Globalization was a most welcome idea. If its meaning is anything to go by; a process of bringing together regional economies, cultures and societies to have them integrated into one unit, then ultimately, welcoming the idea should not be disguised. While there could be a myriad of driving forces behind the entire globalizing process, as is postulated by the different schools of thought, at inception it was well thought. The fact that the driving force lies in the capitalist nature of individuals (Marxist), is in all senses true. But still, the scramble for the limited resources needed for the industrialization process has a big hand in the globalization prospects (Liberals). Yet still, bureaucracy has such a big role in the entire process, that it can not be waived aside by whatever means.
The world is faced with so much challenges and opportunities, but apparently the challenges seem to be outwitting the world. This is happening on an ever increasing call for globalizing. This leaves one wondering whether globalization is a blessing or one in disguise. Within the confines of this globalization intricacies, is underpinned the foregoing discussion.
Before the Second World War, the world remained largely fragmented with very many political, social, economic and cultural blocs. The post war era saw the formation of the United Nations, which has played a role in bringing about, unknowingly, the blocs. These blocs have evolved over time and now given birth to globalization. This move has not only improved relations among nations but has also expanded opportunities.
Market is a very important component in business. Globalization has created an enormous market for the industrial goods and services. Either, industries are buying raw materials or the final products are being sent to the world market. This is where critics differ with the entire process of globalization. While globalization should allow free movement of the goods and services, the movement is sometimes one sided. Developed countries put a lot of conditional ties on the developing nations, in the name of quality control, yet ultimately they want to control the market.
The goods being sent into the market should be given equal treatment, from the less developed, developing and developed countries. Bureaucracy plays a big role in the process of globalization, but the bureaucratic system is not democratic. Bureaucracy, coordination of activities in a systematic manner by democratically chosen individuals, lacks in total. Commonly those who have taken charge of globalizations are developed nations, leaving developing and less developed nations as mere per takers of decisions.
Industrialization has had far reaching ramifications on the global climate. The most affected are the less developed countries. These countries have lower capacities for mitigating the menace, yet their contribution to the very problem is nearly zero. Ironically however, at Copenhagen, the developed countries shoved aside the underdeveloped and developing countries. It is reported that there was constant consultations between heads of states, notably however, the consultations were between heads of state of only developed nations, among them US, Germany, China and Britain among others. This shows how the whole issue on globalization is orchestrated; very one sided. By some analogy of some sort, sincerely the doctor consult the patient, it is from the patient’s explanations that the doctor makes deductions that can help in treating the ailment.
Corporations are meant to serve the objectives set at inception, but there always comes a time when the corporation ceases to serve the very objects of its establishment for economic and political survival. Like a Corporate, the global community appears trailing along this analogical path. The community is meant to serve the varied interests of the world yet it segregates. A manufacture of one nuclear weapon here, is right, another manufacture of a slightly less harmful nuclear weapon there is wrong; condemned. Looking at the overview of The Corporate, indeed, how can an American president, supported and funded by these corporate companies fail to serve their whims, definitely, it is impossible. In the same wave, it is like globalization is about the developed world and not the world as a whole.
By the systems approach to management, there should be a constant exchange of materials within any system. And that the systems can not work in isolation. When the developed nations go it alone, there lacks some interaction, consequently the systems may stop functioning or not be effective in their functions. There should always be some interconnection between the different parts of the system. The member countries within this context are the system parts. Evidently, capitalism is playing a role so big. Countries want to amaze as much wealth as is within the disposal, both forcefully and without force. Globalization as Hayek puts it, provides a ground for the capitalists to learn and scheme for their likely competitors, most of who will sit at same table, globalization has largely provided a forum with protracted objectives such as this.
In principle, developed nations will purport to be supporting the development agenda for the developing nations. However this is done in a belated manner. Aid is ordinarily given to developing nations, unfortunately; the conditional ties end up transferring the funds to the mother country. The resultant effect is that the mother country ends up making more profit from the fund that was initially a grant. It definitely shows lack of foresight if one doesn’t hasten to add that some of this funding is so well intentioned and it serves the ultimate object.
Looking at the humanitarian crisis exhibited in Darwin’s Nightmare, there was indeed a lot of human suffering on the island. The airplanes that jetted in with food actually tried to alleviate the human suffering that was being experienced. People could not die from hunger. The irony of the whole exercise is the fact that with the food was some ammunition that was stuffed in the food substances. In earnest, one is startled to analyze the whole crisis. The agencies were most likely interested in creating a market for the food stuff and the weapons alike. This brings in the Iraqi analogy.
The war in Iraq was meant to reduce the dictatorship that was being imposed by the Hussein government on the Iraqi. A closer look shows that the whole situation was to control the American interests in Iraq. While this war served this very objective to an extent so reasonable, capitalism was the main driving force. The U S wanted to have some relative control over this large oil resource that was in abundance in Iraq. On the other hand, the Iraqi fought on because they wanted to have full control of their own oil. In deciding to attack Iraq, little consultation was done; even Americans themselves were dismally consulted. It is in view of this that opinion polls showed that America was divided over the war in Iraq.
Public opinion is now fairly solidly against the war in Iraqi. More than half of Americans– 55% – think the U.S. should have stayed out of Iraqi (the highest figure to date), while 41% think taking military action there was the right thing to do. As the war began, Americans overwhelmingly approved of U.S. action against Iraqi; 69% said the U.S. did the right thing in taking military action (the highest level of support in our polls for the war). Support for the war waned in 2004.
This statistics show that bureaucracy rarely serves the interest for which it is intended. The attack in Iraq was meant to be a unanimous (global) resolution aimed at protecting the entire world, but the decision has remained largely a Britain-American affair.
The military industrial complex plays a significant role in the world’s order. Every move by, particularly developed countries, is taken by the likely competitor with every keen interest. Any attempt to develop weaponry is criticized even, even when it’s well intentioned. The main base for this move is always alleged to be international security. This alleged relationship between government, the armed forces and the industrial support is what precipitates the conflict further. Going by the economic structures, globalization should try to address the issue of economic inequality more often to reduce the ever increasing gap between the poor nations and the richer nations. Unfortunately, the effects caused by industrialization tend to increase the expenditure of poor nations on the mitigation than they are gaining from industrialization.
Resultant from industrialization has been global warming. This phenomenon has come with it climatic changes that are causing a lot of calamities. These calamities include droughts, El Niño, El nana, earthquakes, Tsunamis, floods and glaciations. These are catastrophes that are expensive to manage, for the less developed and developing countries. Besides, they are causing a lot of life loss and human suffering. As this happens, the industrialized nations want to make a kill, make machinery that can be used to solve such calamities, sell them to the highly vulnerable nations; undeveloped and developing nations.
Cultural practices are being intermingled in the name of globalization. The cultures of some societies are being lost, yet other societies are embracing culture beyond them. This is not only losing individual identity but is also bringing about confusion. In the wake of this cultural globalization, relative vices such as homosexuality, lesbianism and masturbation are being embraced beyond reproach. “What’s more, there’s no point denying that multinationals have contributed to labor, environmental, and human-rights abuses as they pursue profit around the globe. In as much as we applaud the integration that globalization is bringing this vices could always give us a second thought.”
The United Nation Peace Peacekeeping and interventions in matters of international aggression is just as good. However, these peace keeping missions come with non humanitarian acts. Among these acts is detainment without trial of suspects in Afghanistan. In acknowledging the role played by some of these agencies, these other side of the coin should be looked at alongside. Apparently, the object is well thought but the implementation is crowded in such controversy. In the long run, the mission ends up devastating those it was meant to protect. It is worthwhile pointing out too, that in some case the intervention has been able to serve the very purpose for which it was intended for example in Liberia.
…..involved in field operations from “traditional” missions involving strictly military tasks, to complex “multidimensional” enterprises designed to ensure the implementation of comprehensive peace agreements and assist in laying the foundations for sustainable peace. Today’s peacekeepers undertake a wide variety of complex tasks, from helping to build sustainable institutions of governance, to human rights monitoring, to security sector reform, to the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants.
These roles when undertaken without creating another human crisis within a crisis would be as good.
The opening up of the market is most welcome. This has many positive effects. In these policies lies the solution for the much negative balance of payment. To this end however, the best move that will bring a near-to-level playing ground for members would be waive off the debts that have been incurred by the less developed countries and developing countries. On the other hand, the developed countries ought to make efforts and make direct capital investment in developed and developing countries. As developed countries do this, they should be very cautious as not to make abnormal profits as most multinationals do.
The investors should strive to make normal profits as they reward the other factors of production relatively well. This flow of income will not only see the residents improve their standards of living but will also see national income increase. Ultimately this is the goal for globalization. The movement of labor and capital resources was initially meant to be as free, yet today there are very many bureaucracies that one has to go through to get permission for moving to another country. Going by the fact that any industry should be self regulatory, the players should be allowed to try their case in the market, those who are too weak to survive will be phased out automatically. The strong will remain; high quality will be upheld, hence benefiting the consumer in the long term.
A world with equal opportunities will achieve relative peace. Vividly the animosity that is evident now is as a result of the large gap between the poor and the rich. This attitude runs across citizens, nations and continents alike. However where each individual is being viewed as a significant other, such perception will be removed or reduced. Towards this end, the solution lies in genuine discussion, those that will only take place when all the cards are openly placed on the table, no unwarranted suspicion. Where such suspicions arise, they should be discussed openly and amicable solutions sought. As Adelman, Clifford asserts, the governments of developed nations have always walked the walk and dropped the talk, this should not be the case. These governments should see to it that resolutions passed are followed to the letter.
Bureaucracy should also try to be dynamic. Today the bureaucrats have the final word in their areas. However, this should be changed. There should be some dynamism in their decision making process.
In conclusion, the push for one world government is very good. However the fact that the world powers may end up engulfing the less developed is a genuine matter of concern. The Nile perch in the Mwanza case is symbolically used to represent this phenomenon. In the corporate, it is evident that the corporation starts getting to be involved in politics, which ultimately compromises their performance. Globalization is not meant to develop into a political entity. However the governments are already engaging in global politics. Globalization by definition is the right move forward. All nations should positively embrace this spirit. In deed however, globalization is impoverishing the third world countries. In effect this was not the objective. But with good will, in globalization, lies the solution to the global problems. War should be declared after real consultation, sanctions should be put on nations rightly so and the world should reject returns from humanitarian crisis, as was seen in the video Darwin’s Nightmare. All the challenges facing the world today will either reduce or increase depending on the motive behind the players embracing globalization. Ultimately, globalization by whatever definition can positively transform many; the policies for implementing it could have slightly missed the point. A little review will have the global goal achieved.
Bibliography
Gratz Jens Parks, Globalization and Development, Diversity: Walk the Walk and Drop the Talk, Treks Publishers: Lagos, 1997
Hayek Trevor Richards, Globalization and Developing Economies, Pennsylvania: Blue view Publishers, 1976
Henslin M James, Dan Glenday, Norene Pupo, Ann Duffy, Fifth Canadian Edition, Sociology, A Down To Earth Approach, Pearson Education: Prentice Hall, 2006
Milward Brek Kissinger, Globalization: International Perspectives on Capitalism and Militarism, Heins publisher, Malaysia, 1976.