can,
therefore, be described as anarchic. The classic case of such a regional order is 19th century Europe. At
this low level of organization, a balance of power or some kind of "concert", is the sole security
guarantee. This is a rather primitive security mechanism. We could, therefore, talk of a "primitive" region.
3. Region as organized cooperation in any of the cultural, economic, political or military fields. In
this case, region is defined by the list of countries which are the formal members of the regional
organization in question. In the absence of some kind of organized cooperation, the concept of
regionalism does not make much sense. This more organized region could be called the "formal" region.
It should be possible to relate the "formal region" (defined by organizational membership) to the "real
region" (which has to be defined in terms of potentialities and through less precise criteria) in order to
assess the relevance and future potential of a particular regional organization.
4. Region as civil society takes shape when the organizational framework facilitates and promotes
social communication and convergence of values throughout the region. Of course, the pre-existence of a
shared cultural tradition in a particular region is of crucial importance here, but culture is not only a given
but continuously created and recreated. However, the defining element here is the multidimensional and
voluntary quality of regional cooperation and the societal characteristics indicating an emerging "regional
anarchic society", that is something more than anarchy, but less than society.
5. Region as acting subject with a distinct identity, actor capability, legitimacy and structure of
decision-making. Crucial areas for regional intervention are conflict resolution (between and particularly
within former "states") and the creation of welfare (in terms of social security and regional balance). This
process is similar to state formation and nation-building, and the ultimate outcome could be a "region-
state", which in terms of scope can be compared to the classical empires, but in terms of political order
constitutes a voluntary evolution of a group of formerly sovereign national, political units into a
supranational security community, where sovereignty is pooled for the best of all.
The five levels may express a certain evolutionary logic, but the idea is not to suggest a stage
theory but to provide a framework for comparative analysis. Since regionalism is a political project it
may, just like a nation-state project, fail. This, similarly, means peripheralization and decreasing
regionness for the region concerned. Changes in terms of regionness thus imply changes of the structural
position in the center-periphery order.
The Dynamics of Regionalization
The degree of "regionness" of particular areas can increase or decrease depending on regional
dynamics, in which global, as well as national/local forces of course, have an impact.
Regionalization affects and is affected by many levels of the world system: the system as a
whole, the level of interregional relations, and the internal structure of the single region. It is not possible
to state which of these levels comes first or which is the more important since changes on the various
levels interact. There are also different dimensions of the process relating to each other.
Regional integration was traditionally seen as a harmonization of trade policies leading to deeper
economic integration, with political integration as a possible future result. The concept "new regionalism"
refers to a transformation of a particular region from relative heterogeneity to increased homogeneity with
regard to a number of dimensions, the most important being culture, security, economic policies, and
political regimes. The convergence along these four dimensions may be a natural process or politically
steered or, most likely, a mixture of the two. A certain level of "sameness" is a necessary but not
sufficient condition.
Culture takes a long time to change. Of importance here is rather the inherently shared culture
which usually is transnational, since national borders in many cases are artificial divisions of a larger
cultural area.
A transformation of the security regime (from security complex towards security community) is
perhaps the most crucial factor.
Changes in political regimes today typically mean democratization.
Changes in economic policies nowadays normally go in the direction of economic openness.
The dynamics of regionalization thus constitute the interaction between these dimensions and
can, furthermore, be found at different levels of world society:
On the global level, the changing structure of the world system provides room-for-maneuver for
the regional actors, at the same time as the process of regionalization in itself constitutes a structural
change towards multipolarity.
On the level of interregional relations the behavior of one region affects the behavior of others.
European regionalism is, for instance, the trigger of global regionalization, at least in two different ways:
one positive (in promoting regionalism by providing a model) the other negative (in provoking
regionalism by constituting a protectionist threat).
The regions themselves constitute arenas for sometimes competing, sometimes converging
"national interests". If the overall trend within a particular geographical area is a convergence of interests,
we can speak of an emerging regional actor.
The actual process of regionalization is triggered by events on the sub-national level as well. One
example is the "black hole" syndrome or the disintegration of nation-states due to ethnonational
mobilization. A less violent form of national disintegration is the emergence of economic micro-regions
as the geopolitical environment creates a more direct access to the macro economy for dynamic sub-
national regions.
Although the region is slowly becoming an actor in its own terms, the nation-states typically still
conceive it as an arena where so-called "national interests" could be promoted, and these interests are, of
course, differently conceived by different social groups in society. Whereas certain groups may find it
rewarding to move into the supranational space, others cling to the national space where they have their
vested interests to protect. Regionalization thus creates its own counterforces.
The Crucial Role of State Behavior

Regionalization does not come about unless the states in a particular region want it. It may come
about through a more or less spontaneous or unintended convergence in terms of political regime,
economic policy or security, but often one can identify a triggering political event which sets the process
in motion. Naturally, this political event is related to the main players in the region, the policymakers, in
contradistinction to policy takers, the smaller players. In order to understand the regionalization in various
areas of the world, it is thus wise to observe the behavior of the policymakers.
We can divide the policymakers into two categories, those whose influence goes beyond a
particular region, the world powers, and those whose influence is confined to a particular region, the
regional powers.
World powers may not be able to achieve hegemony on the world level, which, since the range of
their influence is undefined and varying, means that there will be a certain competition among them.
The regional powers may be hegemonic in their own regions (which implies a general acceptance
or at least tolerance of their leadership throughout the region) or simply dominant (which means that they
are looked upon with suspicion and fear among the minor players).
The policy takers can be further subdivided into:
those who are supportive of the regionalization process (sometimes the smaller players are the
main proponents), the "supporters",
those who try to find their own path or, rather, several paths (since they would be welcome into
more than one regional organization), "the multi-trackers",
and those who are left in the cold (since they are seen as liabilities rather than assets), "the
isolated".
In some cases regionalism grows from extended bilateral relations, for instance in the Americas,
where both Nafta and Mercosur resulted from a situation where third parties (Canada and Uruguay)
became anxious not to be left in the cold. The regional powers (in these cases the USA and Brazil)
usually prefer bilateralism to regionalism. This is also the case in South Asia, where the small players
softly imposed regionalism on the regional power. India was always more in favor of bilateralism. The
same behavior seems to be repeated by China in East Asia.
The change from bilateralism to regionalism is thus one crucial indicator of increasing regionness
of a region, but as here defined, increasing regionness can also result from overlapping bilateral
agreements within a region, since such agreements imply policy convergences in various fields. It is
therefore important to take the point of departure in the geographical area as such, and not from the
formal regional agreements.
The Impact of Regionalization
The final issue I want to discuss here concerns the consequences of regionalization in terms of
security and development. What are, first, the security problems to which regionalization may provide a
solution? They can be summarized in the metaphor of "black holes", or what in UN terminology is
referred to as "failed states". National disintegration seems to reinforce the process of regionalization via
threats to regional security, provoking some kind of reaction on the regional level. It may even form part
of the process of regionalization, since the enlargement of political space provides opportunities for
different sub-national and micro-regional forces, previously locked into state structures, to reassert
themselves.
The collapse of political authority at one level of society tends to open up a previously latent
power struggle at lower levels, and in a complex multi-ethnic polity the process of disintegration may go
on almost indefinitely. However, sooner or later there must be some reorganization of social power and
political authority on a higher level of societal organization, most probably the region.
This is likely to be preceded by some form of external intervention with the purpose of reversing
the disintegration process. Again the region may play a role, but there are also other, and so far more
important, actors. A distinction can be made between five different modes of external intervention:
unilateral, bilateral, plurilateral, regional and multilateral.
The unilateral can either be carried out by a concerned neighbor trying to avoid a wave of
refugees or by a regional/superpower having strategic interests in the region.
In the bilateral case, there is some kind of (more or less voluntary) agreement between the
intervener and the country in which the intervention is made.
The plurilateral variety can be an ad hoc group of countries or some more permanent form of
alliance.
The regional intervention is carried out by a regional organization and thus has a territorial
orientation.
The multilateral, finally, normally means a UN-led or at least UN-sanctioned operation.
These distinctions are not very clear-cut, and in real-world situations several actors at different
levels may be involved, the number increasing with the complexity of the conflict itself. However, it is
my belief that future external interventions will be a combination of regional and multilateral operations,
but with an increasingly important role for the former. The record of regional intervention in domestic
conflicts and regional conflict resolution is a recent one and therefore the empirical basis for making an
assessment is weak. However, in almost all world regions there have been attempts at conflict resolution
with a more or less significant element of regional intervention, often in combination with multilateralism
(UN involvement). Perhaps the future world order can be characterized as regional multilateralism?
Secondly, the new regionalism may provide solutions to development problems, which in fact can
be seen as a form of conflict prevention, since many of the internal conflicts are rooted in development
problems of different kinds. Under the old regionalism, free trade arrangements reproduced center-
periphery tensions within the regions, which made regional organizations either disintegrate or fall into
slumber. Let me propose the following seven arguments in favor of a more comprehensive development
regionalism:
Although the question of size of national territory might be of lesser importance in a highly
interdependent world, regional cooperation is nevertheless imperative, particularly in the case of
microstates, which either have to cooperate to solve common problems or become client states of the
"core countries" (the "sufficient size" argument);
Self-reliance, rarely viable on the national level, may yet be a feasible development strategy at the
regional, if defined as coordination of production, improvement of infrastructure and making use of
complementarities (the "viable economy" argument);
Economic policies may remain more stable and consistent if underpinned by regional
arrangements which cannot be broken by a participant country without provoking some kind of sanctions
from the others (the "credibility" argument);
Collective bargaining on the level of the region could improve the economic position of
marginalized countries in the world system, or protect the structural position and market access of
emerging export countries (the "effective articulation" argument);
Regionalism can reinforce societal viability by including social security issues and an element of
redistribution (by regional funds or specialized banks) in the regionalist project (the "social stability"
argument);
Ecological and political borders rarely coincide. Few serious environmental problems can be
solved within the framework of the nation-state. Some problems are bilateral, some are global, quite a few
are regional, the latter often related to water: coastal waters, rivers, and groundwater. The fact that
regional management programs exist and persist, in spite of nationalist rivalries, shows the imperative
need for environmental cooperation (the "resource management" argument);
Regional conflict resolution, if successful and durable, eliminates distorted investment patterns,
since the "security fund" (military expenditures) can be tapped for more productive use (the "peace
dividend" argument).
In sum, development regionalism contains the traditional arguments for regional cooperation such
as territorial size and economies of scale, but, more significantly, add some which are expressing new
concerns and uncertainties in the current transformation of the world order and world economy.
During the Cold War, a common argument (the "common security" approach) against nuclear
armament was that the destructive capacity of the military establishments was excessive and therefore
irrational and that whatever reduction of the level of armament that could be negotiated might be used for
civil (development) purposes. Some regions, such as East Asia and Europe (and within these regions
Japan and West Germany in particular) were seen as "free riders" of the security order since they could
devote more resources to investment and economic growth.
In the post-Cold War order, these regions have been encouraged to take a larger responsibility for
their own security. At the same time, the removal of the Cold War "overlay" permitted latent conflicts to
re-emerge, giving rise to costly (conventional) armaments races. The security situations differ from region
to region, with vacuum problems in East Asia and Europe, eruptions of older conflicts in South Asia and
the Middle East, breakdowns of political order leading to "tribalism" in Africa and the Balkans. The only
region experiencing relative peace is Latin America, which now may be said to have a comparative
advantage in peace and political stability. The peace in East Asia seems less stable, but in view of the
high degree of economic independence, the states have a high stake in regional security. Here the circle is
closed: regional cooperation for development reduces the level of conflict and the peace dividend
facilitates further development cooperation. This positive circle can also be turned into a vicious circle,
where conflict and underdevelopment feed on each other. Security and development form one integrated
complex, at the same time as they constitute two fundamental imperatives for regional cooperation and
increasing regionness. The levels of regionness between regions in the process of being formed will
continue to be uneven. Only the future will decide where these levels will be, and where the balance
between regionalization and globalization will be struck. However, political will and political action will
certainly play their part in breaking the vicious circle of regional conflict, insecurity, and
underdevelopment.
II. Regionalism in "the Pacific Age"
Asia-Pacific is becoming the new center of global capitalism. It can also be seen as an emerging
trade bloc under the leadership of Japan, its distinctness depending on the relative degrees of cooperation
and conflict among competing capitalisms: North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. It contains several
potential regional formations, the shapes of which, due to unresolved security dilemmas, are still
uncertain. It is thus not so easy to tell what is intraregional and interregional in the case of Asia-Pacific.
So far the three regions within the Asia-Pacific area show a low degree of regionness. East Asia lacks any
kind of formal regionalist framework. South-East Asia earlier contained two regional formations: the now
more or less post-Communist Indo-China and the previously anti-Communist ASEAN grouping. The
political rationales for these formations have thus completely changed, much like in Europe, and there are
new possible alignments. The "European Pacific" (Australia and New Zealand) may turn Euro-Asian, but
they may also be seen as regional great powers in a fourth "region" of Pacific microstates: the South
Pacific. In the sections below we first describe the historical heterogeneity of the Pacific region, secondly
experiences of regional conflict and conflict resolution, and thirdly integrative forces that nevertheless
exist.
Pacific Regions and Regional Identity
In the first section of this chapter, an argument was made that regionalization is a worldwide
process forming a part of global transformation. A crucial issue is thus what regional formations can be
found in this particular geographical area, and what, if any, shared cultural basis there is to form a
regional identity. The Asia-Pacific area, which in itself hardly constitutes a region except in a purely
geographical sense, contains three more distinct regional formations: East Asia, South-East Asia, and
Australia/New Zealand, which, although physically distant from Europe, have cultural European origins.
Under the impact of successive immigrations, this heritage is becoming less distinct and economically the
region is becoming part of Asia. Sixty-five percent of the Asia-Pacific trade is now intraregional
(compared to 62% in the EC). Also, the embryonic security network (ASEAN Regional Forum) is
extended throughout the Asia-Pacific area. The Pacific also includes the South Pacific islands of
Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia, and reaches parts of the USA and Latin America. Although not
seen as "Asian" (being far away from the Asian continent), the South Pacific is also becoming part of the
East Asian economic space. Thus regionalism can be discussed in terms of maximalist and minimalist
regionalist options (Öjendal 1996a).
East Asia is the most dynamic of the world regions, containing a hegemonic contender (Japan),
an enormous "domestic" market (China), three NICs (South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong) and a
socialist autarky (North Korea), in the midst of major changes which may fundamentally alter the pattern
of cooperation within the region. A reunification of Korea, a democratization of China and a more
independent Japanese role would release an enormous potential. These changes are admittedly not
imminent, but on the other hand quite feasible. At present, the East Asian region is a region largely in the
geographical, economic and perhaps cultural (Confucian-Buddhist) sense of the concept, while a regional
security order is missing. Previous experiences of "regionalism" have been rather imperialistic. The
degree of "regionness" is thus low in spite of the fact that unplanned economic integration is now taking
place due to the dominance of the yen. Regional integration thus takes place without much formal
institutionalization (Palmer 1991, p. 5). The end of the Cold War opened up new possibilities for inter-
subregional contacts, widening the potential regional cooperation. The Confucian model provides a
dominant pattern of social and political organization, which now frequently is hailed as a cultural
alternative to Westernization (Herald Tribune, 13 July 1992). Many countries are facing internal basic
policy options which will have a crucial impact on further regionalization and future regional
configurations.
Perhaps the most complex issue in the region is the future role of Japan. Will it remain number
two in Pax Americana or take a more independent global or regional role? The latter, and perhaps more
likely option, would imply the accumulation of military strength and a break with the introverted
Japanese world view. It also implies reversing the process of "de-Asianization" begun in the 19th century.
The former course presupposes that the US itself does not turn to isolationism, which would create great
confusion as far as Japan is concerned (Tamamoto 1990). References to "global partnership" cannot hide
the fact that the old security order is defunct, due to the disappearance of the main threat, against which
the order was built, and the emergence of new threats which may necessitate new approaches. There is, as
yet, no national consensus in Japan regarding her proper role in the world. The erosion of the hegemonic
position of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) implies that different options will be more politically
articulated and possibly that future lines of action will be based on a changing pattern of political
alliances. The pressure on Japan from outside also increases, due to the regionalist and protectionist trend
in the world economy.
Japan, not a great practitioner of but increasingly dependent on free trade, has so far been rather
negative or at least neutral to the idea of regionalism. It would, if regionalization were to be the main
trend, appear as a regional power in more than one sense, which is bound to create suspicions throughout
the region. Some countries have the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere in vivid memory, and even
today the Japanese attitude towards Asia is not free from arrogance. As in the case of Germany in the
EC/EU, a comprehensive regional framework would help protect Japan against itself, an Asianized Japan
rather than a Japanized Asia. Japan has, however, a rather weak identity as an Asian power, and the
prospect of "re-Asianization" does not seem to be very popular. At the moment, Japan has "a regional
policy for Asia but not a policy of regionalism" (FEER, 18 June 1992). The latter would necessitate that
Japan acted more like a powerful nation-state, less like an international trading firm (Pyle 1993).
Much will, of course, depend on the future behavior of China in the region. China will continue
the long road towards a more open economy in spite of the temporary isolation which followed in the
wake of the Tiananmen Square incident. China's self-reliance-oriented economy built in the Cold War
context is in need of transformation, which (as in the case of Viet Nam) implies a change in the domestic
balance of power away from Beijing and towards the south, where foreign investments flow. Guangdong
Province is forging links with Hong Kong, Fujian with Taiwan, Japan invests primarily in the Shanghai
area, and South Korea in Shandong Province. China as a centralized empire is probably doomed, but its
eventual dissolution could hopefully be less turbulent than the dissolution of the Soviet empire proved to
be.
Regional Conflict Management
Asia-Pacific is a Cold War-era par preference. This means that previous conflicts have had a
strong element of external superpower intervention in accordance with the Cold War pattern. This
situation is now changing quite dramatically, and more traditional rivalries are resurging, more similar to
a 19th-century Europe-type situation. The larger Asia-Pacific "region" (or rather geographical area) was
most affected by the Cold War, and the recent lifting of the superpower overlay, therefore, has created a
kind of vacuum and a great uncertainty in the security field. Several powers (great powers and middle
powers) have more or less open regional ambitions, which must be related to turbulent and highly
unpredictable domestic situations in the countries concerned. Regarding the China-Japan relation, Barry
Buzan has made an interesting comparison with the role of restless Germany, now played by China, in
19th century Europe, whereas the British role as the global power fully satisfied with the status quo is
played by Japan (Buzan 1996). The avoidance of a replay of this drama is obviously necessary for
regional peace. Korean unification is another key to real regional cooperation. Considering the economic
superiority of South Korea and the political lag in North Korea, such a reunion may take different forms:
war, a spontaneous process of the German type (an "Anschluss") or a more organized path through
preparatory negotiations. Regional conflict management is thus an important step towards further
regionalization. At the same time the overall regional framework for conflict resolution is weak, hardly
existing in East Asia, and so far confined to one of the two subregions in South-East Asia.
Stable peace in the larger region would change the basic parameters for the way ASEAN operates
at present. As the superpowers pull out, old rivalries are emerging, at the same time as the objective
preconditions for a cooperation encompassing the whole region in the longer run are improving. This
trend will be reinforced by great power ambitions in the larger Asia-Pacific area, where South-East Asia
is sandwiched between East Asian (China, Japan) and South Asian (India) regional powers. There is a
strong feeling of encirclement and external penetration in the South-East Asian region, coexisting with a
tradition of reliance on external security support. Somehow this contradiction must be overcome.
The Cambodian conflict has been of major concern for the ASEAN countries and has been
compared to a "Bosnia" in the region (FEER, 27 May 1993). The history goes much further back, actually
to the Viet Nam war. The ultra-leftist Khmer Rouge regime pursued an extreme autarkic line which
included the physical elimination of urban ("cosmopolitan") elements. The first intervention was of the
unilateral (neighborly) kind. The Vietnamese intervention led to a sharp polarization both at the regional
and the global level. In 1991, when the Soviet veto had disappeared from international decision-making,
an agreement in the Security Council (permanent five) on the "framework for a comprehensive settlement
of the Cambodia conflict" was reached and the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia
(UNTAC) was created. This, the largest UN operation so far, was the beginning of the peace process and
included a democratic election. The non-participation of the Khmer Rouge in the elections fueled the
fears that the guerrillas planned a division of the country. However, their political strength was much less
than generally expected. They had become "rebels without a cause" (Theyer 1995). The turnout of the
voters, on the other hand, was much larger than expected and was a triumph for the UN. The operation
gave an opportunity for Japan to participate in a large international operation, probably indicating a more
far-going security interest in the region. For Cambodia, several question marks remain, above all the
question of how the Khmer Rouge may rejoin the national community and on what conditions. Only
when this problem has found a solution, is it possible to talk about real conflict resolution. So far this is
rather a case of multilateral conflict management with a strong regional component. Cambodia has
strongly declared its intention to become a member of ASEAN, and this co-optation (which can be
compared to the inclusion of Greece, Spain, and Portugal in the EEC) is also seen by the regional
organization as a stabilizing measure. Whether this implies the survival of democracy (particularly of the
kind imposed by the UN) remains to be seen (Öjendal 1996b).
Towards Regional Cohesion?
East Asia and South-East Asia are, due to economic linkages, becoming hard to separate from
each other, and will be even more converging in the future, as countries such as Malaysia and Thailand
(apart from Singapore, which is already known as a NIC) are more or less successfully trying to apply the
NIC strategy. Thus, the Asian core of the Pacific rim, east, and south-east, will probably follow its own
economic course.
South-East Asia, like Europe, has been divided into two economic and political blocs: ASEAN
(Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Brunei) which has existed since 1967,
and the "Indochinese" area (Viet Nam, Kampuchea and Laos). The latter subregion has been under
Communist rule, with Viet Nam exercising subregional hegemony. This role is now played down at the
same time as market-oriented economic policies (doimoi) are implemented. Viet Nam, and behind it the
Soviet Union, was earlier seen as a threat by the ASEAN countries. This threat was a crucial factor
behind the relative cohesiveness of the organization in the Cold War era. The source of common cause
and identity was thus partly an external threat, and there were few incentives for economic cooperation.
Only recently (January 1993) a free trade agreement, AFTA, within the 330-million-people ASEAN
region was agreed to be realized within a fifteen-year period. The planned tariff slopes of the different
countries differ according to starting point and speed, which complicates the competitive situation in the
intraregional trade of the constituent countries. The more protectionist countries will probably use AFTA
to dump into more open economies. Many therefore doubt that this free trade zone will be realized.
ASEAN countries are direct competitors in many areas and it will take a long time for them to develop
into complementary economies. From the very beginning, ASEAN was a political, rather than economic,
organization (Yamakage 1990), and now the political preconditions have changed.
In fact, there are strong inter-state, as well as intra-state, tensions in the two subregions. The latter
can be exemplified by ethnic tensions (Malaysia, the Philippines) and the former by old territorial
disputes (Indonesia vs. Malaysia), as well as contrasting views on regional security (Singapore vs.
Indonesia and Malaysia). As in Europe, the dismantling of the Cold War system will change the pattern of
conflict rather than eliminate the conflicts. We can, therefore, expect more relaxation between the two
subregions, but more conflicts within them. Possibly the ASEAN framework is now strong enough to deal
with them. The recent ASEAN meeting in Manila, for instance, addressed the tension over the Spratly
Islands in the South China Sea, which triggered a wider ASEAN interest to discuss a future security
arrangement "in the post-Cambodia era" (The Nation, Bangkok, 23 July 1992). Ad hoc consultations may
no longer be sufficient (Leifer 1992).
The countries in ASEAN could be described as capitalist in economic terms and conservative in
political terms, although, for instance, Singapore and Indonesia differ significantly in their economic
policies. The organization assumed importance as a regional organization only after 1975 when there
were increasing political uncertainties in the region. The economic integration that has taken place so far
is rather modest, and the figure for intraregional trade is only about 20 percent. The external dependence
on Japan is felt to be problematic.
The national economies are outward-oriented, and the political systems are formally democratic
or semi-democratic but in practice more or less authoritarian. The Confucian model has a strong impact
on this region as well, so authoritarianism, in fact, constitutes the homogenizing political factor. The
ASEAN countries are in various phases on a NIC-type development path. Problems in the international
market usually reinforce domestic authoritarianism due to the strong two-way causal relationship between
economic growth and political stability. Economic growth and redistribution are a pre-condition for
ethnic peace, political stability a precondition for the economic confidence expressed by international
capital towards the region.
Australia and New Zealand, although geographically distant from Europe, have European, and
particularly British, origins. Under the impact of successive immigrations, the European heritage is
becoming less distinctive. Economically, they are becoming part of Asia and dependent on Japan.
Australia's exports to Britain have fallen from 32% (in 1950) to a mere 3% today. Sixty percent of exports
now go to Asia. The leaders are, consequently, promoting a republican Australia less attached to Britain
and more involved in Asia, but this involvement obviously has its limits. The term "open regionalism" is
often used for regional trade arrangements that do not hurt third parties. The ASEAN countries are still
not convinced about the goodwill of the two European Asians, and as an editorial in The New Straits
Times puts it "first it must prove that it is proud to be part of Asia" (quoted from EPW, 24 April 1993).
Australia is publicly criticizing the regionalist project of creating an East Asian Economic Caucus
(EAEC), which is a proposition from the South-East Asian region while backing the much looser Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Politically they are thus still not quite part of the region, and
there has also been a discussion on Australia joining NAFTA (Bangkok Post, 12 Sept. 1992). The
Australian attitude to Europe is becoming increasingly negative. Similarly, New Zealand is one of the
major victims of European agricultural protectionism.
In 1990 the Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir (in frustration over drawn-out GATT
negotiations) urged Japan to act as a leader of an East Asian Economic Grouping (EAEG), which would
create an East Asian and South-East Asian superbloc with a Sino-Japanese core. EAEG (it has since been
modestly renamed the East Asia Economic Caucus - EAEC) would be a sort of response to the European
and North American "fortresses". The EAEC proposal is slowly gaining support among other ASEAN
countries, whereas the East Asian countries, particularly Japan and South Korea, have taken a more
skeptical attitude. So have the USA and the World Bank. According to a World Bank report (Sustaining
Rapid Development), East Asia can strengthen regional integration through trade liberalization and
promotion of foreign direct investment within the framework of the multilateral trading system. "A
trading block would more likely foster an inward orientation, impairing the worldwide search for market
opportunities that has served East Asia so well" (quoted from the Bangkok Post, 15 April 1993, p. 25).
A more comprehensive alternative is thus the 15-member-strong forum for Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation (APEC), which was set up in 1989 with regional and interregional trade expansion
as its main goal. Similar to the "Atlantic project" in Europe, it is a trans-regional network providing a
bridge for the USA in the area, and therefore supported by US-oriented regimes and opposed by
spokesmen for a genuinely Asian regionalism. From the US point of view APEC, like NAFTA in the
Americas, is a continuation of its strategy of bilateralism. Again we meet the two distinct understandings
of regionalism: (1) a way of managing multilateralism and (2) a challenge to multilateralism. So far, the
first conception predominates in Asia-Pacific. The idea of any kind of more introverted regionalism is
thus very controversial in a region extremely dependent on unhindered world trade, and the debate is
carried out merely in terms of an "insurance policy" (FEER, 25 July 1991).
Conclusion
In order to test the argument that there is a worldwide process of regionalization taking the shape
of a new regionalism, it might have been simpler to choose another example than Asia-Pacific. East Asian
regionalism is often described as de facto regionalism, whereas regionalization is supposed to take place
de jure in Europe and North America. This contrast may be due to differences in political culture, but an
alternative explanation could lie in the fact that the inter-state relations in East Asia are rather tense and
unsettled (albeit not openly hostile). Thus a growing maturity of the regional security complex may lead
to a more formal regionalism, just as the normalization of the relations among the countries in South-East
Asia has been accompanied by a more formal and predictable regional arrangement than presently seems
to be possible in East Asia. This having been said, it is obvious that on other levels than the inter-state
level, there has been an impressive process of regionalization. The future of the region is either very black
- in case the potential conflicts are translated into war - or very bright - if the degree of interdependence
proves to be a point of convergence of interests where every state gets a stake in stable peace. In some of
the South-East Asian states, this condition must apply also to various domestic groups, a condition which
makes the optimistic scenario somewhat unrealistic. Quite a few states may, due to domestic problems,
have fewer resources to devote to regional cooperation in the future. The two giants China and Japan face
different problems but the problems as such cannot be easily dismissed. China is an old empire becoming
a modern region-state, but the level of regionness is far from sufficient to maintain a central legitimate
authority throughout the region (i.e. the previous empire). In the case of Japan there is also a lack of clear
perception of regional policy, not because of isolation but too much dependence on one of the former
superpowers. Thus there is not only a lack of formal regionalism (which is less serious), but a lack of
policymakers with region-wide authority, i.e. hegemony. In spite of that, there are many reasons,
particularly in the areas of development and conflict management, to believe that the global process of
regionalization will have a deep impact also on East Asia and South-East Asia in the future. The NICs are
facing changes in those objective conditions which originally made them into NICs. Their strategy in the
1990s will probably be betting on the domestic market, preferably a regional market. The regional
framework is still, however, in a flux.
Name _______________________________________________________ Score _____________

Subject and Section ____________________________________________ Date _____________
Activity: ASIAN COUNTRIES WORD SEARCH
R A M A L D I V E S V A T A
E N E P A L C A M B O D I A
R N A T S I K A P I W D N M
P A N O N A B E L T N H D Y
O N S M P T O O D I I U R A
N A O N E E R O P A G N I S
A J A B N E M E Y N A A L O
M B L D R D N A L I A H T T
O A D R N U O U N M A I A I
R A T A Q D N H I I N A M A
E B H U T A N E A R V N R W
I J O R D A N O I D A O U U
N I N A M A N T E I V N B K
N O A K I N D O N E S I A A
YEMEN INDONESIA OMAN LEBANON BURMA BHUTAN PAKISTAN

CAMBODIA LAOS INDIA VIETNAM NEPAL
THAILAND QATAR IRAN MALDIVES BRUNEI
SINGAPORE KUWAIT JORDAN
Unit 4 – A WORLD OF IDEAS
According to various globalization theorists (i.e. Giddens, 1990; Harvey,

1989), “globalization refers to the widening, deepening and speeding up of global
interconnectedness. It has been defined as “accelerating inter-dependence”, ‘action
at a distance’ and ‘time space compression’. As Harvey (1989) points out,
throughout the latter half of the 19th century, there was a radical readjustment in
time space compression in economic, political and cultural life. The result was that
the old Enlightenment certainty of “absolute space and place” collapsed in the face
of insecurity of “relative space and place”. Baudrillard (1983) links postmodernism
with globalization - reality has been replaced by a “media-generated, hyper-
reality”. Consumption here is seen to play the critical role in defining peoples’
identities and consciousness, superseding the old class-consciousness.
― Carolina Matos
The twenty-first century is evolving into a time of technological
advancements. There is constant edit and addition to the available technological
resources. As it advances, it also spreads worldwide. The worldwide spread of
technology creates vast connections that create new opportunities on a larger scale.
The current focus of the globalization of technology is the connections created by
networks of social media. Social media is a brilliant tool that can be easily used by
those who have access to it. As access is gained globally, it creates opportunities to
those who are first experiencing the use to outsource ideas.
― Jessica Bieber
The so-called "information age" is gradually spreading its influence to the
realm of religion, namely, in the methods religions use for teaching, proselytizing,
and in belief systems. Particularly noteworthy developments include the fact that it
is now possible for any religion to spread beyond national borders, allowing even
small new religious movements to engage in overseas proselytization activities,
and leading to new, hitherto unseen religious developments. This rapid
acceleration of the "information age" is now producing a phenomenon which can
be called the "globalization of religion." ― Inoue Nobutaka
The mass media are seen today as playing a key role in enhancing
globalization, facilitating culture exchange and multiple flows of information and
images between countries through social media sites, international news
broadcasts, television programming, new technologies, film, and music.
International flows of communication have been largely assisted by the
development of global capitalism, new technologies and the increasing
commercialization of global television, which has occurred as a consequence of the
deregulation policies adopted by various countries in Europe and the US in order to
permit the proliferation of cable and satellite channels. (Scribd Inc. “Globalization
and Mass Media,” 2020)
Meanwhile, due to the advent of communication and transportation

technology and the roles played by the media, globalization has contributed to the
deterritorialization and the blurring of geographical spaces and boundaries. This
has resulted apparently in making the world a small village where people, cultures,
and identities come in daily face-to-face contact with each other. Undoubtedly,
religion is not immune from these changes and their burgeoning effects brought
about by globalization.
Today, most religions are not relegated to the few countries where they
began. Religions have, in fact, spread and scattered on a global scale. Thanks to
globalization, religions have found a fertile milieu to spread and thrive. (El
Azzouzi 2013)
Jan Aart Scholte makes the globalization of religion clear: “Accelerated
globalization of recent times has enabled co-religionists across the planet to have
greater direct contact with one another. Global communications, global
organizations, global finance and the like have allowed ideas of the Transworld
Umma of Musliams and the Universal Christian Church to be given concrete shape
as never before.” (Scholte 2005)
This unit is divided into two sections: “Global Media Cultures” and “Globalization
of Religion.”
The first lesson explores global media and its strong influence on the globalization
of culture.
The second lesson deals with the globalization of religion, paying particular
attention to how globalization has helped to spread religion and how globalization
affects religious practices and beliefs. The lesson also analyzes the relationship
between religion and global conflict and, conversely, global peace.
Name___________________________________________________________ Score _________

Subject and Section ________________________________________________ Date _________
Quiz: Political Cartoon
Direction: Explain the theme of this political cartoon in exactly 140 words.
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but
those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.” –Alvin Toffler

Contemporary Module - SemiFinal and Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Contemporary Module - SemiFinal and Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Contemporary Module - SemiFinal and Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ST.

VINCENT’S COLLEGE INCORPORATED

This course introduces

THE sustainability. Beyond

CONTEMPORAR inculcate a sense of global

JUNRIE MARK B. SUMALPONG , MBA, LPT

International System (excerpt) from Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS)

An international system] are “groups of independent states held together by a web of

1.2 International System and Society

History of the International System

The Peace of Westphalia (1648)

Contemporary International Systems

System Number Of Nations Nations With Dates

Multi-Polar Several United States, Pre–World War I

Below are some examples of important international organizations:

Name Type Date Members As Of 2006

Organization of IGO 1960 11 states, including Venezuela,

Salvation Army INGO 1878 Runs programs in more than 100

Save the Children INGO 1932 Helps children in poverty around

Below is a variety of acronyms to define specific types of NGOs:

INGO: international nongovernmental organization

Image: Vince Cinches / Greenpeace Philippines

Use the Internet to compare and contrast globalism and internationalism.

What is Global Governance?

Unit 3 – A TALE OF TWO WORLDS

Regionalism is inevitably linked with globalization. While globalization is the increased

Lesson 7: The Global North-South Divide

What is the North-South Divide?

What is South-South cooperation and why does it matter?

2. What happened in Argentina 40 years ago?

4. What is the importance of South-South cooperation?

6. What is going to happen this week in Argentina?

Globalization, The New Regionalism and East Asia

Globalism versus Regionalism

The Crucial Role of State Behavior

Name _______________________________________________________ Score _____________

YEMEN INDONESIA OMAN LEBANON BURMA BHUTAN PAKISTAN

According to various globalization theorists (i.e. Giddens, 1990; Harvey,

Meanwhile, due to the advent of communication and transportation

Name___________________________________________________________ Score _________

You might also like

Name ___________________________________________ Score _

Name___________________________________________________ Score _