Conflict among Nations and the Globalization Influence on this Issue - Essay Example

Conflict among Nations and the Globalization Influence on this Issue “Today’s real borders are not between nations, but between powerful and powerless, free and fettered, privileged and humiliated. Today, no walls can separate humanitarian or human rights crises in one part of the world from national security crises in another…We have entered the Third Millennium through a gate of fire,” said Kofi Annan, (2001), taken from (Clarke, 2003, p.3). This is the era of Globalisation with new connectivity and mobility. Globalisation, as a process of development and opportunities, is not opposed by anybody. Even though the benefits are rather unevenly spread, still countries do not want to be left out of the tremendously potential race. Globalisation has become an all pervading, all monopolising phenomenon. “Globalisation can be defined as a set of economic, social, technological, political and cultural structures and processes arising from the changing character of the production, consumption and trade of goods and assets that comprise the base of the international political economy,” http://www.unesco.org/most/globalisation/Introduction.htm Scholars argue that Globalisation had always existed in one form or other and the world had been going through it for centuries now. “Globalization is by no means a new phenomenon: idea systems such as Islam or Marxism have had transnational appeal for centuries, and commodities and personnel have long been mobile (for example, there was greater demographic mobility in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than today),” Kinnwall (2002, p.21). If that is the case, instead of making people and nations comfortable, why has the larger version of globalisation been generating a backlash today, in almost all the societies, other than most of the West? Definitely large forces are up and against it in the most negative way possible. It has been disliked even for its positive qualities. There is no denying that a kind of highly materialistic society is emerging out of globalisation, at the cost of ethics, values, and civilisations, while other issues like poverty, environment, international issues, labour and mainly Human Rights are being either sidelined or ignored. Blind forces of globalisation have continuously threatened the freedom of people in far-flung regions. Globalisation has been blamed as the Western tool of imposing their culture and ways of living. It has also ushered in an alien Western Democracy that has become unpopular in a hurry. People are more concerned with their independence, freedom, religion, customs and most of all, national economies. One main idea that is a hindrance is that economic and political systems that are in conflict with the western systems should either be modified or should disappear. Poor countries are today seeing their much-guarded national economies being destroyed by the fast spreading globalisation and it unnerves them. “Globalization is much like fire. Fire itself is neither good nor bad. Used properly, it can cook food, sterilize equipment, form iron, and heat our homes. Used carelessly, fire can destroy lives, towns and forests in an instant,” says Keith Porter. http://globalization.about.com/cs/whatisit/a/gzgoodorbad2.htm Today, the economic landscape of the world has changed immensely. It is apparent that business and economics are transforming the civil societies. The high winds of globalisation are sweeping across the Third World countries mercilessly obliterating the local economies. When Communism set in many countries, there was an upheaval in workforce and here, work force has a coalition with the social forces as well and hence, it is entire society up in arms against globalisation. Unfortunately, fanatic religious fervour has joined this movement and the sweeping trends of globalisation provides enough fodder for these extremists to show evidence of their religion getting wiped off from the face of the planet. This has solidified their position, swollen their ranks and file and got them financial and arms help resulting in well organised, destructive, evil and merciless movement that is catching on like wild fire. People who lived behind barriers are showing reluctance to come out into open. It could be the chauvinistic tendencies behind the barriers that are threatened today, or it also could be the inherent insecurity that bothers them. People like Osama Bin Laden have been successful in exploiting such tiny sparks of grievance, and today we see that with much fuelling from Osama and the West, these sparks have grown into jungle fire that are threatening to engulf many a region. Politically speaking, there was an acute urgency for thrashing Taliban out of Afghanistan for the good of Afghanis themselves, especially the women. Even though rendered homeless, Osama and Mullah Omar have been astonishingly successful in turning the tide by assuring the likeminded that they are at the helm of a holy war, and not fighting for power in Afghanistan and we witness that after the initial relief, fundamentalists are regaining lost ground slowly. The stunningly unnecessary invasion of Iraq has strengthened the hands of these terrorists who put the western global intentions on dock and globalisation becomes the original cause (that provides evidence of scheming west!) of this trial. Here, more than economy, rigid religious culture and values play a bigger role. Instability, corruption and inefficiency of rulers in the Muslim world are creating political context and precipitating extremism. “Such inward-looking nationalisms do exist and will continue to develop but, to the degree that their political projects are successful, they have the effect of marginalizing their societies. Although they are responses to economics backwardness, such nationalisms act to reinforce it,” (Hirst and Thompson, 1996, p. 180). There is also another notion that a country that is completely sovereign politically, also should reflect cultural homogeneity within the realms of nation state and globalisation is threatening this fundamental character by introducing hitherto unknown economic and social trends. “The UN Development Program has reported that 55 poor countries have lost ground in the past decade,” http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2000/nye_globalization_iht.htm There is no doubt that this world, already plagued with inequality, is further threatened by globalisation, which is ending the traditional view of international order. The main investments of globalisation have gone to more capable countries like India and China and the poorest countries had been neglected. They have tried hard to fall in line by liberalizing their economies, but they have very few choices and their inability to influence the chain of events has made them more vulnerable. Even though they humbly tried their best to revolutionise their institutions as dictated by the west, they had been rather unsuccessful in the exacting western eyes. “Developing countries have been persuaded to liberalize and deregulate their economies so as more fully to exploit opportunities in a global world economy. Yet, if we take international trade rules as an example, a study of the rules demonstrates that the opportunities developing countries might exploit are far from equal,” (Hurrell and Woods, 1999, pp. 17-18). Developing countries are struggling under tariff escalation, as they are higher on processed goods than on raw materials. Developed countries use non-tariff barriers against exports of developing countries who are facing higher trade barriers even today. They did not participate in creating rules of global trade and investments and suffer due to unfairly drawn rules that would heighten the inequality between nations further. Globalisation’s impact has been more negative than positive. “Whilst flows of goods, services, people, and capital are increasing, they are, at the same time, often barred or blocked by regulations. In other words, the impact of globalisation has been strongly shaped by those with the power to make and enforce the rules of the global economy,” (Hurrell and Woods, 1999, p.20). In some countries globalisation has become an emotive topic, regarded with hostility. Most of them did not receive investment benefit either. “It is estimated that the Least Developed Countries (LDC), numbering about 50, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa, receive less than 2 per cent of foreign direct investment in developing countries,” http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2002/0706poor.htm No doubt World Trade Organization is created to facilitate global trade and making it more comfortable for poorer countries. But US is ruling WTO with an iron hand and hardly anything moves there without its permission. This had been a continuous grievance of all poor countries. The global interests and bullying tactics of US, especially under the present President (President Clinton was more sensitive, fair minded, diplomatic and well liked), who is unpopular for his warmongering habits, are becoming increasingly threatening. US seems to be uninterested in giving up any of its self-amassed rights and shows scant heed to sensitive reactions of poor countries. With huge capital markets, floating exchange rates and investment funds, the international economy has completed revolutionised itself. Even though IMF is given the all-important role of safeguarding and stabilising international monetary system, with its own rigid working pattern and clashes with domestic economic policies, it had not been very successful. There are some half-hearted attempts in refining it. But interventions of IMF, TNCs and WTO have totally paralysed the domestic economies of these countries and these institutions were initially running a parallel economy and today, they are simply managing the economy of most of these nation states, according to their needs and points of view. Decisions are not made without consulting them and the presence of these overlords in local economic and political arena had been found unnerving. “The current wave of globalizatin is accompanied by a crisis in Taylorist organizations in the leading economies – organizations which still account for the majority of output and employment in those economies,” (Hurrell and Woods, 1999, p. 36). Even the globalisation ecstatics believe that it has brought global instability, and due to other contributing factors, this sad instability has concentrated in poor countries of the world. “The freeing of financial markets has brought global instability, as evidenced in financial crises in Asia and Latin America and the continuing marginalisation of sub-Saharan Africa,” http://www.spinneypress.com.au/202_book_desc.html These countries are fighting a losing battle against the global economic imperialism of America, while facing political and social unrest at home. Not only their economy, but also their political system itself is crumbling in many of these proud nation states. Globalisation has redivided the world into peculiar zones and poor countries form their own zone, with their gender inequalities, human rights violations and religious fervour. Their progress had been slow, warlords tyrannised them for a long time, and when at last, they were about to reach a certain reformation (at least in most of the countries. Some have regressive societies that do not want to modernise themselves), they are stuck by the lightening of globalisation and it is too early to come out of the astoundingly blinding effect. Before they could fathom the length and breadth of it, corporations were already ruling them. “Globalisation is empowering corporations at the expense of the national state, and the international institutions such as the WTO and World Bank are not democratic, making their decisions behind closed doors,” http://www.spinneypress.com.au/202_book_desc. World Bank itself had been suspicious about the consequences of hurried and unprincipled globalisation and its effect on poor, helpless nations and their susceptible economic systems. “The World Bank stated today (21st June) that globalisation is condemning some nations to total poverty, and has reached a point where they are no longer “developing countries” but “perpetually weak economies,” http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/weaken-cn.htm Economists had their own serious reservations about globalisation and many of them thought it was being forced on poor countries without giving them an opportunity to neither understand the process, nor safeguard their own interests. “But a darker view that, liberalisation foments extremist movements and conflict, completed with Sanguine viewpoint. Marx had memorably expounded in The Communist Manifesto on the volcanic impact on market forces – how they introduce ‘everlasting uncertainty and agitation’, how ‘all that is solid melts into air’ – during the first era of globalisation,” (Sandbrook and Romano, 2004). The painstakingly built up economies of the poor countries are in shambles today and the tensions are mounting in social, economic, political and religious levels. Extremism has lifted its ugly head everywhere and nobody is safe any more. World is being run by gangs thriving on vendetta. Governments in the poor countries are facing multiple problems, mainly internal. They are succumbing to the external economic and political foes, while working hard to pacify the protest movements at home. “The rise in tensions and grievances, coupled with an increasingly ineffective and unpopular regime, provide an opening for violent protest movements. Although competition induced creative destruction may augment global efficiency, this goal is often achieved at the immediate cost of greater uncertainty and upheaval,” (Sandbrook and Romano, 2004). Hoogvelt (1982) argues that a Fourth World, out of the so-called Third World had been created by the capitalistic economic policies. He concludes: “Unable to free ourselves from the chains of the capitalist world economy, we cannot or will not concern ourselves with the plight of those who are increasingly expelled from that same world economy. We may try to understand, and improve, the conditions of life of those who live within our world system, we cannot even think about those outside it, (p.214). Today most of the third world countries are reeling under unstable economy and adverse political conditions. As the interest rates are appallingly high, their indebtedness to the capitalistic world is not going to reduce in a hurry. It is a bleak and alarming picture presented by these countries of unending economic stability leading to political upheavals, and fight against terrorism and internal social uprising. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 1. Clark, John (2003), Worlds Apart, Civil Society and the Battle for Ethical Globalization, Earthscan Publications Limited, London. 2. Hirst, Paul and Thompson, Grahame (1996), Globalization in Question, Polity Press, Cambridge. 3. Howell, T.R.,Wolff, Bartlett and Gadbaw (1992), ed., Conflict Among Nations, Trade Policities in the 1990s, Westview Press, Oxford. 4. Hoogvelt, Ankie M.M. (1982), The Third World in Global Development, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London. 5. Hurrell, Andrew and Woods, Ngaire (1999), Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics, Oxford University Press. 6. Kinnvall and Jonsson (2002), Globalization and Democratization in Asia, Routledge, London. 7. Porta, Donatella della and Diani, Mario (1999), Social Movements an Introduction, Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford. 8. Sandbrook and Romano, Globalisation, Extremism and Violence in Poor Countries, Third World Quarterly, Vol.25, No.6, pp. 1007-1030, 2004. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. http://globalization.about.com/cs/whatisit/a/gzgoodorbad2.htm 2. http://www.unesco.org/most/globalisation/Introduction.htm 3. http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2000/nye_globalization_iht.htm - Look Again, Globalization isn’t bad for the poor. 4. http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/econ/2002/0706poor.htm 5. http://www.spinneypress.com.au/202_book_desc.html 6. http://www.spinneypress.com.au/202_book_desc.html Read More