[MUSIC] Let's move now to globalization. Globalization is probably one of the main transformation of our world order It's quite new order that we are meeting with these process. Just quite new and which is questioning really all the concepts which has been coined for explaining the international relations. I would say first that globalization riddles in a series of paradoxes which are challenging. Our conceptual vision of the international arena. First paradox, contradiction between power and integration. Power is the cornerstone of the traditional international order when integration is the main consequence of a global order which is more and more interplaying and interdependent. How to combine power and interdependence? How to combine power and integration? Second paradox between power and powerlessness. Globalization is providing new resources to power, and the power holders have the feeling, the intuition that globalization is able to bring them new means, new instruments for eliminating the world. But in the meantime, interdependence is contradicting power. And we can observe that in our present world order. Power is less and less powerful, and power is failing In many kinds of tensions and conflict that we are meeting now and especially in Middle East or in Africa. Third contradiction, the contradiction between coexistence and interdependence. Interdependence is the main principle of global order when coexistence is coming from traditional vision of sovereignty, how to combine them. Fourth contradiction, fourth product between market and inclusion. Globalization is often presented as the accomplishment, the achievement of the market, of the kind of world market. That's not totally true, market is on the a free trade, free exchanges are only one dimension of globalization. Why we have to take into account the already mention which is connected to this process of integration and inclusion. Fifth paradox between global order and a fragmented order. It would be a grave mistake to consider that globalization results in the kind of unification of the world. Globalization is also boosting kind of fragmentation, new particularisms that we have to take into account and the result is that we are in a global but also local world order that's to say the kind of localization as it has been said. Now, the real question which is a stake is how to define globalization. And the problem of definition is probably not really solved. It's very difficult now to give a consensual definition of globalization. I would say that this dispute is shedding a light on some ambiguities of globalization. Globalization doesn't mean internationalization. Internationalization implies relations among nation states. Globalization is not limited to relations among nation states but is including many other actors as we have mentioned. Globalization doesn't mean liberalization. That's to say globalization can imply the development of free market, but globalization is also shedding light on the necessity of a social integration which is different from the liberal vision and the free market vision of the global movement. Globalization does not mean universalization as globalization is triggering new particularism which are more and more visible and especially when some problem's, some tension, some conflicts take place. And globalization doesn't mean westernization. Many people in the western world consider that globalization was the hand of history, that's to say was [COUGH] resulting in the success and the victory of a western vision of the world order. We see now that globalization is on the contrary, resulting in the development and in the strengthening of new cultures, and of competing cultures. African cultures Arab cultures, China's culture, we are in a world which cannot be considered as the result of a cultural unification. So how to define? How to define? I would say first, that globalization implies three symptoms. And I would like to approach globalization through these three symptoms. The first one is inclusion for the first time in the world history, we are all in the same boat, that's to say humanity is entirely included in the same arena. It's playing on a unique arena and this is really new, this is really a new aspect of the world order that we didn't meet in the president steps of the human history. And that means if we are in an including world there is no center that's to say no possibility to conceive a center and even in Germany on this new global world. The second symptom of globalization is to be found in mobility. We are in a world of communication we're in a world of transportation, we're in a world in which people are more and more able to move and also to transgress the border lines. Mobility is a new parameter which is challenging the traditional order which is made of statism of stability and of territorial stability. We are no more in the territorial world but in a world of mobility. And the church of symptom is into dependents. We are depending on each order, that means that the weak is still depending on the strong. But that means something much more important. That risk globalization now, the strong is also depending on the weak. This is quite new and that's why I say that the concept of power is now challenged, and power is getting powerless. Can you see now world order, how a small state house a very weak connectivity, is able to control, to make pressure, to contain the strengths of the strongest. That are the symptoms of globalizations. What are the rules? What is the origin of globalization? This is a very tough question of course but I will say maybe three point, I will make three points. First probably and even certainly globalization is coming from the transformation of technology globalization was not politically invented, politically created, globalization is the result of a new technological context. What is this technological context? I would say that either revolution of communication we're in a world in which it's very easy for each individual to communicate with all the others around the world. When I was young, it was so difficult to give a call through telephone to US when we were settled in Europe. Now we can do that with our cells, with our mobile phones, it's so easy and so difficult also to control, and so difficult to limit. We are in a world of generalized communication. What is a world of generalized communication? It's a world in which distance is getting meaningless. We are in a world in which distance is no more organizing the world. In which distance is no more a particle resource for the rulers, for the princess, for the governments. And it's a world in which distance is no more a handicap for the individuals, that's to say for all of us, for the seven billion of people. So, globalization is first to all the world of deterritorialization. What does it mean? It means that the traditional division of politics which has been coined for instance by Max Weber is no more relevant. That's to say there is a gap, a conceptual gap between the idea of politics and the idea of territory. That's to say the real particle challenge is no more coming from territory and competition between territory and nation states but is a world of transnational relations. But that means something else, Ii this war which is no more territorial. There is a real risk which is sociological risk which was pointed in his time by Emilio came. That's to say a world of enemy, this world of interdependence is a world which needs to be integrated and with a lack of integration. There is a strong risk of Anomia, Anomia that's to say risk of destruction of the social background of this new world. This risk of anomia is probably explaining what it is now taking place in matter of war and conflict? And I would say that globalization is, as I mentioned, glocalization, that's to say a world in which rule is important but in which in the meantime, the individual is important. That's to say a permanent tension between the micro unit, which is constituted by the individual, and the totality which is incarnating this new global world. [MUSIC]
