Introduction
It can be stated that there is hardly an issue of social development which attracts more attention from the world like globalization. Despite being mostly associated with economy and foreign trade, such topic attract scientists from different disciplines, including economists, political scientist, sociologists and others. One of the important aspects of globalization can be related to the filed of ecology and environment. The threat of irreversible destruction of the environment is impending over our planet, the consequences of which can be tragic. Globalization, in that regard, might have a dual role in such aspects. On the one hand, globalization intensifies such threat through intensifying the development of industries and transportations – two important sources of pollution. On the other hand, globalization implies the provision of means to manage ecological threats. In Beyond Sovereignty (2009), two chapters focus on ecological interdependence, environmental problems, and the role of globalization. The present paper will attempt to provide a critical analysis of those chapters, Teng Margaret Fu (2009) and Pirages and Runci (2009), providing a parallel to the case of Burma after the cyclone Nargis, which was outlined in an online documentary by Williams and Williams (2009).
Ecological Interdependence
Understanding the term ecological interdependence can be facilitated if the video on Burma was considered as an illustrative example, title “this is the way it happened”. The latter will be specifically beneficial, considering that some of the examples in Pirages and Runci (2009) are linked to previous historical periods. The theme that was chosen to explain ecological interdependence is the theme of infectious diseases. Ecological interdependence was defined as “the growth and maintenance of a delicate network of relationships among these organisms and between them and the sustaining of physical environment” (Pirages and Runci 269). Thus, it is argued in Pirages and Runci (2009) that the occurrence and the transfer of rare infectious diseases are caused by the disruption of the system of ecological interdependence.
There are several reasons cited for the disruption of such a system. Most of such reasons are related to people coming into contact with new pathogens (Pirages and Runci 269). The latter can be subsequently linked to reasons such as population growth and movement into unsettled tropical areas. The latter is exactly shown through the illustrated case of Burma, after the cyclone. Although the documentary is mainly focusing on censorship and political corruption in Burma, several ecological implications can be outlined as well. One of such implications can be seen through tracing the movement of the population, exemplified by the story of the three children in the documentary (Williams and Williams). A typical case scenario in this documentary can be seen through the intention of the family of the kids to migrate to Taiwan. Multiplying the case into the thousands who suffered form the cyclone, it can be seen that the majority of the population that will move will be the poor who frequently due to unemployment, poverty, poor nutrition and inadequate public health might “encounter and carry a host of pathogens” (Pirages and Runci 276). Pirages and Runci (2009) linked such diseases as SARS and avian flu to urbanization, although in the example of Burma, the connection to natural disasters can be only interpreted and assumed. Nevertheless, such connection is supported in Turner and Khondker (2010) who stated that epidemiological crises is a clear demonstration of globalization of the consequences of disasters, where diseases such as avian flu, SARS, and/or tuberculosis became transnational due to the movement of people across borders (Turner 151).
The contrast between the ways infectious disease spread now and then is certainly not in favor of modern times. In that regard, it is argued in Pirages and Runci (2009) that diseases are now spread more rapidly and widely, through increased travel and integration of world’s food market. In the case of Burma, globalization can be seen two fold. On the one hand, the sanctions from the global society, due to the political regime, imply that food markets might not be integrated in such area. On the other hand, the positive effects of the globalization in managing and containing the after-math of the cyclone were prevented by the government of Burma. Accordingly, the migration of the population after the cyclone is more resembling of the way the diseases spread historically, through slow migrations. Nevertheless, the globalization might still have an effect on managing ecological problems and other associated issues.
Globalization
In Fu (2009), the main focus of the author was directed toward outlining the relation between globalization and environmental problems. In that regard, it can be stated that one of the most interesting points was argued through showing a positive influence of globalization in negating some of its own negative effects. The positive consequences can be seen in limiting the development of projects which are expected to negatively influence the environment. The overwhelming global interest with the concept of sustainable development can be seen as one of the consequences of globalization. Similar to infectious diseases, outlined in Pirages and Runcie (2009), states tend to cover on the events that influence their reputation, especially if such influence can be translated into negative economic outcomes (Pirages and Runci 279). Although, it is argued in the paper that environmental problem are closer in essence to being global problems. In that regard, it is stated that globalization might be useful in overcoming some of the limitations of different political systems, borders, and uneven development of state economies. An element that is omitted in Fu (2009) while posing one of the major challenges can be seen through the corruption of the political system. Thus, the role of globalization can be seen twofold in that matter. On the one hand, the documentary is an evident example of the concern of the global community with the state of Burma and its population, raising the awareness to possible consequences. On the other hand, globalization can be helpless, in politically bankrupt states, considering the Burma case when involvement of global community was monitored, while aid and supplies was rejected.
For countries such as Burma, which in the documentary was deemed without ideology, such rejection and isolation from the world community influenced only the population, rather than the government. Other countries, cannot risk such sanctions, where free trade rules “threaten countries with high environmental standards” (Fu 323). Although the case in the documentary is concerned with environmental consequences and aid, rather than environmental standards, the way globalization can be a factor is evident in both cases. One of such mutual aspects can be seen through transnational advocacy, where pushing environmental agenda would not have been possible without globalization, as well as bringing the attention tot the situation in Burma. Although, the response is not strong as expected, which can be evident in both cases, through example of China’s dam development outlined in Fu (2009) and the example of journalist involvement in bringing the attention of the world community to the situation in Burma (Fu; Williams and Williams). It should be noted that despite the role of globalization in overcoming some of the problems that might be posed by existent global challenges, Fu (2009) did not mention the role of globalization in creating part of the existent problems. In that regard, unlike Pirages and Runci, the role of globalization can be implied in the movement of the population, Fu (2009) the negative aspects of globalization were not mentioned. Nevertheless, regardless of the negative consequences of globalization, it positive aspects are still limited, empowering ‘traditionally weak actors” (Fu 331).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that there is a direct relation between globalization and environmental problems. Such relation mi9ght extend into a scope wider than th4e consequences of natural disasters or advocating for stopping a dam project. The present paper critically analyzed two works devoted to issue of globalization, ecological interdependence and environmental problems, “Ecological Interdependence and the Spread of Infectious Disease” (2009) by Pirages and Runci, and “Globalization, Global Environmental Problems, and Transnational Advocacy Networks” (2009) by Fu. The works were connected ton the case of Burma, which was outlined in a documentary titled “Eyes of the Strom”. The paper concludes that globalization has a positive role in overcoming many challenges that exist between development and environment, as well as responding to the environmental problems that might occur due to such challenges.
Works Cited
Fu, Teng Margaret. “Globalization, Global Environmental Problems, and Transnational Advocacy Networks.” Beyond Sovereignty : Issues for a Global Agenda. Ed. Cusimano, Maryann K. 4th ed. Boston, NY: Wadsworth, 2009. 313-31. Print.
Pirages, Dennis, and Paul Runci. “Ecological Interdependence and the Spread of Infectious Disease.” Beyond Sovereignty : Issues for a Global Agenda. Ed. Cusimano, Maryann K. 4th ed. Boston, NY: Wadsworth, 2009. 264-80. Print.
Turner, Bryan S. Globalization East and West. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010. Print.
Williams, Evan, and Jeremy Williams. “Eyes of the Storm”. 2009. Online Media. Public Broadcasting Service Video. WNET.ORG. 2010. Web.