"THE inhabitant of London could order by telephone, sipping his morning tea in bed, the various products of the whole Earth, in such quantities as he might see fit, and reasonably expect their early delivery upon his doorstep."
That was John Maynard Keynes waxing lyrical about globalisation in his 1919 work, The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Today, with the war in Ukraine still raging, we have to read the book in reverse. Because an inhabitant of 10 Downing Street in London and several of his allies in Brussels and Washington are pushing the world to rethink globalisation.
Welcome to the world of insular nations. Or put differently, a world of many "Brexits". Living in such a fractured world will require drastic changes at the country and corporate levels. Start with the country level.
The punishing sanctions on Russia imposed by the United States, the European Union and their allies are a warning to nations which have grown dependent on the rest of the world from grains to gas. Self-sufficiency will be the clarion call.
Many are already beginning to answer the call. Move aside free trade, welcome protectionism. Granted, the pandemic gave an early warning of such things to come. But what is happening now is not just about clogged supply chains.
It's about food and energy security. Both are a part of a larger national security equation. True, no country can grow or produce everything it wants. But the West is now telling us there is grave danger in wanting what is grown or produced there.
Or in places where it is at war with. We may be able to get past affordability constraints, but not the availability issues. Malaysia must do some deep thinking about the consequences of war.
Perhaps it is doing so, but such thinking isn't visible to the Malaysian public. Invisible thinking doesn't encourage public debate. Malaysian policymakers must learn how to use the media to encourage such debates.
Sanctions on Russia are also a warning to multinational businesses. Consider Shell, Europe's largest petroleum company. On Feb 28, four days after Russian boots landed on Ukrainian soil, the oil and gas company announced that it would quit its joint venture with Gazprom, Russia's gas company.
A day earlier, BP said it was pulling out of its venture with Rosneft, Russia's state oil company. If The New York Times is right, Shell and BP pulled out because of "a sudden revulsion in dealing with Moscow as the Russian army assaults Ukraine". Where was the revulsion when the West attacked Afghanistan and Iraq?
The question has long ago answered itself. Shell and BP stand to lose billions of dollars invested in the two Russian projects in a tit-for-tat war of asset freeze between the West and Russia.
Risk management, a foster-child of business development, may have just got its very own seat in the C-suite of multinational companies. "Should we" or "should we not", or versions of them, may just be the two most critical questions that will be asked in the boardrooms of multinational companies around the globe.
Petronas, Malaysia's most globalised company, may have been spoiled for choice before. Now it may have to worry if the choice may become spoiled.