Globalization- Good or Evil?

I think that although globalization has the potential to be very good for the world, it is viewed as an evil process that should be stopped. Internationally, some countries aren't willing to give up their national identity for international news agencies reporting on their issues or a mass culture, often Western, that infiltrates their country. Likewise, within countries certain aspects of globalization can seem very threatening. Outsourcing threatens thousands of people's jobs everyday, as businesses can find cheaper labor in a different country. In the documentary Roger and Me Michael Moore tells a story of the people of Flint, Michigan, who had worked f0r GM all their lives, getting replaced by foreign workers and seriously taking a hit as their lifetime work in the factories suddenly uprooted and left them empty-handed. These people were furious and confused and no doubt others are scared of the thought of outsourcing leaving them out to dry. It's not to say that globalization isn't happening and isn't improving global communication, networking and general integration between different nations. I just think that some people probably are looking at more of the down sides than the ups.

Thoughts on Development Journalism

To start off, I understand what Lerner and other members of the world were trying to do when this theory was developed and promoted. This theory was supposed to be more Western-friendly, so that possibly the U.S. and England would rejoin UNESCO and help with the global dilemma. It definitely seems like a better idea than having regulations on the media, however, I don't like this theory either. When we wrote down the first goal in class today instantly my head reeled with skepticism. The goal was: "Media can promote 'good values' of the modern world and help traditional societies to become democracies.' Good values? Whose good values are we looking at? For some (probably most) peripheral states, the values that the West perceives as good- technological freedom, freedom of expression and so on- may be perceived as the values which lead to the corrosion of a traditional moral social order. Not even that, but as we talked in class, journalists can't just write good things about the government; that can lead to propaganda and unfair governments hidden from the public eye. How would journalists even go about reporting on humanitarian issues when if they found a spark of indignation, a strike, or general criticism, they would not be able to use it? It'd be next to impossible. I think this theory attempted to work out a global issue but really journalists should never have to forfeit their duty as watchdogs of the government.

Post on The Rise of Illiberal Democracy

Zakaria's article was extremely interesting and I think that he has it right. Democracy can do a lot for different people and nations around the world, but only if the liberal democracy is lending to constitutional liberalism, the protection of basic human rights. If not, then democracy can lead to disasters. For instance, since majority wins, a completely undemocratic leader could possibly obtain power. Hitler, one of the most infamous leaders in the 20th century, was elected into office by a majority vote and obviously he did nothing to support general civil rights unless it fit his personal agenda. Moving along to the issue of ethnic conflict I thought the 1960's scholars who concluded that democracies just didn't work in areas of intense ethnic preferences was astonishing. It seems egocentric to think that the U.S. can do it with its mixing of cultures and yet other areas can't. However, there lies the big question of how do you compromise on national religion or social conduct according to certain cultures? Can any one culture truly win when all people think their culture is right? Finally I thought it was great that Zakaria addressed the U.S. and its foreign relations and how a bit of humility is needed. When the U.S. runs around trying to impose democracies in countries, such as China, Guatemala, sometimes things go awry and civil wars break out. As long as civil rights are being upheld, and this does require a lot of trust in a leader, then that is a good first step. If, however, the U.S. does want to impose constitutions on countries- constitutions that make sense for that particular nation-then that country must be present and consenting for even today Japan is trying to change their constitution that was written by the U.S.

Post on The Coming Anarchy

All in all, this piece was pretty depressing. Whenever the environment is brought up, and how much humanity has destroyed it, I can't help but feel utterly useless amongst a huge battle. But in this sense, I feel that Kaplan was right. Whenever there is a lack of resources for a population- be it food, water, land- conflict arises. Why wouldn't it?- People need to be able to survive. Also I agree with Kaplan's bold statement that political and stragetic impact of surging population, spreading disease and the other impending diasters will become the biggest challenge for a foreign policy. How do you begin to save humanity from the unnaturally-caused natural doom? It is clear to me that whoever controls the resources, like the Turks and their Ataturk Dam, controls the world. I think that like at Golden Mountain resources must be minimally used, and not just in underdeveloped, overpopulated areas, but in the Western states as well. This article reminds me of a Native American essay I read two years ago basically stating that the world as we knew it would cease to exist in 50 years, with how carelessly and rapidly we were expunging our resources.

I completely agree with Kaplan when he brings up the fact that most the states in this world were socially constructed by colonialists. The drawn up border lines don't accurately reflect the different cultures of the people within them. This leads to conflict and a big question of how to resolve the problem. There isn't enough land to distribute fairly, and maybe it would be ideal if every civilization were able to break apart from their state in order to be more easily managed, but the segmentation wouldn't help the environmental issue, it would harm it. It would be extremely difficult to share resources, have big conservation efforts and so on when each civilization feels entitled to it. Then the terrifying question comes to mind of is there ever a winner, besides for annhilation of a people, in the wars against culture or necessities for survival? Won't both peoples be right?

With all this turmoil and a lack of options, I think people will turn to chaos like Kaplan said, taking their fate and what they think is the fate of their culture into their own hands.

Post on The Clash of Civilizations?

Huntington claims that for the future the primary source of conflict will be cultural and between civilizations with these culture differences.  I agree that now since the major ideological battles have subsided, the problems between civilizations will come to the forefront.  But that is also my dilemma- haven't these differences always brought trouble?  There have been wars in the name of religion, territory, beliefs for ages.  I think possibly now, with the main ideological wars fought, people are starting to return to their cultural ties because they need something to believe in and fight for, and that's why conflict has arose.  Also, non-Western civilizations may be holding onto their cultural background while trying to absorb Western ideology so they don't succumb themselves to the evils that Westernization sometimes sports.  It still is an ideological conflict.  Also, it is interesting to look at the statement that the conflict in this new world won't be ideological or economic but cultural because wasn't it always based on culture?  Liberal democracy formed from people who were persecuted, wanted freedom and rights.  Fascism survived by the lost and broken down Germans who wanted global dominance and respect.  Cultural tendencies sprung the classic ideologies.  However, it is true that civilizations have been ramming heads.  His ideas on torn countries describes the confrontation between Russia and Georgia.  It's also as if the old idea of self-determinism is finally playing out as different civilizations form their own states.  The only other issue I had was by the second half of the essay 'the West' was thrown around so much that it was almost hard to distinguish whether or not it was supposed to be a civilization or an ideology unto itself.  All in all, I think civilizations do have a big presence in the future.  When he talked about kin-countries coming together it made me nervous because really it's all in the terminology.  Call a nuisance a reason for jihad and all the Islamic states will come to support it, and if states do start supporting common cultures only for that reason, since they have opposing political beliefs, I think that makes for a weary future.  

Post on The End of History?

I found this article very interesting and thought-provoking.  First off, I'd like to say that keeping in mind that it was written in 1989 was definitely imperative or else all the comments about the Eastern countries would seem very off.  More specifically though the concept of history ending with the Western liberal democracy, replacing ideology, has its points.  However, I struggled accepting that the "basic principles of the liberal democratic state" cannot be improved upon (2).  Kojeve seemed to believe that the principles could extend or expand spatially, but isn't it possible that some principles can be improved upon enough that it eventually becomes a new concept all together?  I think that theoretical truth can be improved upon, or at least that people won't stop thinking about reform or improvement.  Another question that came to mind was what does Hegel's theory imply about the word "history," since it comes to an end.  History is ideology, since that is the base of all economics and politics?  I do agree that most societies grow on the foundation of their culture and morals, and I do understand that for the most part the ideologies that have developed in the 20th century have failed miserably, but is it right to say that the Western liberal form is perfect and necessary for all societies on the planet?  About Islam, that religion has spanned a great area and its rules and culture in the Quran could, I think, definitely potentionally become a big contradiction for liberalism.  Finally I think that the common marketization doesn't necessarily mean less conflict, in fact, it has often brought about more conflict- war, economic depression etc.  I wonder what Fukuyama would say about this theory now?