Travel Globalism – Not A Two-Way Trip?

I found a thought provoking article on the Technium blog – Pre-Globalism. Read it here.

What is ‘globalism? Well, it seems to be a cosier version of ‘globalisation’, one without so many of the nasties. It is a label for the level of connectedness between different peoples of the world, separated somehow from the good and bad consequences which globalisation brings. A part of the whole that raises awareness of the lives of others far away.

The article’s premise is that there is almost no place left anywhere on Earth that is untouched by the impact of leisure travel; and that globalism has had a positive impact on the opportunity to travel. The writer claims, ‘you can get anywhere you want cheaply and easily.' And then adds provocatively, 'there is still enough difference in most places to make travel worthwhile every time.'

Unfortunately the item has been written from a rich nation mind-set. The writer enjoys the opportunity to travel anywhere in the world, saying it ‘might cost two weeks' worth of income for most people'. For 'most people' maybe we should substitute something like 'most people in the richer nations'?

In fact, for most people in the world two weeks’ income is never going to be enough for them to travel widely. What the writer is really talking about is having excess income available after the basics of staying alive have been covered. In this sense it is not a two-way exchange. Those with the money in the richer nations are able to travel the world, and they will more often do so as tourists i.e. they intend to return ‘home’ after their travels. In the poorer nations the thought of travel abroad is often going to be tied to seeking a better standard of living. Richer nations beget tourists. Poorer nations beget economic migrants.

Maybe this is a kind of travel arbitrage, where the ultimate outcome is a great international levelling.  Something that I guess most developed nations would not really welcome. Is there a price for such a levelling? A transfer of wealth from the richer nations? Perhaps loss of cultural diversity, loss of dialects and minority languages for the poorer nations. Maybe we will grow more alike across nations, we will want the same things, have the same experiences. But maybe the richer nations will also grow disaffected minorities with loyalties to other countries.

I’m not comfortable looking at the benefits of globalisation without also recognising the problems it creates. Of course the bigger issue is around corporate globalisation. These huge international corporations create things we in the richer nations want. But they won’t necessarily accept accountability to us, the general public, for how they go about it.  We know they can manipulate their activities across borders. Some hardly pay any taxes. At their worst they might only display ‘good citizen’ behaviour as a short-term response to bad PR.  If there are no effective constraints on their behaviour then the worst of them won’t do it for themselves. There is no simple solution. We are talking about organisations whose primary motivation is the creation of wealth for their sponsors. At the sharp end will be the conflict taking place in third world countries over resources, a far cry from the globalist’s cosy enjoyment of international leisure.

And it isn’t just a case of people in remote villages becoming more used to seeing exotic strangers, tourists, because travel is cheaper and easier. We could be talking about loss of their culture, their land. In some cases we’re talking about their very existence. It may be difficult to find any way back from where we are now, but we are not entitled to overwhelm them. They didn’t ask us to come and when we do ‘visit’ we need to be respectful.

In my eco-thriller, Wounded Mountain, I examine some of the personal and social impacts of global resource conflict. Find Wounded Mountain on Amazon here.