The Global Drifts surrounding the Asia Pacific and South Asia regions.

The three (3) things that I significantly learned from the reading are… (1) First,

that the globalization in the Asia Pacific and South Asia is that of an external

phenomenon in motion because of world powers. World powers refer to sovereign

nation-states recognized with having the ability and expertise on exerting its influence

on a global scale. The view on this motion is rather simplistic as it was said in the

article, and for better or worse, the relationship on globalization within the regions of

the Asia Pacific and South Asia has without a doubt brought fundamental, or rather

essential changes. (2) Second, that another to way to interpret the relationship

between globalization and the Asia Pacific and South Asia is through seeing it as an

agent of globalization as a process, which is rather self-explanatory in its own right. (3)

And third, that this whole view on globalization for both the Asia Pacific and South Asia

as an archetype, or rather a regional alternative to globalization.

The three (3) things that are still unclear to me are… (1) First, that in respect to

the final paradigm surrounding the topic on the anti-global impulse is as to why it

should be considered to see the “region as a source of resistance to globalization or to

global or Western powers”, when it should be known full well that there would be a

numerous amount of consequences on a global economic scale if one were to reject

global economic trade. (2) Second, while I understand how there is little doubt that the

Asia Pacific and South Asia “have very much been on the receiving end of

globalization”, I do not quite follow as to how why there is such “little doubt” to begin
with when it was said that “regional institutions in Asia Pacific and South Asia has been

the adoption of ‘open regionalism’ which aims to develop and maintain cooperation with

outside actors.” (3) And Third, also in regards to how the Asia Pacific and the South

Asia region could be seen as an alternative to globalization, I cannot follow as to how

its regarded as an alternative when the basis for this point is only limited to Western

colonialism and the interests of the locals.

I used to think that the Asia Pacific and South Asia regions is completely globally

vast in various amounts of ways, and I believe that the fact that the article proposes

that the Asia Pacific and South Asia are defined as objects of globalization supports that

narrative. The relationship between globalization and the Asia Pacific and South Asia

regions is without a doubt defined through worldwide integration on economic, political,

social and cultural levels. Therefore I believe that it is only ideal for the Asia Pacific and

the South Asia regions to embrace globalization in a favorable manner, and in the near

future I most likely wouldn’t be entranced over the countless amounts of “economic

development, political progress and social and cultural diversity” systems that

globalization would keep on bringing to the regions surrounding the Asia Pacific and

South Asia regions.

The three (3) questions that I want to ask about the reading are… (1) First, we

know that the “global powers” are undoubtedly committed to investing their resources

and attention to the Asia Pacific and South Asia regions because the industrialized

Global North are capitalists. If that’s the case, then I want to know if there would be

such a time when the regions of the Asia Pacific and South Asia would require no
further assistance of the capitalists of the Global North. (2) Second, the article

illustrates the dynamism and complexity of globalization flawlessly. However, in regards

to the political and economic dominance of the western powers during the colonial and

pre-colonial times, I have to ask how much in its own right does colonialism offer to the

rise of western industrialization and capitalism. (3) Third, the article ends by explaining

that in order to understand the relationship between globalization and the regions of

the Asia Pacific and South Asia, it is required to understand that globalization “is a

complex process where regional dynamics must be understood as both a cause and a

consequence.” It makes me ask as to why would regional dynamics, a process of

change within and between regions would be interpreted as a cause, let alone a

consequence for globalization.