Globalization

I feel like the negative components of globalization are being drowned out by the claims of growing economic prospertity. Yes, corporations can increase profits in a flattened world, and yes, this process has caused poverty levels to decrease around the globe. However, I still have several problems with globalization. For starters, outsourcing and offshoring often leads to the explotation of foreign workers. Western companies are able to hire overseas employees for a fraction of what Western employees would be paid. Foreign workers are then forced to endure poor working conditions, and extremely long hours due to lack of protective labor laws in other lands. Outsourcing and offshoring also creates a problem back home for many workers. Highly skilled workers (surgeons, dentists, trial lawyers, etc) will not have to fear for their jobs. Only low level positions that require little skill will be saught overseas. This will produce a larger gap between the rich and the poor in the United States, as lower and middle class citzens may lose their jobs, while wealthy individuals will remain safe behind their desks.

Globalization is wonderful for prospering nations. The lack of borders will allow them to share their products with countries around the world. It's unfortunate that this leaves poor, third world countries in the dust of lucrative, heavily industrialized nations. China, Japan, the United States, Germany, etc, will have video games, cars, computers, fancy clothing, and music to export. Whereas poorer nations like Chad do not have the capability to produce such products. Therefore they cannot export those prodcuts, and they cannot fully benefit from a global market.

Globalization also enforces the trend of Westernization. Other countries ARE capable of producing products and media, and sharing their culture with the world. However, it is still the West's music, clothing, and McDonald's that is slowly overtaking the identity of foreign nations.

Development Journalism

Development journalism has both positive and negative qualities, but in my opinion, this style of journalism does more harm than good. It pays stronger attention to the humanitarian needs of a nation. It helps to promote a national identity, which saves foreign countries from being swallowed by western influences. It also attempts to combat the one way flow of the media from west to east. These are all excellent aspects of development journalism. However, the news media's main goal is to be an objective watch dog. Development journalism emphasizes a bond between the government and the media. In this situation, journalists essentially become a pawn, as they are forced to support goals and projects presented by the government. This unity of media and government, makes it impossible to for a population to adequately analyze the actions of their leaders. Journalists have to keep politician's in check, and report on their actions, both wrong and right. In developmental journalism political actions go unchallenged. Politicians need the watchful eye of the news media upon them.

It's obvious why development journalism is so popular in dictatorships. A politician's word will spark nothing but praise and adoration under this system. If a government tells its people they have to go to war, and the news media reiterates the necessity of war, chances are the population will be ready to hit the battlefield. Here, a citizen has no ability to weigh the reasons for the conflict. They are forced to take the government's word as the truth, and believe war is the only option. This example shows one reason why developmental journalism does a great disservice to a population. Journalists have to analyze and report on government officials to keep their power in check.

The Future

I feel the future will spawn many more illiberal democracies. As Fareed Zakaria points out, over half of the world's population lives in a democratic society, and 118 out of 193 possible countries practice democracy. These figures show the majority of the world is shifting towards a democratic mindset. However, I must disagree with the theory proposed in "The End of History" artricle, because the world is still not ready to unite under one government, or one ideal. Dozens of nations rule under the guise of democracy, but still manage to deny their people of basic civil liberties. Therefore, there are currently 118 governments which are similar in name, but not necessarily similar in practice.

We read about foreign countries participating in elections in The New York Times, we watch citizens voting on CNN, and then we naturally assume that these nations are free and democratic. Even the United States' government buys into this method of thinking, and they are more than ready to support any nation that holds elections. But, free elections alone should not define a liberal democracy.

Illiberal democracies are born, because countries don't establish a system to protect their citizens and to manage power. Without checks and balances, even an elected leader can turn into a dictator. (Some "democracies" deny one's right to free speech, and some elect their officials based on religious ties. The latter problem results in a highly biased government which favors select citizens. )

The problem is our definition of democracy is far too loose. Under the current definition a nation can ignore a citizen's basic rights and freedoms, and still be labeled as a democracy. The process goes like this: A country starts holding free elections, the United States is overwhelmingly happy, our government supports the new democratic state, and then we start looking to spread democracy elsewhere. We tolerate many injustices just because a particular country holds elections. Illiberal democracies will just keep popping up and gaining support from our government. These nations will be free to oppress their citizens and grow into larger problems in the future, because they will be disguised as a democracy, and largely left along by Western nations.

The Clash of Civilizations

I strongly agree with Samuel Huntington when he writes that future wars will be fought between civilizations. The problem with this theory is that the author doesn't really introduce any new ideas. Huntington declares that culture is the heart of every civilization, and that the most important aspect of culture is religion. If this is true, then civilizations have battled for centuries. Religious crusades occupied the Middle East as early as the 10th century, and wars between Protestants and Catholics waged on in France during the 16th century. Today, religious fueled conflicts still weigh heavily on the Middle East. Many countries are also trying to keep their unique lifestyles and traditions from being swallowed whole by Western cultures. These nations are attempting to "de-Westernize" themselves, and separate themselves from Western values. This process has caused some national leaders to loathe anything that comes from Western societies. (This cultural dilemma has ignited conflict, terrorist attacks, and will continue to cause problems in the future) So, I do believe Huntington is absolutely correct, and that differences amongst cultures will create the largest problems for nations in the future. However, as I said earlier, cultural and religious differences have always spawned war. Civilizations have and will battle for centuries to come.

I believe the best point raised by the article is pertaining to the evolution of communication. Nations still believe in different values, different gods, different governments, etc. Nothing has changed there. The real change lies in the fact that these nations can easily and openly communicate with one another at any instance, and more interactions create more oppurtunities for disputes amongst diferent civilizations.

The End of History?

The Western idea of liberalism stretched across the globe during Napolean's reign of power in the early 1800s. Today, the notion of democracy still reaches from ocean to ocean, but that does not mean it is practiced in the lands that fall in between. In my opinion, history is far form over, because the world has yet to unify under one central government. There are simply too many opponents to democracy to claim that history has ended. One cannot forget the presence of Russia, China, and North Korea. These three nations do not support the idea of liberalism, and all of them have nuclear weapons at their disposal. Democracy faces several powerful foes who are not ready to rally behind a universal ideal. Neo-imperialist Russia and Communist China both possess the capability to start a war, and spread ideals that contrast the fundamentals of democracy. These nations will probably not start World War III, but just the fact that they exist, and do not support liberalism, is enough to say that history shall continue.