Moving Forward!

My first arrival at Japan was deeply dominated by admiration -both on Japan’s technologies that I saw for the first time (including a simple vending machine in Kansai International Airport’s corner), and on how the globalization has made me possible to be there. In my grandfather’s days, going abroad was a difficult thing that could take months or even years. It was the reason why every time somebody is going to depart for hajj, we will have a traditional festival to pray for his or her safety. In my father’s days, it was getting shorter –but still difficult and long. Now, it is easier to go from one part to another part of the globe. It takes only seven hours from Jakarta to Osaka. The world is getting more connected.

In my second coming to Japan, in 2008, I realized that something different was happening simultaneously. The immigration officer asked me to put my fingers on a machine. My finger prints were taken. “For security, Sir!” he told me. I smiled.   

Introduction: The Flat and the Fortress       

Inspired by his travel to Bangalore, India, Thomas Friedman wrote a revelation arguing that “The World is flat.” Countries are no longer in a different ‘level of playing field’. All competitors, despite its historical background, are now having equal opportunities.[1] Political and economic boundaries are fading away in a fast pace.

Noting that the Friedman put the crumbling of Berlin Wall as one primary mover of the World’s flattening, one should aware that the collapse of World Trade Centre’s Twin Towers was a symbol of an entirely different story.[2] The emergence of ‘homeland security’ doctrine created excuses for the strengthening of border control in North America.[3] Immigration procedures are getting stricter in Europe and almost all parts of the World.[4]The so-called “flat world” seems to be jagged. Political and economic boundaries are still there –and may become stronger in the future.

Those who live outside the developed world may notice that this is not new. In Middle East, Israelis and Arabs are fighting for a territory for decades. In many countries, nationalism is still sacred: it can mobilize millions of people. In 2002, a border dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia sparked demonstrations and cyber war in the “netscape” (another mover of the flattening of the world mentioned in Friedman’s book). It is not only that the internet could not eliminate boundaries. To some extent, even the boundaries are invading the ‘cyberworld’.

The current global crisis is strengthening the presence of boundaries. Difficult economic situation forces companies to cut production cost, fire more employees, and accept fewer employees. Economic insecurity rise in personal and national level. Economic gap within and between nations are becoming more visible. A scholar on international security, Heiki Patomaki, warned that a similar situation in 1930s had lead to a World War[5] –where nations were fighting for political boundaries.

I firmly believe that the world is still flattening, thanks to human creativity. However, it does not imply that boundaries are diminishing. People are making boundaries to ensure their security in an ever changing environment. Rosenau, a leading International Relations scholar, termed this as “fragmegration”: the globalization is marked with a twin force of integration and fragmentation.[6] People create fortresses in a flattening world.

This essay is an attempt to answer this contemporary challenge. The good news is that the revival of the boundaries is not always a bad thing. Instead of trying to eliminate boundaries, a smart actor in a flat world should take this as opportunity. Boundaries, if we treat them well, could be bridges. Business actors should take this as opportunity.

Sensitivity towards Boundaries

Boundaries, particularly political ones, are emanating from self-identification which was usually brought by a feeling of insecurity. From the beginning, the emergence of “nation states” was largely driven by fear.

The Treaty of Westphalia, noticed as the basis of the idea of sovereignty (of course, within each ones own boundaries), was at first an attempt to solve the continental Thirty Years War in Europe.[7] In Asia and Africa, nationalism emerged as a respond to injustices created by colonialism. In short, boundaries were created as an institutionalization of protection from threats coming from “outside powers” –of course, boundaries also define who is the “insider” and who are the “outsiders.”  

Thus, it is easy to understand that boundaries are “stronger” at times of insecurity. When it is hard to find employment, buy daily needs, or fulfill their hopes, people tend to look at boundaries. In many developing or least developing countries, the popular answers for their economic and social difficulties are coming from outside: foreign or multinational corporations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organizations (WTO), and the World Bank.

Then, it was translated into a “negative insider” mentality: ranging from protectionism to xenophobia. By saying negative, I am not saying that this mentality was bad at all. It should be understood as a popular reaction toward an “image of threat” from the ones perceived as the “outsider”, which sometimes are not baseless –sweatshops, poor working conditions, natural destructions are real in many cases.

Given the nature of boundaries, it is not a good idea for business actors to expand their business to developing and developed countries by being not sensitive towards their sense of boundaries. What the transnational business actors should do is not to eliminate, to conquer, or to forget the boundaries. Let the boundaries there to give a feeling of security and pride. Let them be “positive insiders.”

How? Learning from the Eastern Philosophy

“What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others.”

Confucius

It is time to learn from the East. In the Western tradition, “rights” are the central theme (take “Human Rights”, “political rights”, “economic rights”, etc. for example). “Rights” also appear in the business and trade world: there are “rights” of the companies to be treated the same, the WTO’s MFN (Most Favored Nations) principle, and WTO’s National Treatment.

In the East, it is a little bit different: “Harmony” is the central theme. To maintain harmony, responsibility comes first, and the rights will follow. Before asking people our rights, it is important to demonstrate responsibility for others, because “the dignity of the individual comes not from the capacity to act independently…but from the capacity to act as a part of an interdependent whole.”[8]

So, this is the reflection for transnational business actors willing to expand its business in developing or least developing countries: it is important to be a “positive outsider” first before asking the people within that certain boundaries act positively. “Smile, and you will get others smile for you”, an Indonesian “wise words” told in Pesantrens sum it well.

Beyond “Trickle down theory” and “Corporate Social Responsibility”

“Aren’t we positive enough?” some executives may argue. Some economists believe that the presence of the transnational companies in developing or least developing countries itself is a blessing. The wealth created by these huge companies will benefit the whole country, boosting its growth, and “trickled down” to the poor.

However, many cases showed different story. The premise of ‘trickle-down’ that higher investment will help to reduce poverty through higher employment and real wages does not always be evident. Haroon Jamal, a Pakistani economist, argued that in many situations, the pro-growth development agenda was accompanied by rising inequality.[9]

Responding to many critics, business world came with the idea of “social corporate responsibility” (CSR). The World Business Council for Sustainable Development defines CSR as “the continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce and their families as well as of the local community and society at large.”[10] However, many people are still skeptical towards CSR. The New Internationalist Magazine, for example, published a special edition which was titled “Corporate responsibility unmasked” (with an illustration of a wolf wearing a sheep costume). The magazine cynically said that “Corporate Responsibility has to make money, save money, or shut the pesky campaigners up.”[11]

Here is my stand: I positively celebrate the rise of CSR as a good development in the business. However, there are still many things needed to be addressed. One important point sometimes forgotten is about our topic: the significance of “boundaries.” Sometimes, business actors are creating CSR based on international discourse or the advices from high-paid consultants, but forget to be sensitive toward the notion of “insider/outsider.” Giving good things without being sensitive toward the “insider’s pride” will not be successful (just as the Dutch “ethical policy” towards Dutch Indies –now Indonesia- during its colonial government).

Thus, the key is simple: be sensitive toward boundaries, realize our position as outsider, hear the concern of the insiders, engage positively, and create harmony. By doing so, the insecurity and fear created by the outside/inside difference will be minimized.

Final Reflection

“You can see a sea in two ways: first, you see it as an obstacle to reach another island, or two, you see it as an instrument to reach your destination,” my father once told me. I am sorry to quote a personal advice, but I do think that it is the same. The geopolitical trend, accompanied with the global economic crisis, seems to revive boundaries. We can also see it in two ways: obstacle or chance.

To make it a positive chance, one should aware of the nature of boundaries: it emerges from fear and insecurity. Be wise and hear the ones inside the boundaries. A bridge will be there.