Read The Diplomat, get to know Asia-Pacific
The pandemic may simply exacerbate an existing inward trend.
The coronavirus has been relentless, sweeping beyond China and East Asia, adding Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia, to encompass Italy and Europe, North, Central and South America. The latest figures show more than 200,000 confirmed cases, with more than 8,000 deaths. China has recorded the highest number of deaths, with more than 3,100 deaths, but the figure is emerging in Italy. The world went into crisis mode, with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointing to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus. a “pandemic” on March 11.
The emergence of the liberal foreign order has been a fundamental factor in the increasing movement of other people across borders, whether for the purposes of chains of origin and distribution networks, foreign finance and money benefits, employment, education, or tourism. But this globalization has also made the entire world much more aware of the spread of the coronavirus, and may eventually be a hard force for its own demise.
The coin of globalization has two sides. On the one hand, cross-border flows of people, goods, cash and data create new wealth and opportunities. However, on the negative side, they can exacerbate global disparities, encourage foreign terrorism and border crime, and permit the immediate spread of disease.
We saw the latter effect with the SARS outbreak in 2003, but until the beginning of this century, the cross-border movement of people has increased dramatically and the speed of spread of this novel coronavirus has been of a completely different order.
Countries around the world are now responding by restricting the movement of people, blocking access for people from countries hit hard by the coronavirus, or requiring incoming travelers to quarantine for a period of time. Of course, once the pandemic subsides, those restrictions will actually be lifted. But with this new awareness of the dangers associated with other people’s free movement, some could prolong their lives, their businesses, or their recreational projects that require crossing borders.
In particular, the coronavirus pandemic is having devastating effects on businesses that have benefited from economic interdependence supported through cross-border supply chains. China is the world’s largest production base and is at the center of many origin chains. Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, many China-dependent corporations have been severely affected. Meanwhile, tourism sectors in Japan and many other countries that had benefited from the large influx of Chinese tourists in recent years have been severely affected by the drop in the number of arrivals. The challenge for the production and tourism industries of many countries is the extent to which dependence on China and its population can be reduced.
In fact, the desires would possibly go beyond China. From a threat research standpoint, we can also see at least an immediate trend toward a return from globally dispersed production bases to domestic facilities. Of course, it is unlikely that the tourism industry will prevent resorting to foreign arrivals, but many in the sector would possibly want to start running projects to increase domestic demand.
In short, national borders may be less porous in terms of industry and movement of people compared to the 30 years of globalization seen since the end of the Cold War, with sharper barriers between internal and external and a shift away from national borders. of foreign dependence. international relations.
What is worrying is that this trend towards strengthening national borders is already evident in a number of countries. Brexit, the rise of populism accompanied by anti-foreigner sentiment in many European countries, and the Trump administration’s “America First” policy have all been driven by a sense of greater disparity and the increasing burden placed on certain segments of the population through the progress of globalization.
The liberal external order has already suffered serious blows and national borders, whether physical or psychological, have become more inflexible than before. Even in Asia, internal tension is rising, with the rise of a nationalism that emphasizes the superiority of a given country’s ethnicity. and devout, as evidenced by the growing oppression of Uyghurs and other minorities and attempts to block data leakage within the country. China or the Rise of Hindu Nationalism in India.
In addition to those trends (less porous borders and nationalism), there is now the total closure of borders due to the spread of the coronavirus. The result may simply be a shift towards a more closed world, in which national borders restrict reach. of social activity.
The challenge is to steer the liberal foreign order in a healthy direction by regulating and mitigating the burdens of globalization. And, indeed, this will require more powerful external cooperation. The risk of the coronavirus has created a normal situation, but once it is overcome, it will be very important to create mechanisms to respond to the disease through effective foreign cooperation, without falling into the procedure of short-term ethnocentrism. noted in the return to normal procedure. Array
At the same time, we will have to strive to eliminate disorders such as the social and economic disparities caused by globalization. If we don’t, we may see countries becoming more and more inward-looking, with a narrow-minded spirit. nationalism.
Mie Oba is a professor at Tokyo University of Science.
Understand Asia-Pacific’s biggest issues with a subscription to The Diplomat.
The coronavirus has been relentless, sweeping beyond China and East Asia, adding Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia, to encompass Italy and Europe, North, Central and South America. The latest figures show more than 200,000 confirmed cases, with more than 8,000 deaths. China has recorded the highest number of deaths, with more than 3,100 deaths, but the figure is emerging in Italy. The world went into crisis mode, with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus pointing to the outbreak of the novel coronavirus. a “pandemic” on March 11.
The emergence of the liberal foreign order has been a fundamental factor in the increasing movement of other people across borders, whether for the purposes of chains of origin and distribution networks, foreign finance and the benefits of money, employment, education or tourism. But this globalization has also made the entire world much more aware of the spread of the coronavirus, and may eventually be a harsh force for its own demise.
There are two sides to the coin of globalization. On the one hand, cross-border flows of people, goods, cash, and data create new wealth and opportunities. On the downside, however, they can exacerbate global disparities, encourage foreign terrorism and border crime, and allow for the immediate spread of disease.
We saw the latter effect with the SARS epidemic in 2003, but until the beginning of this century, cross-border movements of people have increased significantly and the speed of spread of this novel coronavirus has been of a completely different order.
Countries around the world are now responding by restricting the movement of people, blocking access to people from countries hard hit by the coronavirus, or requiring incoming travelers to quarantine for a period of time. Of course, once the pandemic subsides, those restrictions will indeed be lifted. But with this new awareness of the dangers associated with the free movement of other people, some may pursue life, commercial or recreational projects that require crossing borders.
In particular, the coronavirus pandemic is having a devastating effect on companies that have benefited from economic interdependence supported through cross-border supply chains. China is the world’s largest production base and is at the center of many origin chains. Since the outbreak of the coronavirus, many China-dependent businesses have been severely affected. Meanwhile, tourism sectors in Japan and many other countries that had benefited from the large influx of Chinese tourists in recent years have been severely affected by falling arrivals. The production and tourism industries of many countries are determined to what extent dependence on China and the Chinese population can be reduced.
In fact, the desires can also go beyond China. From a threat research perspective, we can at least also see an immediate trend toward a retreat from globally dispersed production bases to domestic facilities. Of course, the tourism industry is unlikely to stop focusing on foreign arrivals. But many in the sector would possibly want to start running projects to increase domestic demand.
In short, national borders may be less porous in terms of industry and movement of people compared to the 30 years of globalization seen since the end of the Cold War, with sharper barriers between internal and external and a shift away from national borders. of foreign dependence. international relations.
What is worrying is that this trend towards strengthening national borders is already evident in a number of countries. Brexit, the rise of populism accompanied by anti-foreigner sentiment in many European countries, and the Trump administration’s “America First” policy have all been driven by a sense of greater disparity and the increasing burden placed on certain segments of the population through the progress of globalization.
The liberal external order has already suffered serious blows and national borders, whether physical or psychological, have become more inflexible than before. Even in Asia, internal tension is rising, with the rise of a nationalism that emphasizes the superiority of a given country’s ethnicity. and devout, as evidenced by the growing oppression of Uyghurs and other minorities and attempts to block data leakage within the country. China or the Rise of Hindu Nationalism in India.
In addition to those trends (less porous borders and nationalism), there is now the complete closure of borders due to the spread of the coronavirus. The result may simply be a shift toward a more closed world, in which national borders restrict scope. of social activity.
The challenge is to steer the liberal foreign order in a healthy direction by regulating and mitigating the burdens of globalization. And, in fact, it will require more powerful external cooperation. The risk of the coronavirus has created a normal situation, but once we have recovered. From this, it will be very important to create mechanisms to respond to the disease through effective external cooperation, without falling into the procedure of myopic ethnocentrism in the procedure back to normal.
At the same time, we will have to strive to eliminate disorders such as the social and economic disparities caused by globalization. If we don’t, we may see countries becoming more and more inward-looking, with a narrow-minded spirit. nationalism.
Mie Oba is a professor at Tokyo University of Science.
The coronavirus has been relentless, sweeping beyond China and East Asia, adding Japan, South Korea and Southeast Asia, to encompass Italy and Europe, North, Central and South America. The latest figures show more than 200,000 confirmed cases, with more than 8,000 deaths. China has recorded the highest number of deaths, with more than 3,100 deaths, but the figure is emerging in Italy. The world has gone into crisis mode, with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus calling the novel coronavirus a “pandemic” on March 11.
The emergence of the liberal foreign order has been a fundamental factor in the increasing movement of other people across borders, whether for the purposes of chains of origin and distribution networks, foreign finance, and the obtaining of money, employment, education, or tourism. But this globalization has also made the entire world much more aware of the spread of the coronavirus, and may eventually be a hard force for its own demise.