DIANA SAVERIN

Throughout the conversation with Ernesto Zedillo and Tony Blair, the topic of globalization arose in a variety of contexts. I did not find this particularly surprising, given that both of their seminars at Yale focus on the effects of globalization around the world. What I did find surprising, though, was the their meaning of the term “globalization” in varying contexts.  When the topic of globalization arose, both Zedillo and Blair transitioned within seconds from the concept of globalization to one of global justice. Blair emphasized his desire to see faith and compassion fuel the prospects of peace around the world.  He believes that globalization should be imbued with a sense of justice, and that a stronger use of values could make the world an inviting place for more countries to participate as global partners. On the other hand, Zedillo touched on the need for individual governments to offer equal opportunities in education and training to its citizens in order for all nations to join together in international cooperation towards peace and prosperity. In both perspectives, the discourse on globalization transcended the basic concept of increased economic integration towards humanitarian ideals of collaboration to eliminate social issues around the globe.

While this notion appeared both appealing and practical to both Zedillo and Blair, they diverged in one overarching respect: the vehicle towards this ideal. Blair’s rhetoric of “forces of good and ill” when talking about religion and of the need for the West to stand next to and support countries fighting against oppression in regards to Afghanistan reveal his belief that there is an enemy to be fought on the path towards the global justice he sees as an end point of globalization. Zedillo emphasized more of a unifying goal of synchronization in order to affect change to attain his ideal of a globalized peaceful and prosperous world. As the prominent politicians they are, both argued subtly and convincingly for each path.

This relationship between globalization and values struck me throughout the conversation. Both men implied that there is a set of universal values. As globalization’s impact grows, the principle that we are global citizens, and therefore have a sense of global responsibility to live according to these values, has spread. This talk confirmed this feeling for me: the more accessible the knowledge about different circumstances around the world, the harder it becomes to evade questions of social responsibility. The discourse on and action for global justice and peace thus seems inevitable. This prospect makes me increasingly hopeful about the sometimes nerve-racking speed of globalization, but the disconnect between Zedillo and Blair’s proposals presents a notable question as we move into the 21st century: in becoming increasingly connected, will we divide further into realms of perceived good and evil, or will we unite to tackle the social issues we cannot escape?