[1146] Of globalization is not new

Globalization is loved and loathed by so many people for so many reasons. Too many people however seem to talk as if globalization is a modern phenomenon. This is understandable given that it is only around the 1990s that many started to recognize the forces of globalization. The Battle of Seattle in 1999 especially brought aspects of globalization into public consciousness. On the contrary, globalization is not a recent invention; only the word is. The phenomenon itself could be observed from dawn of time right here in Southeast Asia, and everywhere else around the world.

The late 20th century has been characterized as a century of trade. So many Asian countries had, and still are, directly benefiting from trade. The Asian tigers built their economies around trade and that later became a template for economic growth. From this perspective, globalization is increased economic connectivity, perhaps, synonymous to free trade. While we as a species have never been closer to each other, globalization has been true even before we, the current generation, came into being.

The previous era of intense globalization was during the Pax Britannica in the 19th century and to a certain extent, the early 20th century. Trade within and without the British empire was so impressive in volume. Goods flowed so freely between nations that it is possible that those decades were the closest point in history we had ever come close to true free trade. Goods crisscrossed nations with great ease; the only restriction then was technology. The speed at which trade was conducted nevertheless amazed those of that era, with goods as far as Malaya could reach London through the Suez Canal in just a few months when previously, it had taken almost eternity. Despite that, no, the 19th century is not the origin of globalization.

The 17th and the 18th century were another, earlier, bout of globalization. The formation of the Dutch and the British East India Company connected Europe with the world in a greater way. More remarkable is that this century marked the rise of free trade as an ideology, pushing mercantilism out of the deck and to the bottom of the sea. After tearing down the wall of protectionism in Europe, free trade continued its march to the east in search of prosperity, albeit violently, initially.

Back in Southeast Asia in the 15th and the early 16th, the Sultanate of Malacca acted as a broker between the east and the west. So famous was it that Barbarosa said “Whoever is Lord in Malacca has his hand on the throat of Venice“. The wealth Malacca gained from trade, specifically, spice trade, attracted the Portuguese to this part of the world. The fall of Malacca to the Portuguese somewhat halted trade for a moment but it did not take long for trade to reorganize itself to take Malacca out of the equation; others like Aceh took over Malacca’s role as Christianity and Islam brought over their rivalry in the west to the east.

Just as Malacca and Aceh, many kingdoms of Southeast Asia rose and fell with elements of globalization. During its golden age, not only Srivijaya controlled the important Malacca and Sunda Straits as well as land bridge up in the Malay Peninsula — Langkasuka-Kedah and Pan Pan — to monopolize trade while the Silk Road faded into ancient history, it was also the center of Buddhism. In other words, it was an agent of cultural globalization. The great Srivijaya — with Sailendra, the builders of the wonderful Borobudur — only started to experience decline and eventually extinction not because of internal strive but instead, by external forces. The restriction of trade in China and harsh raids conducted by Chola from southern India, Srivijaya had its fate sealed by those that lived thousands of miles away from the Malay Archipelago.

Even before Srivijaya — it existence was only noticed by modern historians more than five centuries after its fall — even before Brutus stabbed Caesar in Rome in 44 BCE, the globalization was apparent. How else would one explain the presence of Chinese silk and Persian rug in Rome and Roman vases in the far east? Or the Moluccas spices on the steps of Genoa? And surely, the introduction of paper-making technology from China to Europe by the Muslims is another proof of globalization.

When the safe passage across the Silk Road was threatened, first by the advancing Persian armies, later the Greeks, then the Mongols and finally, the Chinese struggle during the period of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, globalization refused to die. Trade diverted itself from land to sea. Mushrooming across the Malay Archipelago, along the coast of eastern Indochina and the banks of Mekong were small kingdoms that suddenly saw the influx of traders and the wealth that come with it. That sudden increase in trade created an economic boom in the region. Each one of them took advantage of the change. That prosperity only ended when China under the Sui dynasty practiced isolationist policy in the 6th and the 7th century. It was a good run for the kingdoms of Southeast Asia regardless, lasting long enough to enrich our history.

We are currently riding another wave of globalization. Our ancestors rode theirs and carved their names in history. If we carefully embrace our wave and not succumb to the fear-mongering protectionists, just as we recall Malacca, Srivijaya, etc as great trading nations, our children would remember, that we lived during an era of unprecedented prosperity.