Globalization - Opportunity Or Exploitation
...ations around the world. The emancipation of colonies has created a new world order. Air travel and the development of international communications has enhanced the progress of international business. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union ended the cold war between the forces of capitalism and socialism with capitalism triumphant. The development of the Internet made possible the organization of business on a global scale with greater facility than ever before Thus, some consequences of the system are as follows: People around the globe are more connected to each other than ever before. Information and money flow more quickly than ever. Goods and services produced in one part of the world are increasingly available in all parts of the world. International travel is more frequent. International communication is commonplace. This all seems rather harmless and even positive. So what is the problem? Why were the Seattle Summit of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the Genoa meeting of the G8 so disrupted by "anti-globalization" protestors? Most anti-globalization protests center on the belief that globalization is a process driven by rich Western countries. They believe it is concerned solely with economic gain and leaves considerations like justice, human rights and the environment to fall by the wayside. Within this scenario activists concentrate on particular topics. Some protest the environmental damage caused by multi-national companies. This is particularly so when they take advantage of lax environmental laws of developing countries. Some protest the exploitation of labour in poor countries by these multi-nationals as they seek out low wages and low labour standards for increased profit. Some simply point to the fact that the spoils of globalization have not been equally shared, but hoarded by the Western countries. They believe companies in the Global South are exploited and become even poorer. While most talk about globalization centres around its economic impact, some objections point to it as a tool of "cultural imperialism". These protestors see globalization as effectively "Americanization" where not only fast food but also American social values are taking over and homogenizing the world. In this way, global business interests in developing countries are seen by some as neo-colonialism. Seattle in September 1999 showed the potential force of protestors for the first time as thousands of them disrupted the WTO Summit. Seattle also showed the wide range of protestors to globalization from members of large organizations such as Oxfam or Greenpeace to left-wing or Marxist activists. Protestors also included trade unionists and even ordinary citizens not normally involved in activism but feeling threatened by globalization. So who are globalization’s proponents and how do they confront such objections? Globalization’s most obvious supporter and strongest driving force is the World Trade Organization. The WTO was established in 1995 to administer the rules of international trade agreed to by its 123 member countries. Free Trade among nations is its primary objective. Thus, the WTO’s rules make it hard for a country to favour their own industry over imports from other countries. Also, the WTO rules do not allow a country to favour the imports of one country over those from another. The WTO argues that the growth of trade between countries increases the wealth of everyone. Trade allows the production of goods and services by those who are most efficient, thus maximizing their availability at the best price. Other international bodies that support globalization are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the United Nations in general. Their arguments for globalization echo those of the WTO. Essentially, they argue that economic growth is essential if living standards around the world are to increase. Trade, they tell us, generates economic growth. The lowering of barriers, such as tariffs and import quotas, helps the growth of trade, which is the object of WTO agreements. Furthermore they say that globalization has drastically improved access of technological latecomers to advanced technologies. They argue that technological upgrading is important for development. It provides, they believe, a unique opportunity for low-income countries to raise per capita income. Both sides of the globalization debate seem to be able to point to ample evidence of their claims. There is evidence that developing countries that erect barriers to imports have slower growth in incomes than those that are open to trade, say the supporters. The gap between the rich and poor nations of ...