Mission Impossible, Codename: Globalization, By The Political Expert

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Religion is the problem and the solution
By Tauqeer H Taqi
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=42450

Islamic fundamentalism cannot be explained as a reaction to American foreign policy or Third World poverty. I think no dialogue between civilisations will work unless it starts from the right base to stop this bloody puzzle game of unrest, fear and terror.

There is a spectre haunting the world, and it is no longer communism but the global resurgence of religion and its impact on world politics. It would seem that very few people want to believe that this global cultural shift is taking place; least of all, rather oddly, many Christians, since the most common reason given for the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre is a secular and a materialist one.

Many Christians in Britain have talked about being tough on terrorists and tough on the causes of terrorism? and by this they seem to mean overcoming the economic, social, and political inequalities, which are supposed to cause religious extremism or Islamic fundamentalism. But it was not because of the adverse affects of globalisation or the failure of American foreign policy that the World Trade Centre was destroyed and the Pentagon damaged in attacks which cost the lives of nearly 3,000 people ?roughly 5 per cent of the total number of casualties during the Vietnam War ?in the space of only one hour.

What is required is a better understanding of how culture and religion should appropriately be examined in international politics. The economic analysis many Christians have used to explain the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington does not fit the profile of the hijackers, nor the profile of Osama bin Laden. The hijackers were not alienated, or marginalised victims of globalisation, but Arabs who had benefited from globalisation and from their time in the west. What they have in common with the leaders, as well as the followers, of many Islamist movements, such as Sayyid Qutb, the radical Islamicist during Nasser抯 regime in Egypt, or Hassan al-Turabi in the Sudan, is that they rejected a western modernity many of them had experienced because they were educated there.

Islamic fundamentalism is not a result of alienation, social exclusion, or globalisation. It is a cultural and religious response to secular materialism. Since colonial occupation, the developing countries have been confronted with a dilemma: should they emulate the west in order to gain equality in power ?spurning their own culture ?or should they affirm their own cultural and religious traditions, but remain materially weak?

The dilemma of identity and development was resolved in the first years after in- dependence by emulating the west. The first generation of Third World elites that came to power in the late 1940s ?Nehru抯 India, Nasser抯 Egypt, Sukarno抯 Indonesia (and, going back to the 1920s, Ataturk抯 Turkey) ?espoused a similar 搈odernising mythology?inherited from the west. The application of this mythology has failed to produce political participation and a basic level of economic welfare throughout much of the developing world, particularly in the Middle East. This has led to the resurgence of religion, nationalism, and a proliferation of religious and ethno-national conflicts.

What is at issue in Pakistan is a battle of ideas and the struggle for cultural authenticity. More foreign aid and greater economic development, important though this is, will not eliminate the roots of religiously motivated terrorism, nor will it necessarily create the conditions for a more peaceful world. Economic development does not resolve the fundamental religious, cultural, or political differences between states or civilisations. Indeed, it may even exacerbate once weak states, or non-state groups within them, gain more power to wield in world politics.

The primary issue between the west and the Islamic world is the shift in world power since the sixteenth century. At its root is cultural and political resentment, which cannot be resolved by greater economic development because what is resented is the rise of the west and the gradual fall of Islam. Westerners tend to believe that if economic development takes place, then people in ?or from ?the Islamic world will become 搇ike us? and then there will be no more threats to global security. Thus, to some extent, the call for dealing with the alleged 搑oot causes?of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism should be acknowledged for what it is ?a new form of liberal imperialism.

More foreign aid and an ?allegedly ?more equitable global economy will not change the opposition. The reason that Bin Laden has declared war on the United States and resorted to the most horrific terrorism seen so far in the modern world is not that he is concerned about Palestinians, or Chechens, or Kashmiri separatists fighting Russia and India. He is fighting the United States because it backs moderate Arab governments in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia, but also Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco. This American stance is resented by Islamist groups who want to impose a purer, more demanding form of Islam as part of a global cultural shift.

How should we understand the impact of ideas, particularly religious ideas, in the social sciences, and how should we understand the relationship between religion and culture in international politics? This is the main theoretical issue. Is religion to be interpreted mainly as a body of ideas or doctrines, which would mean that Islamic fundamentalism should be regarded simply as a type of right-wing ideology?

If this kind of modern understanding is adopted, it is easy to see why religion is often seen as a mere epiphenomenon, a secondary symptom which hides ?allegedly ?more important economic, social, or technological forces in society. The impact of religion and culture in international politics is distorted when religion is invented by social theory as a set of privately held doctrines or beliefs in this way, and is applied to societies which have not yet made, or are struggling to make, or are even struggling not to make ?as part of the clash within civilisations ?this kind of social transition.

Taking religion and culture seriously means recognising that the cosmopolitan values of western liberalism, rooted in the European Enlightenment, may no longer provide an adequate basis for what is becoming a genuinely multicultural international society for the first time in history. Can the west and Islam live together, and if so, how? This will not be possible if the west simply expects Muslims to exchange the beliefs, practices, and traditions, which are constitutive of Islamic communities for those of western liberalism, which appears to be what many people expect in the west. Now it抯 time to find the reason within religion to stop this confrontation because there is a dangerous gap between the west and the Muslim world security.

Accessed 12/5/07

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reflections:

One would expect that with globalization comes the destruction of religion. After all, in the quest to follow the west, heritage and tradition are sacrificed. Religion is seen as an inconvenience imposed on members of the MTV generation. In the UK, only 10% of the population visit a place of worship (church, temple etc….) regularly. However, religion could also be seen as the oldest benefactor of religion. Different ideologies are spread to different parts of the globe and religion has no boundaries. Christianity could have followers in the USA and also in China, while Buddhism is practiced in both India and China. Religion is even making use of the technological advances that globalization to export their ideology. On the internet, there are online bible studies and several television stations broadcast Islamic prayer sessions. Therefore, religion experiences some benefits from globalization.

However globalization does have several negative impacts on religion. Globalization has led to the rise of religious insurgents and has provided the platform for terrorism to succeed. The article states that religious terrorists are not victims of globalization however many turn to terrorism because they feel that globalization is destroying their culture and detest the Western world for introducing it. The article further states that the insurgents have benefited from globalization. This is indeed true and is further evidence of the role globalization plays in terrorism. Globalization has made terrorists wealthy and gives them the money to carry out their plans. In addition, through technological advances, they now have the means to inflict mass destruction on countries far away. This can be seen in the case of the US September 11 attacks. With globalization, religion has now evolved into new form – extremism in the form of terrorism.

So what is the effect of this new breed of religion on politics? With the threat of terrorism, governments must now take action to protect its citizens from bomb threats and hijackings and other threats. One of the ways the government would do so would be to increase military strength. Governments would now want a task force that is prepared to handle any terror attack that may come. In addition, they would need a large team to track down and investigate any remote leads that may ultimately compromise national security. In addition governments must set legislation as to what to do with the terrorists if they are caught. This issue will be a controversial one. Many countries oppose the death penalty and governments must decide if they still want to follow their policy on the death sentence. In the case that the terrorists are from another country or found in another country, the government must decide what to do with the criminal, whether to handle the situation themselves or to leave it up to another country. This was evident in the case of the 2002 Bali bombings where the bombers were sentenced to death, a sentence that was celebrated by the Australians who had suffered many casualties although the Australians also oppose the death penalty. If the delicate situation is not handled carefully, there could be serious repercussions.

Other than religious terrorism, another effect of globalization would be the increase in religious parties in politics. Those who feel that the country is taking a more globalised route and squashing religious values may seek to regain those values by forming political parties and taking over the country. Currently there are many countries whose political parties are separated by religion. In Turkey, the parliament is mainly made up by the Islamic Justice and development party (AK) while the president is secular. Recently, the Islamic group has wanted a change in president to one who is a Muslim. The army who wants to continue Turkey’s tradition of having a secular president is objected to this. These two conflicting views have led to many rumours of coups and has led to political instability especially with the upcoming July elections. As a result of its mainly Islamic parliament and reputation, Turkey’s entry into the European Union has been blocked many times before. The article suggests that if the west and the islamic world do not find a way to coexist peacefully, the situation could become deadly.

In today’s society, globalization has an impact even on religion. Although this impact can be both positive and negative, the negative effects of religion on politics could be the rise of religious terrorism. Another impact would be the rise of religious political parties which could interfere in the governing of the country and its relations with other countries.

-joanne, political expert

Future Perfect; Political Expert 8:15 AM

Sunday, May 6, 2007

France promotes globalisation to kids

December 14, 2006 04:03am

ZOE is a French 10-year-old. She is learning the red socks she wears to school have travelled a long way before making it to her feet. They began as cotton grown in Mali in west Africa before going to Morocco in north Africa to be woven into fabric and travelling to France by boat to be delivered to shops by trucks. She plays a video game manufactured in China but designed in France and Japan, and when she is sick her medicine was created in France but uses plants from a rainforest in Brazil.

From politicians to farmers, the French are known for their firm opposition to globalisation.

Fears about it contributed to the French rejection of the European Union constitution last year and France's refusal to open its agricultural markets to competition was one of the reasons behind the collapse of a development round of trade talks earlier this year.

The government has decided it is time for education and Zoe features in a colourful brochure that is part of an effort to try and explain the benefits of globalisation to the French, particularly children. The brochures were unveiled by Trade Minister Christine Lagarde today and are being distributed to schools as part of this campaign.

"There is a lot more fear about globalisation than there is comprehension," she told reporters. She said the lack of understanding posed a risk that France will "become poorer and marginalised ... turn in on itself" and so "we thought it was imperative that we think about how we can turn the fear into understanding". She quotes from a poll by European pollster Eurobarometre which found that 72 per cent of French people felt threatened by globalisation while only 21 per cent see it as an opportunity. The challenges raised by globalisation, such as job losses as companies relocate to find cheaper labour, will also be a major issue in the campaign for the 2007 presidential election.

Ms Lagarde, an antitrust lawyer who worked for an international law firm, hopes to explain that globalisation does not lead to high unemployment. "Imports are not necessarily synonymous with job destruction if you take the examples of countries that are very open to imports," she said, pointing to low unemployment rates in the United States and Britain. France exported more than €350 billion ($592.32 billion) of goods in 2005 and one in seven workers is employed by a subsidiary of a foreign company.

Ms Lagarde will unveil a set of recommendations for coping with globalisation in April, just ahead of the presidential vote. Among the ideas she is considering is setting up a fund to help retrain workers affected by globalisation, goods labelling with social and environmental details, and a strengthening of the fight against counterfeiting and piracy.

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20925563-5005962,00.html

accessed May 6, 2007

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reflections:

Despite the growing popularity of globalization, there are still several countries that try to resist it. France would be one of these countries. Globalisation in France has become a hot topic especially with the French election going on.

There are a few reasons why the French do not want to embrace globalization. The French government provides many welfare benefits to its citizens, such as free schooling, short working hours and a lot of paid leave (5 weeks). Fortune magazine suggests that many reject globalization because they believe that globalization will cause them to lose their benefits. Globalisation encourages competition and the people believe that in order for companies to compete for business, they will have to cut labour costs and social benefits and workers will have to work harder for the same amount of money. Reluctant to change their work system and afraid of being exploited by globalization, the French are trying as hard as they possibly can to leave globalization out of their country, although this decision could prove to be financially threatening.

However this is only one group of people’s feelings. There is another group that wants and campaigns for globalization. This group of people feels that the French system restricts them and if they escape the French system, they can do much better for themselves. They want to work longer than France’s 35 hour week to earn overtime wages and since they cannot do this in France, they go to other countries to do so. Stephane Hamelin describes France as ‘the last communist country of the world’ because of all the benefits provided by the government. However there are people who disagree on the ‘communist system’ and want to become stronger through meritocracy. These people also believe that the current system will not be beneficially economically in the long run and there has been evidence to support this argument.

France’s aversion to globalization has led to serious repercussions. As a result of not wanting to globalize, France has lost hundreds of thousands of their workers. Many Frenchmen have gone to other countries within the European Union because of the lack of employment borders in search of a better life where they can perform better with restrictions from the government. Many of them are unwilling to return to France. When polled, 93% of French emigrants say that they are happy working and living in other countries while a quarter of them said that they would never return to France. This leads to a decrease in the population and it doesn’t aid the country’s economy either. In addition, France’s refusal to globalize and their insistence on maintaining a system whereby the governments provides everything has led to a economy that is having difficulty competing with other economies and has caused a high unemployment rate in the country. France has also incurred a national debt of 1.3 trillion which becoming more difficult to repay with their disdain of globalization.

France is now trying to educate the public about globalization (as seen from the article) and is encouraging it so as to be as competitive as the other European countries and economies. However if the more significant changes are to arise, the person that must be up for the task would be the next president of France and the government in general. The polling of the next president is taking place as I write (6th May 6 2007).

It is in the future president’s hands as to whether he/she implements policies that will help the economy of the country and it is up to that person to decide to steer the country on the road to globalization. France is now at a crossroads where is not accepting globalization will have no advantage for the country and its economy and accepting globalization will lead to the people’s dissent. Although globalization does bring about several disadvantages (see earlier posts), there is no other solution (at least none that I can think of) that can help France to develop into a stronger nation. France is at a point in time where major decisions need to be made and a capable leader is required to lead the people of France. However, whether its citizens want it or not, globalization is the only way the France can progress and be on par with other economies.

From the example of France, it is seen that although some countries are resistant to globalization, they will feel the effects of globalization, or the effects of not globalizing. In the end, it will be in their best interest to globalize.

-Joanne, political expert

References:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/02/8403449/index.htm (accessed May 6, 2007)
The Straits Times (Singapore) Saturday May 5, 2007, The Europeans who will not go home

Future Perfect; Political Expert 2:41 AM

Saturday, May 5, 2007

Picture from wikipedia - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/Tianasquare.jpg
Found in: http://www.n-line.co.uk/2005/06/05/tiananmen/

accessed 29 April 2007

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reflections:

This is the famous picture of the Tiananmen incident in 1989 in China where students stood up to the government, wanting freedom but they were squashed, both literally and in their demands. The picture shocked the world as it showed the government’s ruthlessness and the determination of the students. The picture was also significant as it contradicted the government’s statement of how no protesters where killed. This issue (the Tiananmen incident) will not be commented on but rather what the picture represents will be discussed – how the media challenges the government and the politics of a country.

The media has proven in the past that it can be a tool of the government or a threat to the government. The impact of the media is amplified by globalization through the development of technology. With the help of the internet and other gadgets like camera phones, images captured can travel over time and space. The internet spreads throughout borders with no regard for governments and this in turns has given the media amazing power. The Tiananmen incident occurred in 1989 but its images have been immortalized on the internet. Although it occurred in China, other countries came to know of it through the internet, newspaper reports and the television.

The ability and tendency of the media to spread and reach all has proven to be a challenge to governments. Some countries try to control the media through censorship. Others may control the media directly and impose restrictions on the media dictating what they can or cannot report. However, censorship is not always effective and the people may become aware of the facts that the government may be trying to hide. However, there have been many instances where the media have managed to expose some content deemed unsuitable by the government. This can be seen in the example of the Tiananmen incident.

With the rise of the internet and the increasing ease of posting clips onto the internet, countries are finding it more and more difficult to persuade the media to do their bidding. Last month (April 2007), clips that are/were deemed offensive to King Bhumibol of Thailand were posted on YouTube. The Thai government wanted the clip removed however YouTube refused to do so. The Thai government has since blocked access to the website and is now looking to sue YouTube on the charge of an offence against the monarchy. This shows that governments are losing power with the media and can no longer get them to do their bidding. As a result of globalization, the media now has the power to challenge governments and they also have the opportunity to win. It is evident that as the media gains power, the government loses it.

In our globalised society, much of the media, music and television, comes from the West and their ideology and lifestyle. This western culture is spread through the media and can have profound effects on governments. In the case of the East Germany, radio signals and television waves from neighbouring countries promoting the American dream and luxury of democratic life is said to be one of the causes for the collapse of the Berlin wall. Although foreign media was blocked, it still manage to find a way onto the people’s lives. Citizens, armed with knowledge and desire for a better and freer life too to the streets demonstrating and eventually caused the collapse of the Berlin Wall.The media knows no boundaries with the help of technology and it had a devastating effect on the communist regime in East Germany. As seen from the past, the media can empower the common folk and can be a deadly threat to the government.

Today, the media often circulates pictures of war, and these compelling pictures act as evidence for other countries to interfere. Pictures taken of the Iraq war have been used as ammunition by the people to try to get the American government to leave Iraq. However in today’s day and age of technology and software, it is increasingly difficult to separate fact from fiction. It is now possible and quite popular to doctor photographs and make it look realistic. This can work both ways. People can doctor pictures to produce more sensational and compelling photographs but the government can always argue that pictures are doctored and not the real deal.

The media is no doubt rising in status and power, but just how powerful are they? The media gives the people information and can help them make an informed choice however, they cannot control the minds of their audience and what actions their audience takes is entirely up to them. In the Rwanda genocide of 1994, there was extensive international news media coverage on the event and images and details of the genocide were broadcasted worldwide. Despite this, international organizations and many countries refused to intervene and stop the war. While the media provides evidence and justification for the intervention of other countries, it can only try to persuade governments to interfere but this is not a done deal. While the media has the ability to challenge the government, it is still unable to control the government and is unable to influence their decisions.

All of the above points to the media giving power to the people although it erodes the government’s power. However this is a completely different story if the government controls the media and uses it for propaganda. If the government were to use the media as a tool to channel their views, it is possible for the government to control the minds of the readers through the readers. This has been done many times in the past for example in Germany under Nazi rule. However it is becoming increasingly more difficult to use the media for propaganda purposes. Even if the government succeeds in manipulating the media, the intended audience can get their information from other places, such as the internet.

With the advancement of technology, the media has developed rapidly. Although it can work for the government, most of the time it works against the government and interferes in politics. The current status of the media is thanks to the effects of globalization. And though it empowers the people, the media erodes the government’s power and weakens their position.

- Joanne, political expert

References:
Weekend Today (Singapore), Thailand to sue YouTube, 5th May 2007

Future Perfect; Political Expert 7:48 PM

Sunday, April 29, 2007

The 500 gets religion
Why big companies are in the business of solving the world's woes.
By Geoff Colvin, Fortune senior editor-at-large
April 17 2007: 4:29 PM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) -- What business are you in?" Peter Drucker famously asked his clients. The wisest of all management thinkers knew that fundamental question was most important. If we could ask his question of the entire Fortune 500 today, the answer would be especially important because it isn't what it used to be.

The implications of the change are considerable for all of America's big companies and for the country. Here's the change in a nutshell: Until recent years the Fortune 500 was in the business of solving people's problems. Now, increasingly, it's in the business of solving the world's problems.

A clear example of the old model was the corporate slogan of DuPont (Charts) for 60-plus years: "Better things for better living." It was a simple theory: Because of us you can have nylon stockings and Tyvek housewrap, and your life will be better. To see the new model, check what Ford (Charts) is promoting - not better things for better living, but "Better World."

Ford happens to be playing up its work in hybrid technology and fuel efficiency, but in general the story is similar at many of the other biggest companies. Wal-Mart (Charts) is saying, "Change a light. Change the world," to promote the environmental advantages of fluorescent bulbs. The corporate slogan of Exxon Mobil (Charts) is "Taking on the world's toughest energy challenges." GE (Charts) says it's helping "solve some of the world's toughest problems." Notice a theme?

When business gets personal
What's happening is more than public relations, though it's definitely that. After the business scandals of 2001-03, big companies have been desperate to portray themselves as good citizens. But companies aren't just changing messages; in many cases they're also changing behavior. What's striking is that many large companies are finding it pays to take actions that benefit the customer not at all, but that benefit the environment or the larger society.

Thus Starbucks (Charts) buys "fair trade" coffee at above-market prices not because it tastes better but because it helps poor farmers, which customers seem to appreciate. The millions of dollars that Gap, Nike and others spend monitoring their global supply chains for compliance with labor standards doesn't make the clothing any better. The willingness of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and others to take back their computers for recycling doesn't benefit customers, for whom it would be easier just to dump the PCs in the garbage. Yet such practices are all critical parts of those companies' business strategies.

What's going on? A major part of the explanation is that we're an incredibly rich society. One must never minimize the plight of the poor, but the reality is that on the whole we live amid greater abundance than any nation has ever known, and that changes people's priorities. We can worry more about helping the world to the extent we can worry less about helping ourselves.

Where that leads isn't clear, because this is a new model. Companies definitely aren't solving society's problems by taking care of employees the way they used to; we all know the trends in job security, pay, pensions and health-care coverage. But employers are trying to attract and hold employees in a new way that exactly parallels the change in how they're appealing to consumers: by giving more meaning to their lives.

That's a deep shift in the way companies are managed. GE's Jeffrey Immelt, for example, will tell you that his company's Ecomagination initiative helps the company in all kinds of ways, but its most important effect is what it does for the employees. They're prouder to work for GE. An old-school cynic would respond that such a purpose doesn't put groceries on the table, and that's what employees need. It's certainly what some employees need. But that kind of thinking doesn't apply as broadly as it used to.

Bottom line, we expect much more of the Fortune 500 than ever before, and many people have been happy to pay for it through these past five years of economic expansion.

What happens when the recession arrives, and we aren't quite so rich? Customers may want more tangible benefits, and employees more groceries, yet now that they've been sensitized to Nicaraguan coffee growers and Pakistani labor practices, companies will have a tough time dialing back today's high expectations.

The Fortune 500 is in a new business. It's worth asking whether it knows what it has gotten itself into.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/04/30/8405462/index.htm
accessed 29 april 2007

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reflections:
It’s easy to blame globalization and the large companies that it brings for all the problems in the world. By setting up factories in other parts of the world, corporations destroy the environment with their factories and pollution, they deplete the resources to fuel their business, workers in foreign countries are exploited as they work for hours for meager wages, etc…… As a result of all the problems that they cause, governments are forced to clean up the messes of the businesses.

However, there is an increasingly popular trend in globalization today. More and more larger corporations want to save the world and help relieve some of the pressing world issues. Companies are now promoting environmentally friendly gadgets and making sure that their labour force has better working conditions.

So while this benefits the environment and the rest of the world, what does this means for governments? Should this trend continue, governments no longer have to impose policies to protect the environment and to protect their workers as the companies will have considered that beforehand. This lightens the governments work load and shortens the list of things that they have to do. However, if companies continue to carry out the good work that they do, the local government will be seen as being incompetent, uncaring and ineffective. Companies who have succeeded where they government failed, for example Gap ensuring that their factories have good working conditions, make it seem like the government does not do anything, does not want to do anything or cannot do anything for their workers.

To take it one step further, companies could interfere with the sovereignty of a nation in their pursuit of making the world a better place. Taking the example of the working conditions in factories again, companies could demand that the government have better guidelines for their factories. This could take place directly or indirectly through other workers wanting the same benefits and protesting against the government to do so. While all this is for the betterment of the labourers, the issue at hand is that companies now have the power to influence policy making. Since the businesses now have a reasonable and commendable rationale behind their demands, there is no reason as to why the government should not give in to the demands and are forced to carry out the plans concocted by the companies. The sovereignty of nations is now hanging by a thin thread.

With businesses solving pressing world concerns, companies appear to be wielding more power over the citizens of a country. They have the means of influencing choices made by the citizens who are their clientele. If Wal-Mart wanted customers to choose fluorescent bulbs, they could sell only fluorescent bulbs and force customers to buy it, saving energy for all. However the government cannot restrict the specific type of goods that is sold. Here businesses have the upper hand with soft power.

That leads us to the question of whether governments have any relevance with this increasingly popular trend. Corporations have more power to influence citizens and now they are doing their part to protect the people’s interest and the environment. Many corporations also have the ability to control the money flow in a country. Recently Starbucks have been wrapped up in a case with Ethiopia about coffee and Starbucks appears to be winning. In a sense, they have more importance then governments and could overtake the governments of tomorrow. Companies are growing in importance because of globalization, some are becoming even more important than countries and governments. Many corporations are already more wealthy than some countries.

While the world is being made a better place by large companies and businesses, governments all over the world have a reason to shudder as the companies become more important. Perhaps with globalization comes the increasing significance of companies and the decline of governments.

-joanne (political expert)

Future Perfect; Political Expert 3:55 AM

Saturday, April 21, 2007

http://www.ortzion.org/eu_flag_euromap8.jpg (accessed 21 April 2007)

Reflections
The picture shows the symbol of the European Union superimposed over a map of the world, over the continent of Europe in particular. This picture symbolizes that with organizations like the European Union, borders are no longer needed or used to segregate countries.

The EU is a supranational organization comprising of 27 European countries. The EU encourages globalization. One aspect of globalization would be the crumbling of national borders and the EU has done exactly that with its member states. Members of the EU do not have borders with each other and this allows for greater mobility for the people. As a result of the formation of the EU, there is free trade of goods and services between the member states, supporting globalization. Companies can expand their reach beyond their own countries and has a wider market with more customers. Whether encouraging globalisation is beneficial or not, this remains to be seen.

Citizens of the member states of the EU are citizens of the EU. Every five years, they elect the EU Parliament which passes and amends legislatives and supervises the activities of the EU. Citizens of the EU are free to move around the member states. A phrase used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU was ‘In a more political sense, the EU attempts to create - with much controversy - a sense of European citizenship and European political life.’ This means that instead of cultivating ownership and recognition of individual states, the EU is attempting to create a world where people see themselves as belonging to the EU entity. The EU is in a sense working towards a world government.

There are many benefits to having such an arrangement. International ties are strengthened between member states and individual governments need not worry too much about international tension. With the mobility of people and the policy of free trade, the economy thrives. Furthermore, the EU introduced a common currency which is quite strong although it is not mandatory to adopt it. With its political and economic stability, investors are attracted to put their funds into the EU. In addition, this union brings about peace, both on an international and domestic level. Joined by the EU, its member states do not go to war with one another and coexist peacefully. Domestically, the member states pool their resources together, for example criminal intelligence and this ensures that criminals are caught, strengthening home security. The benefits of the existence of the EU are not just felt in the member states. The EU contributed billions of Euro towards humanitarian aid worldwide, helping other countries to develop.

Admittedly, while there are its benefits, there are also several flaws or rather, questions that need to be addressed. The EU compromises sovereignty as the many member countries are considered as a single entity and not individually. Upon joining, they must adhere to the policies previously set up without negotiation. By opening up their borders, the individual governments cannot control who enters their country and who leaves. In the system of a world government, or in something close to it, individual governments must give up their power in order for the system to work. It is difficult to protect the individual rights of a certain country when it is supposed to be part of a larger system.

Even so, with the benefits of the EU and its gaining popularity, other countries are desperate to join the exclusive EU club. Bulgaria and Romania joined at the start of this year while Turkey and Croatia are official candidates, negotiating their entry into the union. However, these countries may be joining because of peer pressure. With so many countries in the union, those left out are feeling the pressure to join. Another factor that may lead to their entry would be to gain recognition and to prove themselves to be as developed as the European countries. Regardless, the EU is expanding its territory with countries begging to join.

Yet there are those that remain resistant to the allure of the EU, such as Switzerland and Norway. However one questions if there are really resistant. Recently, a relative went on a tour of Europe. Crossing the Austria – Liechtenstein border (Liechtenstein is a small country next to Austria and Switzerland that has not joined the EU), it appeared that there was no border as there was no immigration checks or the stamping of passports. This would seem that even countries that do not join the EU are treated against their will as one. Governments that are determined to keep their countries out of the EU must work twice as hard to highlight the distinction or their countries would blur into the union. Even countries that are not in the EU can feel its influence.

However, the EU is not the only organization that unites countries. African nations have now formed their own African Union. Although the African Union is larger than the EU with 53 member states spanning almost the entire continent of Africa, it is not as developed as the EU and needs to solve many conflicts and resolve many issues. The AU is modeled after the EU and has its own Union Parliament. It also wishes to adopt a common currency for all its member states. From here, it is seen that a large scale globalization is in action. Instead of companies expanding their reach of influence, the ideology of a union of continental nations is being spread. Instead of countries looking identical, these unions are starting to look similar with one following the other. Should this continue, a world wide union is possible and a world government is within reach.

- Joanne (Political Expert not the Economic Expert!)

References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_government

Future Perfect; Political Expert 4:37 PM

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Articles:

Job Migration
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/specialfocus/story/0,4574,229927,00.html?

Summary - more and more western companies are outsourcing work to India. this is because India can provide goods and services at a much lower price without compromising quality and also India represents a large field of potential customers. as these companies hire Indian workers, they lay off workers in their own country as there is no more need for them. this creates problems not only in the western companies but also in India as this creates a void in jobs in other sectors and creates a need for better infrastructure.

Globalisation's threat to 'jobs of the future'
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/sub/views/story/0,4574,230187,00.html?

Summary - with jobs being outsourced to India and globalisation, citizens of the US are losing their jobs and becoming increasingly poorer. the US government must now come up with ways to deal with the situation. the article suggests that youths should be educated and prepared for jobs that will not be outsourced.

accessed on 10 April 2007

Reflections

Globalisation may bring economic benefits to larger companies and business as they become household names worldwide like. However globalization could pose a large problem for the governments of countries involves. With globalization, companies expand their businesses and gain world wide recognition, and demand for their goods increases. To meet the demands of the consumer and to maximize profits at the same time, these companies turn to other countries with cheaper labour costs to manufacture their goods instead of the countries in which they are based in. Countries such as Indian are becoming the preferred places for services to be outsourced.

The articles focus on the employment situation in the USA. With goods and services being outsourced to other countries like India, those in the same line in the US have no need for their jobs and are retrenched which increases the unemployment rate and job insecurity or employees receive a pay cut and struggle to make ends meet. As many as 28 million to 42 million people in the US could be affected.

The government of the US now faces the difficult task of solving this problem. They need to come up with ways to create more jobs for the unemployed, to provide an income for the jobless and also to pull people above the poverty line. If they were to provide welfare funds to the poor and unemployed, it would come at a loss to them or they would need to tax the more well-to-do individuals. Tax payers would surely cringe at the thought of parting with their money. Another option which they may consider would be to protect their own services and goods by heavily taxing foreign goods. This in turn may strain international relations and so the government has to handle the delicate situation brought on by globalization. Should they handle it inappropriately, the citizens of the country would be dissident and the government risks being voted out of office.

Countries that are being outsourced are the only countries with governments affected by globalization. On one hand, the government gains support when they allow businesses to set up office in the country providing more employment and a higher income and goods and services become more readily available.

However, with the presence of global businesses with recognized reputation and the help of their marketing department, the smaller local industries cannot compare especially since the larger companies has money to spare and can provide the same goods at a lower price. Locals patronize larger companies while the smaller businesses lose customers as they cannot compete. Most of the time, they do not have a fixed income and are forced to close up.

With more workers working for the Multi-National Corporation, there will be a lack of workers in other sectors. The first article predicts that India will be short of thousands of engineers because of globalization. The government must then find ways to attract people to take up that career choice to ensure the country continues to function perhaps by encourage people from other countries to migrate to India, if not, India could lack engineers and infrastructure will suffer.

At the same time, the government needs to provide infrastructure to support the growing industries. Some poorer countries lack the resources and capital to do so and hamper the progress of their economy. In addition, they need to think of ways to protect the workers from exploitation. Their government must ensure that their people are not overworked and underpaid however it may be because of these two characteristics that companies pick such countries – the workers work twice as hard but they’re paid a fraction of the cost. Governments must put in place guidelines to ensure that the MNCs are not the only ones who benefit from the arrangement.

Another source of concern for governments in places where work is outsourced to, they are criticised and questioned about riding the globalization train. Especially in India where culture and tradition have great importance, many would feel that giving in to globalization would mean sacrificing their heritage and are unwilling to do so. As a result of globalization, protests and strikes are rampant and the government must take action or see their state paralysed.

The government could also be criticized for globalizing for the development of the economy without any thought to other aspects like the environment. Large international offices set up factories and offices and very often bring pollution with them. Environmental groups or other countries may demand that the government protect the environment and more policies must be made to appease their demands. For a long time, India has been scrutinized for developing their economy at the cost of nature and not doing anything to help the environment like ratifying the Kyoto Protocol for example.

While globalization benefits the MNCs by providing them with a means to lower costs and increase profits, it is a major headache for governments as they deal with the effects of globalization. Although it could boost the economy by creating jobs in countries were work is outsourced to, globalization can just as easily destroy it like in the US where many are not needed to work anymore. Globalization has a significant impact on politics as it determines the actions taken by the government of the state to protect and aid their citizens. The first article also mentions that with this arrangement of outsourcing work, national boundaries have no effect or meaning anymore. This is something that every government would be shivering about.

Future Perfect; Political Expert 9:00 PM