This project has been funded with support from the European Commission (226388-cp-1-2005-1-de-comenius-c21). This publication reflects the views only of the authors

5.2.5. Others

ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) was established in 1967 in Bangkok by the five original member countries, namely, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Then Brunei Darussalam, Vietnam, Lao PDR, Myanmar and Cambodia have joint.
The ASEAN Declaration states that the aims and purposes of the association are:

• 
  To accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region and
  
• 
  To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice and the rule of law in the relationship among countries in the region and adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter.
  

Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA) is another agreement which is between countries in Central and South-Eastern Europe. It was originally signed in 1992 by Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics and entered into force in 1994. The parties of the CEFTA are: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo. Former parties that left the agreement because of their EU membership are Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.
There are a lot of international integrations and free trade agreements in the world.¹ Most of them are in favor of freer trade and therefore economic globalization.

6. Future: Qua Vadis?

Despite the peace settlements signed after 2^nd World War, the world entered a cold war process. At the essence of this contention that affected the whole world there were the contradicting economic structures, capitalism and communism. Even the countries who didn’t want to place in any bloc were affected from this structure and for their interest had close relations with both zones.
Either capitalist or communist systems, they have developed in different directions with what their ideas and targets promise. Capitalism has developed by accepting material success and wealth as the measure of everything and material satisfaction of human as the basic motive. At the end it was successful but could not share this success with the public. Therefore the individuals that are desired to be rescued are depressed more and left alone. Individuals that feel this depression oriented to other things. On the other hand mercantilist state perception which takes the state as basis and accepts full responsibility of state for the society in order to retrieve equity to everybody disregarded individuals. The public depressed under the power of state and who could not achieve the promised heavens at the end surrendered from the ideals and operability of communism. Therefore in the period of about half a century both economic perception and the cohesive political systems recognized the need of change.
Although globalization constitutes an important leg of this change, there is no consensus on the definition and the effects of the concept “globalization”. Public opinion on globalization is polarized due to the advantages and disadvantages of the process. Globalization is perceived as either a cure for all problems or the primary cause of these problems.
Globalization is neither a magic cure for the problems of national economies nor a plot for exploitation of workers or despoliation of environment by mega-corporations. Globalization is neither the return of colonialism, nor is it the arrival of world government. Globalization simply means an expansion of the range of possible commercial activities at the most fundamental level. The activities such as buying, selling, producing, borrowing and lending which were restricted by geographic technologic or legal barriers have become practical. Seeking and sorting through the possibilities opened up by globalization will require a great amount of effort, flexibility and change because globalization embodies such a vast and marvelous array of new economic opportunities.
Globalization will affect every country and individual both positively and negatively. While positive effects do not bear any threat and are desired by everyone, all the negative effects constitute the basis of anti-globalist movements. The basic item that anti-globalist movements are grounded on is the fact that the negative effects will affect fragile, weak and poor countries and persons first and then the whole mankind. Therefore the world should deliberate on the threats that globalization creates and try to manage the process. In this process the most important function belongs to international institutions.
If the future of globalization is analyzed in terms of statistics and world realizations the developing countries of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) have the fastest growing information and communication technologies (ICT) markets in the world and the developments in these five countries have spill-over effects on OECD region. Between 2000 and 2005 with an annual increase over 19% the ICT expenditures reached to $277 billion from $114 billion. Between 2000 and 2006 the annual ICT growth rate of expenditure was 5.6% for the world and only 4.2% for the OECD region and the share of OECD in the world market decreased form 89% to 83%.
The highest growth in ICT expenditure was experienced by the developing countries outside the OECD region. ICT expenditure of China that achieved an annual growth rate of 22% in terms of nominal dollars is estimated to be $118 billion in 2005. Excluding China, the highest growth rates belong to 9 non-OECD countries like Russia (25% annually) and India (23%) between 2000 and 2005. the second group pf countries which have high growth rates include Indonesia, South Africa and East European OECD member countries.
In these circumstances, it is possible to say that the ICT demand of developing countries like China will continue and consequently the integration of the world economy will increase and globalization will intensify.
On the other hand as of 2000 an American consumes 2.1 fold more energy than a German, 12.1 fold than a Colombian, 28.9 fold than an Indian, 127 fold than a Haitian and 395 fold than an Ethiopian. These figures emphasize the inequality among people and this inequality has significant importance for the future of globalization and environment.
Divergence of incomes helps to explain the polarization in the world system between the region of peace and the region of chaos. The wealthy zone lives the wax of economic growth and the republican order of liberal tolerance and the technologic innovations that will substitute natural capital usage. Our age is the optimal era for those at the highest parts of income distribution in the prosperous countries. On the other hand in the low and medium income zone, mostly in Africa, Middle East, Central Asia, Russia and in some parts of East Asia, the governance capacity of many countries are stagnant or eroding. The people living in these countries can not find their access to even basic necessities while at the same time see people driving Mercedes – on TV if not outside their own windows.
New information technologies produce tools that threaten the stability of societies and crate a lot of unemployed and angry young people that threaten even the stability of the prosperous zone. Economic growth in poor countries often depletes natural resource and therefore future growth potential. More and more people see migration to prosperous zone as the only way of salvation. The importance of the “missing middle” is partly that the three quarter of world population in the third world must get to the first world in order appreciably to raise their incomes. There is not much of a middle world for them to migrate, and in any case average income in the middle world is only 4 times higher than average income in the third world; while average income in the first world is over 9 times higher.
As a result, the answer to the question whether the globalization process will create a wealthier world for all or a world that will have greater differences among countries and therefore unrests will be given by the process itself. Good management of the process will increase the chance of first scenario while ignorance or deferment of the problems will increase the risk of second scenario.