“The countries of India and China have a right to pollute the environment until they catch up with more industrialized countries.” According to Corcoran, T. (2009) “the Indian Minister of Finance, Palaniappan Chidambaram argues that India and China should be given the right to use as much energy as the West. He further argues that these two countries had the right to grow and use energy that produced carbons.”
The Minister only promised to keep the emissions below that of the West. This means that if the West cuts on emissions, so will India and China. I agree with the Minister, every country has the right to grow economically. By asking India and China to do what the Western countries find it had to adopt is just a source of conflict. Furthermore, the US should set an example for others to follow. It is not logical to ask developing countries to cut on emissions yet the West is largely responsible for the harmful gases already in the air. US, Europe, and Japan have been enjoying the fruits of industrialization for the past years. Now that they have realized that India and China are economic threats, they have come up with the global warming debate which is a hypocritical way to stop competition. They are ready to put more pressure on India and China to cut their emissions but they are not ready to stop it. This is simply an ambition but not a genuine move to care for the environment.
However, the state of the ozone layer is something that affects not just industrialized countries but the whole world. Global warming causes pollution, diseases, and death. This can be seen from the current extreme weather conditions. Famine, earthquakes, floods, and incurable diseases are just a few of the examples. No country should refuse to take care of the environment. If these countries really wanted to cut on emissions, they would. They have the resources and the money. There is no reason why they should not take care of the environment because this affects the whole world.
To summarize, India and China need a better way to grow for the sake of our environment.
Methods of Maintaining Peace and Unity in Bi-National, Multinational, and Multiethnic States
Bi-National, multinational, and multiethnic states are states that have several distinct cultures within them that compete for control. This causes an unstable situation but can be stabilized if managed carefully. Some of the major issues that lead to this situation are language, religion, and colonization (Bruce 2008).
A multinational state requires a lot of work to keep it together. According to Bruce, (2008), “there are various methods of maintaining peace and unity in bi-national, multinational, and multiethnic states.” Some of these methods include; trying to impose a common culture based on language and other shared traditions. Another method would be, using law enforcement to prevent conflict. This can be done by using the law to rigidly control behavior and to have stronger penalties for breaking the law. The third method is using the media and government to create and maintain the reality of a nation. This means that Dean Alger, (1996) “if there is a national government, and a national media offering messages of national nature, then there must be a nation.” These methods have worked in some counties of Europe for example Switzerland and Belgium have acknowledged two national official languages which have worked towards their stability.
However, these methods are not a guarantee for unity in a multi-national state. For example, trying to impose a common culture and language can lead to war. Using law only creates an environment for conflict while using the media will create nationality but this may take time.
In conclusion, methods of maintaining peace and unity in bi-national, multinational, and multiethnic states may work or fail. Peace and unity is a process that requires patience and persistence.
References
Alger, D. (1996). The media and politics. USA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Bruce, N. (2008). Bi-national state. Web.
Corcoran, T. (2009). Skeptics score a win against alarmists. Web.