Oromia Online - Globalization: Does it hinder or support the Oromo struggle

Introduction
Definition
Is Globilization new?
Is globilization incompatible with a struggle for freedom?
Conclusion
References

Introduction

In the history of Oromo national struggle for independence, the call for Oromo unity has never been any louder. Unfortunately, the rift between the various Oromo political groups and their supporters has also never been any deeper. Per the ongoing public debate on the issue, the Oromo public seems to be unsure if the cause is substantive, personal, or poor communication. Unity is strength, and it should be the duty and responsibility of every freedom loving Oromo to promote it. However, unity does not emerge simply because it is on everyone’s minds and lips.

In the course of any collectively pursued human endeavors, the prevalence differences in opinion is neither uncommon nor is it necessarily an undesirable occurrence. In fact, it is healthy and productive, provided subsequent arguments remain functional (allow healthy debate or avoid the debate from degenerating into a dysfunctional exchange). According to Paul and Elder (2001), in a two way exchange of ideas following the emergence of a difference in opinion on an issue, every subsequent new idea from one group triggers not just a response but also a completely new idea in the minds of the other side, thus further enriching and expanding the horizon of knowledge. Knowledge is the only resource that the more one shares and uses it, the newer and richer it becomes (Paul and Elder). Through intellectual exchanges, knowledge renewal, and enrichment comes consensus, informed decisions, thus a virile and lasting unity built on a solid foundation.

If one is to apply this concept to the Oromo reality, it is obvious that, no amount of repeated and passionate call for unity (devoid of honest, transparent, credible, consistent and logical argument and exchange) would result in any meaningful and lasting unity. The current status of the Oromo political dynamics and the relationship between the politicians and their supporters is a typical example.

By contrast, rigorous and fact based analysis of the strength and weakness of arguments being advanced by the concerned parties to support their respective positions would help both the concerned parties and their supporters take informed decision, the only practical way of building consensus, thus a lasting unity built on facts, figures, and convictions.

The openly debated version of the cause of the disagreements between the Oromo political groups is whether a colonial question can be resolved through democratization of the colonial state or not. To this end, it is interesting to note that, some prominent Oromos who have once inspired young Oromo boys and girls to sacrifice their lives to free Oromia from the Ethiopian colonial rule now stand on a platform littered with the blood of the dead Oromo heroes and pray for “the birth of a New Ethiopia—an Ethiopia owned and governed by representatives of all her component communities” (Lata, 1999. p 252). Recently, this group has sought to provide some “rationales” to support their new position. Among the rational is the assertion that the Oromo’s demand for independence is incompatible with what they call “the new international phenomenon—globalization.”

Interestingly, the view was first floated by no other personality than a gentleman named Dr. Fisseha-Tsion Mengistu (2000). In his article published in A ddis Tribune , Dr Fisseha-Tsion argued that “we have reached the highest, most complex and most sophisticated stage of the private enterprise system where global corporations and the three major currencies of the three major trading blocks of the world, i.e. the US dollar, the Euro and the Yen, will dominate the world economy. This unprecedented era of mega-mergers and the integration of our national economies into the world economy have rendered the fragmentation of markets and secession absolutely meaningless” (Fitseha-Tsion, 2000 p1). Given the identity of the individual and the medium he chose to communicate, one would not and should not be surprised with this assertion. What is surprising is the fact that he was able to find attentive audience willing to echo his message, and in the process, his hidden agenda—perpetually enslave the Oromo people—in no other place than among the Oromo politicians.

This paper is not intended to question the appropriateness or otherwise of the strategic questions being raised, the individual’s prayers, or the positions taken by the various Oromo individuals/groups. Instead, it reviews the theory and practice of globalization to determine if indeed there is any semblance of logic behind Dr. Fetseha-Tsion’s and his Oromo disciple’s hypothesis. Specifically, the paper seeks to establish if indeed there is a historical precedence or science –based facts to support the view that the process of globalization is incompatible with or a hindrance to the Oromo quest for independence.

Section one reviews the definition of globalization to determine if the phenomenon is indeed new as suggested. Section two analyzes the theory and practice of globalization with particular focus on how it may impact or influence political, social, and economic issues. The paper concludes with comments on the implication of the findings for the stakeholders caught under colonial rule and if indeed globalization makes a nation’s right to liberate itself from a colonial rule irrelevant and or unattainable.

Definition

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder or so they say. Not surprisingly, the definition of globalization is as many as those who cared to define it (Hartel, 2003). Though far from being an exhaustive list, some examples are provided next:

Globalization is the act of “making worldwide in scope or application” (Webster, 1991, p. 521)
Globalization is a “shift towards a more integrated and interdependent world economy. Globalization has several different facets including the globalization of markets and the globalization of production”(Hill, 2005, p. 6)
Globalization refers to a “growing economic interdependence among countries as reflected in the increasing cross-border flows of three types of entities: goods and services, capital, and know-how. The term globalization can relate to any of several levels of aggregation: the entire world, a specific country, a specific industry, a specific company, or even a specific line of business or functional activity with in the company” (Govindarajan and Gupta, 2001, p. 4)
Globalization is “an acceleration of integration that substantially alters the scope and character of economic and social relations (Rowman and Littlefield quoted by Hertel, 2003, p. 47)

And the list goes on. The common thread is the growing economic interdependence among countries as a result of increasing cross-border flow of capital, goods, services, know-how, and/or labor.

Is globalization new?

Given the above sample definitions, it is legitimate to question Dr. Fiteseha-Tsion’s (2000) and his disciple’s view that globalization is a new phenomenon. Hertel (2003) and Brinded (2002) correctly assert that for all practical purpose, globalization is not new. International business or cross border trade is as old as the existence of nation states. And especially in western world, “modern states owe their development largely to the activities of “firms that financed territorial and human conquest, settlement, infrastructure-building and development of financial services, communications and transportation links”(Brinded, 2003, p. 57). What is new or where does the perception that globalization is a new phenomenon emerges?

Business management experts and economists note that, increasingly supported by technology, especially the new information technology and the sustained dismantling of policy and regulatory barriers to cross-border trade following the end of the cold war, the process of globalization is unfolding at a breath taking speed, relative to the speed with which international transactions occurred say 15 or 20 years ago (Hill, 2001). Today, capital of all shapes and sizes roam the world at an unprecedented speed and flexibility, trailing opportunities—opportunities to create the greatest wealth—wherever it exists. Although every stock, bond and other financial instrument holders contribute to the global capital pool that makes or breaks the global economy, its management is concentrated in the hands of few money managers. According to Saskia, quoted by Freedman (2000) “by 1997, 25 % of mega” global stock markets “controlled 83% of the world’s equities under institutional management and accounted for roughly half of global market capitalization” (p.116). It is also true that in this increasingly global economy, the action and behavior of a single individual or country, especially among the economically and militarily advanced nations can have a rippling effect on the economy, welfare and politics of the entire global community.

The modern transportation and communication technologies have exceedingly altered the way international business is conducted and wealth is created. For instance, research teams whose members are located in different time zones are able to work 24/7 and successfully develop products and services at a fraction of the cost prior to the arrival of the modern technology. Components of goods and services are produced and assembled at multiple locations where cost of production and marketing is the lowest (Hill, 2001). In particular, eBusiness has dramatically altered the way goods and services are produced and marketed. For example, at Dell online, computers and other company products are produced only after orders are received and the customers have paid the price which effectively cut back Dell’s capital cost for manufacturing to near $0.00. It also means, unlike the traditional distribution channel involving manufacturing, wholesaling, and retailing, Dell produces and sells its products directly to customers—a business model that effectively eliminated the middle layers between the manufacturers and consumers.

Following the end of the cold war, the critical role of major international institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, the United Nations etc and the policy makers of economically and militarily advanced nations in influencing global economic growth patterns and encouraging national governments to eliminate barriers to international trade has significantly increased. For instance, with reference to the power and influence of the US Federal Reserve Chairman, Mr. Alan Greenspan, The Economist (2005) remarks, “i t is hardly surprising that financial markets worldwide can rise or fall on his every word.”

These are some of the technological, institutional, and policy changes that are profoundly impacting today’s international business unlike at any time in the international business history. In short, numerous operational, technological, institutional, policy, and management innovations that are fueling global business, thus the process of globalization, are new. However, globalization as a phenomenon is an age-old practice, thus it cannot be characterized as new “by any stretch of the English language.”

Is globalization incompatible with a struggle for freedom?

A quick review of the list of nations that have gained their independence or are in the process of doing so in recent memory may help set the stage for subsequent analysis to answer the above question. Regardless of the various labels given to those who have been at the forefront to liberate Palestine, virtually all nations have reached a perfect understanding that the State of Palestine is a must. And the understanding is reached at a time when globalization is at its peak. After a long and torturous straggle against the Indonesian occupation, East Timor was successfully liberated in October 1999 ( Lamoureux, n.d.). Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia gained their independence from the Russian Rule in Aug. 1991(infoplease, n.d).. South Africa first gained its “independence from Britain in 1934. However, its independence from white minority rule came only in 1994 (African History, n.d.). Other examples of nations that gained their independence in the late 1990s and early 2000s include, but are not limited to, the former colonies of Yugoslavia, RUSSIA (including the three Baltic states listed above (infoplease.com, n.d.) , and Czechoslovakia (Republic of Slovenia, n.d.). Close to home, Eritrea celebrated its hard fought and won independence in 1991 (never mind the time spent in preparing for the nominal referendum)

A lesson that can be drawn from the above chronology of the occurrence of independence of nations is that globalization actually favors, supports, and promotes freedom, justice, and independence for nations colonized by despots and dictators. It certainly does not hinder the independence of colonized nations. For instance, in Africa, if there is one country that is of enormous economic importance to the corporate world, South Africa (SA) has been and it is still the one. With the sustained and persistent resistance that the enslaved and dispossessed people of SA put up over several generations, global corporations and beneficiary nations did not resort to forcing South Africans to live under the appalling apartheid rule. Instead, they divested their investment, blacklisted the evil government, and excluded SA from international forums; actions that only further strengthened the ANCs resolve that eventually resulted in the birth of an independent SA.

One may ask why the corporate world would be interested in social issues than profit. The fact is that the two are no longer contradictory. In fact, they are mutually reinforcing, and this is not an empty assertion but a proven fact based on sound research findings.

With the expansion of global business without frontiers and the questionable actions and behaviors of some corporate leader that followed, the concept of corporate sustainability and sustainability investment is receiving an unprecedented attention. According to the Dow Johns Sustainability Index founded in 1999 “Corporate sustainability is a business approach that creates long-term shareholder value by embracing opportunities and managing risks deriving from economic, environmental and social developments. Corporate sustainability leaders achieve long-term shareholder value by gearing their strategies and management to harness the market's potential for sustainability products and services while at the same time successfully reducing and avoiding sustainability costs and risks” (DJSI, n.d.).

This is an outcome of the global communities realization that paying attention to environmental, social, and economic issues above and beyond what is legally required by law is first and foremost in the interest of long-term business profitability. In a world where there is no justice, there can never be peace, prosperity or profit. According to Zsolnai (2004), “business will lose its legitimacy if it pursues “market fundamentalism. A far better approach is to have an open dialogue with society and develop strategies that benefit all stakeholders” (p. 22).

Whereas a few theoreticians have expressed their reservations (Henderson, 2005), a significant majority strongly believes and has clearly demonstrated the fact that corporate social responsibility is good for shareholders as well as the stakeholders (Hertel, 2003; Brinded, 2002; Ford, 2005; Hatcher, 2003, and Zsolnai, 2004). For instance, General Electric (GE) is reported to have significantly improved shareholders value as a result of its decision to walk away from numerous highly lucrative contracts because the transactions involved public sector agents that are corrupt and undemocratic (Hill, 2005).

Conclusion

Globalization is not new. It is an age-old practice. The above analysis suggests that if anything, globalization and free market economy support and promote freedom and social justices. Certainly, it does not stand on the way of people aspiring to free themselves from despots and tyrants. Per the experience of USSR, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia etc, it is the centrally controlled economic system that seems to have delayed the independence of colonized nations. Globalization successfully ended it for many nations. Why then is globalization offered as an explanation for the recent change of heart—from liberating Oromia to democratizing Ethiopia—on the part of the one time ardent supporters of the independence of Oromia? The motive remains a mystery. Regarding their commitment to democratize the colonial state, they have also branded it is as “a strategic move” and not a reversal of the original ideology. To this end, what they have not been able to articulate is, why the strategy that failed in 1991, when the political environment was much more favorable, is going to succeed this time around when the group is admittedly in a much weaker position. Similarly, the group has never been able to convincingly explain how the recycled strategy will lead to an outcome that is different that the Ethiopian Opposition groups are currently enduring. That fact is that, having attempted to democratize Ethiopia and won the recent election by a land slide victory, the group were declared losers and effectively kept out of the power corridor by the tyrant who is supported by a defense force made up of his village boys and girls.

References

African History, (n.d). South African independence: http://africanhistory.about.com / library/bl/bl-Independence-SA2.htm

Brinded, Malcom. (2002). Capitalism, conscience and confidence. Royal Dutch Shell Group Peridicals. London. Pg 14.

Diestler, s. (2001). Becoming a critical thinker, (3 rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

DJSI, (n.d.). Corporate Sustainability: http://www.sustainability-index.com/htmle/ sustainability/corpsustainability.html

Fisseha-Tsion Menghistu & Associates, (2000, October). Rethinking the Continuing Insanity of Ethiopian Politics, Addis Tribune, October 13, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Retrieved 09/09/2005 from http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/33/056.html

Ford, N. (2005, Aug/Sept). Crucial trade issues ignored by G8. African Buisness # 312. pg18.

Freedman, T. L. (2000). The Lexus and the olive tree. New York. Anchor Books.

Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A. K. (2001). The quest for global dominance. Transforming global presence into global competitive advantage. San Fancisco, CA. Jossey-Bass, A Wiley Copany

Hatcher, M. (2003, March). New corporate agenda. Journal of Public Affairs. 3(1)

Hertel, S. (2003, Fall). The private side of global governance. Journal of International Affairs, 57(1)

Hill, C.W.L. (2005). International business: competing in the global market place (5 th ed.). Boston. McGraw-Hill Irwin.

infoplease, (n.d): Latvia: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa /A0107706.html)

Lamoureux, F. (n.d.). E ast T imor : T he world’s newest country . Retrieved 10/10/2005 from http://www.hawaii.edu/cseas/pubs/timor.pdf

Lata, L. (1999). The Ethiopian state at the crossroads: decolonization and democratization or disintegration. Asmara, Eritrea. The Red Sea Press, Inc

Paul, R. and Elder, L. (2001). Critical Thinking: Tool for taking charge of your learning and your life. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Republic of Slovenia, (n.d.). History: http://www.uvi.si/eng/ slovenia/in-brief/ history/er

Webster, M. (1991). Webster’s ninth new collegiate dictionary. Phillipins. Mariam-Webster Inc.

The Economist (2005, October 13). A hard act to follow: Who could fill Alan Greenspan's shoes? Retrieved 10/13/2005 from http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5019763

Zsolnal, L. (2004). Globalization and the community. European Business Forum. London. # 19.

Bahiru Duguma Ph.D./MBA, is a Senior Agriculture Advisor in the International Programs of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Princes Anne, MD. Views expressed in this paper are that of Dr. Bahiru and do not necessarily reflect that of his Employer. Dr. Bahiru may be reached at BahiruDuguma@aol.com.