Nobody is an island anymore

Globalisation - the apparently unstoppable march towards the removal of national boundaries and the creation of a world community - is no longer on the horizon, seen as an aspiration or a threat depending on your point of view, but is hard reality. The question is not so much whether it is a good or bad thing - that is becoming increasingly academic - but how to deal with it.

The United States may have refused to join efforts towards slowing down global warming by ratifying the Kyoto Agreement on reducing greenhouses gases, but that didn't stop Hurricane Katrina wreaking havoc along the Gulf Coast, turning farmland into swamp and New Orleans into a ghost town.

The European Union may want to protect its clothes producers from Chinese competition, but a deal negotiated by Tony Blair this week to end the "bra wars" can only be a temporary hitch in the advance and eventual domination of Far East manufacturers.

But far from seeing this as a threat, the West should take the opportunity to find new areas of expertise, according to Dr Barry Gills, reader in international politics at Newcastle University. Dr Gills, organiser of a three-day conference on globalisation at the university which starts today, says it is time to stop trying to turn back the tide, and instead to adapt to the new reality.

"More and more commodities are being made in China, because China has the most competitive production in the world, and that is expected to continue for some time," he says. "That is a trend that cannot easily be stopped.

"We benefit from it because we pay lower prices for quality goods, but it means we will have to make all sorts of adjustments because production has to shift over there. It is a new production system and we have to negotiate our way through it, but we can't just stop it.

"Can we turn back the tide of China's industrialisation? The answer is no. We have to adjust, to find new ways of developing our economy, and we can do that."

Competition from China and the Far East is partly the result of the West's own success in liberalising the global economy. By opening up markets to Western goods, we created a two-way route, and cannot now complain if we are on the receiving end.

"The economy is so integrated globally and we have to deal with the consequences of that," says Dr Gills. "We're not separate, we can't ignore the whole system and just pretend we can solve our problems by ourselves. We can't."

Dr Gills, who is also editor of the journal Globalizations, says accepting the new situation does not mean anything goes, and nations can still bargain for their own interests, but the EU's tactic of imposing quotas and limiting access to European markets has no long-term future. If consumers want to pay the lowest possible price for their goods, then it is inevitable that production will switch to countries which can produce them for less.

Rather than retreating into its shell to protect its existing industries, the West should look to exploit its scientific advantages and develop new technologies.

"One of the areas we might develop is clean technologies, that are not carbon-based, or self-sufficient technologies that use a fraction of the resources we use now," he says. "If we put concerted efforts to lead in new technologies, that would help solve some of our problems, as well as making money and creating wealth."

There are already examples of this in action. Denmark produces 20 per cent of its electricity through wind power, and the result is the Danes have become world leaders in wind turbine technology. As demand for wind turbines increases, Denmark is in a powerful position to take advantage.

"The fossil fuel economy is dead. You go to the petrol pump and the writing is on the wall. That is on the way out and to persist with it as though it is not going to change would be a catastrophic mistake," says Dr Gills. "We need to invent new technologies, new ways of doing things. That is the only way."

It is this realisation of new global realities which is behind proposals for a global tax, a suggestion which has gained some support from within the governments of France and Germany. One of the popular variations is a 0.01 per cent levy on financial transactions. Although the tax itself is small, with around $1.8 trillion changing hands in the financial markets every day, the sums raised could be substantial. And unlike aid, the guarantee of resources will enable long-term investment.

"Over time you are going to generate a lot of money, and you can use that to fund institutions or programmes, give technical assistance for clean technologies, even encourage democracy," says Dr Gills.

"But we have to put resources into that, we have to raise that money somewhere, not just depend on governments at the whim of political change giving money."

If the idea of a tax to help support the developing world may seem unpalatable to those who prefer their giving to be voluntary, Dr Gills says it is just part of accepting that globalisation is a fact, that national boundaries are becoming increasingly irrelevant and that we depend on each other more and more.

"The whole world is becoming one community, and if you are one community then you are going to have to look out for each other. We don't live in separate national economies, we live in a global economy, just like we live in a global environment," he argues.

"Accepting that we're in a global community has profound implications, but it doesn't mean we have to give up being in our own country or having our own traditions. It does mean that we spend more time co-operating to solve problems that are everybody's problems, and not in our interests to ignore.

"More global co-operation is the only way forward, it is inescapable. This is about accepting realities and accepting responsibilities. Nobody is an island any more."