- FOCUS ON REGIONS
- ACTIVIST IMAGES
Written by Andrew Puhanic
Published on Friday, July 6th, 2012
As the new world order takes shape, the fundamental economic principles we have been so accustomed to are changing. The principles behind world government as dictated by the globalist agenda, is a society that is free of borders and is controlled by a central government.
Some have argued that the way in which the new world order will take shape, prior to the establishment of world government, is via the decentralisation of sovereign governments and the establishment of regional states / localities that are self-governed, borderless and free from regulation.
As you may be aware, I absolutely love to read historical newspaper articles about the new world order and the globalist agenda.
On my daily expedition through the newspaper archives, I came across a beauty from 1994. The article is titled “New world order: the rise of the region-state” and was written by Kenchi Ohame.
Kenchi Ohame proposes that the only way for the world to prosper is via the decentralisation of sovereign governments, and the promotion of regional and smaller self-managed states.
The article provides an interesting insight into how the Globalists are trying to establish world government. The article was originally written in 1994, 18 years ago, and provides an account of how governments should be stripped of their sovereignty in the name of economic prosperity and peace.
The noise you hear rumbling in the distance is the sound of the late 20th century’s primary engine of economic prosperity – the region state – stirring to life.
No longer will managers organise international activities of their companies on the basis of national borders. Now the choice will be not whether to go in to, say, China, but which region of China to enter. Already, Japanese companies rarely try to enter the U.S. market as a whole, as if it were a single unified area. They pick and choose their spots: Northern California, perhaps; and maybe new England and the great Lakes; and, in recent years, the mountain states.
Region-states have vast become the primary units of economic activity. It is through region states that participation in the global economy actually takes place, largely because they are the only human scale political entities whose economic policies put the global logic of individual well-being ahead of cheap nationalism and the interests of national political elites. These region states may in fact be stretched across national borders: Hong Kong and southern China, for instance, or San Diego and Tijuana, or the “growth Triangle” of Singapore, neighbouring sections of Malaysia and the nearby Indonesian islands.
The primary linkages of these natural economic zones are not to their host countries at to the global economy. As a rule they are small enough (somewhere between five and 20 million people) to share a limited set of economic and consumer interests, and large enough to justify the infrastructure (Communications, professional services, an international airport) necessary to participate effectively in the global economy.
The well-informed citizens of a global marketplace will not wait passively until national governments deliver tangible improvements in lifestyle. They no longer trust them to do so. Instead, they want to build their own future. And they can do that most effectively on the regional level – provided, of course, that is, unlike most nation states, the region is a genuinely willing to honour the underlying logic of the global marketplace. They must, for example, be willing to resist the inevitable pressures to put the defence of national competitiveness or job security ahead of providing a hospitable environment for global resources to come in and operate locally.
The pull of the global economy, coupled with a growing ability to use that connection to prosper, is universal – and universally attractive. Physical distance has become economically less important. This is a world in which manufacturers often discounted prices for hardware by 20% or more and where the average logistics cost of moving a product around the globe is less than 10% of the end-user price. Economic borders have meaning, if at all, not as a dividing line between civilisation or nation states, but as the contours of information flow. Where information reaches, the demand grows; where the demand grows, the global economy has a local home.
Perhaps the best example of this is Dallian, a prosperous city of 1.2 million people in Liaoning Province in northern China. Dalian’s prosperity has been driven not by clever management from Beijing but by an infusion of foreign capital and the presence of foreign corporations. Of the 3 1/2 thousand corporations operating there, as many as 2 1/2 thousand are affiliates of foreign companies from all over the world, including more than 250 high-tech Japanese corporations. When the city is half finished industrial development area is completed, it will by itself create a mini city of some 2 million people, bringing the total population of the metropolitan area to roughly 3 times the size of Singapore. In Dallian you can virtually smell the global economy at work. This is what happens when government red tape is forgotten and the forces of progress are unleashed.
In a world of region states, business managers strategic maps look like the hide of a zebra; shaded areas of activity, such as Dallian, set off by unshaded bands of open space. In economic terms it is regional borders, which determine the shape of the zebras patches, not the dividing lines between cultural or political entities that increasingly matter.
Government tend not to like this. For them, significantly unequal rates of patterns of growth are an endless source of problems; by what rule or measure do we define the minimum level of public services that we must provide all citizens in common? Through what mechanisms of governance can we aspire to manage such vast the different classes of economic activity? How can we best protect such different activities from the distorting effects of cross-border flows of capital and information?
These are the wrong questions. They are all about control, about holding the borderless economy at bay, not about letting successful regions flourish and so provide energy, stimulus and support to bring the rest along.
Capital markets and corporate decision-makers know perfectly well when the wrong questions are being asked. They also know when foreign participation is not particularly welcome, or when the urge to protect local industries and competitors is hard to resist, or when the investment of cautious pension insurance funds is high risk because the government openness to such capital flows is unpredictable. Both capital and corporate presence flow to those areas where global economic logic is – and can be seen to be – consistently and reliably at work. And where they flow, economies flourish.