Modern global leadership versus old-style isolationist thinking

Comments on Luke Nottage “Multilateralism and Australia and Japan as America’s deputies”, 12/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/12/multilateralism-and-australia-and-japan-as-americas-deputies/

We live in a very dynamic and diverse world. On one hand, there is so much progress in globalisation and economic integration. On the other hand there seem so many and endless protesters who wish to stop such inevitable trends whenever there are gatherings of international organisations such as IMF and World Bank.

Free trade as economic thinking has existed for a long time. There is enormous progress in international trade and capital flows. International institutions governing trade evolved from GATT to WTO, with a number of trade agreements or rounds concluded and new round progressing. Yet, there are still powerful voices and forces aiming at creating further trade barriers to restrict trade and capital flows, especially at times of more economic turbulences.

Yet the world has been moving on, in its own and inevitable direction of globalisation and integration, irrespective what any particular persons think or do, whether anyone moves along with it or not. Yes, there have been twists and turns in the course to march forward, such as the current financial crisis and the great recession. They may slow but will not stop the general progress.

The world has changed so much from a century ago, since the end of WWII, even since twenty or even ten years ago. It changes with so strong driving forces, so rapid speed and so deep implications that may have surprised some. Most of all, very few of us, for example, had anticipated that the USSR could suddenly collapse at such a frightening velocity. Some changes, such as the collapse of the USSR resulted in some regional pains. After a while, everyone has been better off. Even events, as painful to some as that, have deep implications for people to ponder, think and analyse. Different people may, however, derive different conclusions from common events.