Globalisation – Page 4

Can international peace and stability really be attained today?

The First World War was supposed to be the ‘war to end war’. Just one hundred years ago, millions died in one of the deadliest conflicts in history. World War I did not bring the end of warfare. World War II had similar casualties but nothing really changed. With the rapid advancement of technology, the spread of questionable religious beliefs and growing inequalities, the world has witnessed even more bloody conflicts in the 21st century in Syria, Libya and Yemen. One must acknowledge that people and countries place self-interests first, and would result in whatever means to fight for their rights or gain dominance. It is evident that international peace and stability is unattainable in this highly interconnected world of today.

One may naively presume that with more international cooperation, wars would ease. However, some conflicts are driven by religious beliefs makes it all the harder for international peace to be attained despite cooperation in international trade. Furthermore, countries always strive to show their dominance to the world and tend to employ violence to satire their selfish interests. All countries face a constant struggle to survive and will indiscriminately threaten others to pacify national interests. Territorial disputes are the best manifestation of conflicts due to self-interests. These disputes are still prevalent today, among two or more countries in a bid to preserve their sovereignty.

The quest for international peace and stability today is also a futile once because inequalities still prevail all over the world, and marginalised groups often take to violence to fight for their rights, or are in fact victims of violence why the majority. The truth of the matter is that, when countries came to a consensus on human rights, there was much ambiguity, and thus, we currently live in a world where international peace is practically impossible because governments themselves do not exactly know what rights to grant to their people, and as a result, there are factions who feel that they are deprived of their rights. The sheer scale of inequalities in the world, from the racial discrimination in the US to the sexual discrimination in Nigeria to the vast income disparity plaguing both nascent and developed nations, conflicts are inevitable. Hence, international peace and stability is not totally attainable today.

However, the natural corollary to the aforementioned arguments would be for apologists to contend that while international peace is largely unattainable today, there is a hint of hope. This could be attributed to the fact that international cooperation has been happening at unprecedented levels, and hence countries might turn to negotiations instead of violence to settle disputes. Furthermore, the establishment of regional bodies could mean that countries will be less motivated to use force and instead settle their conflicts peacefully so that they can enjoy perennial benefits from that regional body. The notion of international peace may seem like a plausible one. However, one must also understand that some countries are only effective insofar as the countries are willing to accept aid and understand the significance of preserving peace in that region.

Nonetheless, one could still assert that with the rise in surveillance technology today, it would be easier for governments to spy on clandestine groups who are planning a war, thus making international peace possible. The Patriot Act in the US also makes it legal for the government to access electronic accounts such as email accounts of suspected terrorists. However, to presume that this could lead to the complete establishment of world peace would be highly ignorant, because terrorist groups, for example, have bases all over the world and it would be technically impossible for technology such as drones to track down these terrorists.

The notion of international peace is a multi-faceted one. There have been numerous developments over the 21st century that proved hope for a better tomorrow. However, an indubitable fact of humanity is that we are all actually myopic individuals who only want to satisfy our own needs. Furthermore, there are still countries living in a dystopia, where violence is rife. Their governments have too many issues on the plate to resolve, and so there are still factions in those societies who feel that they are deprived of rights and thus turn to violence. It is naive to believe that war may one day become a thing of the past.

Should everyone have access to free medical care?

Key words: ‘should everyone’, ‘access’, ‘free medical care’

• A basic human right
• Medicines/vaccines should be stock-piled in developing countries (depending on the need)
• Efforts should be made to check everyone’s health
• Role of the WHO
• Free immunisation programmes (Ebola)
• Cheaper generic medicines are delayed through pharmaceutical patents
• Wealthier nations should fund
• The pharmaceutical industry requires a return on their investment to fund further research
• Problems of logistics/corruption/recruiting qualified professionals to administer
• Responsibility of individual governments to provide some funding and organised programmes
• Should not: to avoid people abusing the system; having a carefree life; creating dependency and not leading a healthy lifestyle

How far can it be argued that wildlife tourism and zoos are the only ways to protect wild animals?

Observing animals in conservation areas and zoos can encourage practical concern for their cousins in the wild
Tourism can be vital for local economies
As last resort zoos can keep populations of wild animals that may disappear in the wild (provided zoo’s have the expertise)
Zoos cannot retain the genetic variability of a wild population
Threatened species need to attract cash to justify their protection and existence
There can be zoos without bars (but this is a weak argument since even with open spaces, a zoo is enclosed)
Opportunity for scientific research
Questionable when animals are simply kept for the entertainment of the public
The assumption of species superiority
Animals have consciousness, sentience, and intentionality
Their “natural” behaviours have to be recognised and catered for
The captive breeding of threatened species
Intense viewing of creatures can interrupt feeding patterns and cause stress
Captive animals can provide a genetic “lifeboat” for those in the wild
Opportunities to adopt an animal

‘The most effective learning takes place away from school.’ How far do you agree?

what do we learn outside school which is not generally available at/in school?
definitions of what constitutes ‘learning’ – informal/formal learning, ‘academic learning’, general life skills, etc
role of parents, grandparents, siblings, peer groups
rites of passage
importance of personal initiative – finding things out for oneself
homework is done outside school
how and what children might learn from the internet at home
the social environment in the school is essential for the working world

How important are brand names to consumers?

a range of techniques, including promotions, strap-lines and advertising are used to persuade us to buy (Read Article)
peer pressure influences conformity to consumer norms
role models and celebrities are used to endorse products
some consumers resist brand name marketing strategies
many consumers assume that brand names offer the best products and service and, therefore, remain loyal to the brand (Read Article)
many see brand names as a reflection of lifestyle choices.
Study on Car Buyers

How far is it possible for us to maintain a sense of identity in the face of increasing globalisation?

towns and cities across the world have identical shops with identical content
trans-national corporations have the financial power to influence governments and ensure they penetrate local markets
the power of the strongest economies makes it difficult for smaller countries to compete on their own
national identity is preserved through culture, sport and language
it is difficult to evade international legal requirements
individuals choices reflect their own styles and tastes.
this is an age of multiple identities

In what ways does a country both benefit and suffer from where it is situated?

A country’s geographical site is something that is of great significance, however, it can never be changed. A country has no way of deciding where she is located. Depending on beliefs, location is decided by a supreme being or sheer luck. Location can be an asset or a liability to a country depending on the exact nature of the location. Some countries have been submerged in water, others have been mired in war for years and some are located strategically along with trade travel hub. However, given the level of technology today, coupled with factors such as good governance, it is possible to mitigate the effects of poor location in certain situations.

A country with a good location would be a country that is not landlocked, is accessible to good trade routes and natural resources.

A country can gain from her location if she is in close proximity with other countries and they cooperate. This being the case helps to encourage trade and security cooperation which are two important factors that help to build and safeguard a country. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations(ASEAN) and the European Union(EU) are international organizations that carry out the gains mentioned earlier. To illustrate, to bolster security measures, member countries of ASEAN signed the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which spelt out the basic principles for their relations with one another and the conduct of the association’s programme for cooperation. In a similar manner, to maximise their influence on the international scene, on trade matters, EU members speak with one voice. In addition, EU members have removed all tariffs on trade when trading with fellow members, in order to boost trade. These examples demonstrate how countries can benefit from their location if they work hand in hand with the countries that are in close proximity.

However, just as close proximity can help a country, it can also bring about the harm such as increased tensions and even conflict. Such is the case of the boundary disputes between India and China. India and China have yet to resolve their dispute over large land areas such as Aksai Chin, a territory that China seized during the Sino-Indian War in 1962. In addition, close proximity due to the location of countries can bring about conflict over natural resources that are shared. A more recent example is the building of as many as 55 dams along the course of the Mekong river flowing through Indochina. This is especially damaging as the river meanders from China through Myanmar, Laos, Thailand and Cambodia. Thus, the lives of millions of people, not only those in Indochina, depend on it. This problem which will not be corrected in the near future has led to an increase in social and political tension between the lower Mekong countries and those in Indochina. This is an apt example of how close proximity arising from countries’ location can result in the sharing of natural resources and the subsequent increase in problems that the countries have to face.

Moving on, a country’s location determines the climate that the country experiences and the magnitude and frequency of natural disasters. Such factors are vital in determining if a country gains or loses. An example of a country that has prospered due to its good climate is Brazil. Climate suitable for agriculture has enabled Brazil’s agriculture sector to grow steadily over the past decade, positioning itself among the most dynamic sectors of the economy. Certainly, the growth is also fueled by the increase in the use of high technologies such as software to maximise the use of fertilizers and pesticides. However, the climate still plays an irreplaceable role in the agriculture sector. This is because, without a suitable climate, crops cannot prosper or survive even if large amounts of fertilizers are used. Hence this case shows how a country can gain from her good climate due to her good location.

In contrast, a country can suffer due to the geography and climate of the country. Problems include natural disasters or islands becoming submerged underwater and these problems can arise due to the location of the country. As the climate continues to warm, entire islands are sinking below rising waters due to melting glaciers. At least 18 islands have been submerged underwater. This problem is a result of the location of these islands. It is because these islands are located in low lying areas which is why the change in climate has resulted in them being submerged. This has brought about harm as whole communities have to be relocated, bringing about the advent of climate refugees. In addition, this has also caused much land to be no longer suitable for agriculture. This example shows the magnitude and how the location of a country can bring harm and loss.

On a separate note, it is important to note that while the location is significant, in this day and age, it is possible for good governance coupled with technology to mitigate the effects of a bad location. Landlocked countries such as Switzerland and San Marino are among the most stable and prosperous countries in the world. This shows that the most unfavourable geographical locations can be made prosperous by good policy. Apart from this, technology can also make geography irrelevant. Technology has enhanced communication and thus shrunk distances. Bangalore has become the software capital of India, with Hyderabad a close second. Both are land-locked, but satellite communications enable them to link up with cities anywhere in the world at low cost.

Location remains an important determinant of whether a country gains or loses. However, it has been shown that technology with good governance can conquer location. Hence while the location is vital, perhaps the gains and losses a country experiences also depends on the resolve of the people to use things available to their advantage and make their country prosperous.

Do you agree that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate?

Many people have thought that globalization will bring about the end of poverty, as countries and people gets richer. While this is certainly true for many countries, such as Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, there are many countries that are still in poverty even though we are currently still in the age of globalization. In fact, I think that the problems faced by those in poverty will escalate further, as the poorer countries are manipulated by the richer countries, the current global financial crisis that affects everyone and the widening relative income gap between citizens in a country. In this essay, I would be focusing more on poverty in poor countries.

The problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate because of the manipulation of the poorer countries by the richer countries. With globalization, many countries become wealthier due to the improvements brought about by technological advances and trading. The rich countries have outsourced their labour to overseas countries to reduce their cost of production and hence increase their profits. Some of these countries which the rich countries have outsourced for labour are China, India and also the continent of Africa. The people often worked long and hard, and they are paid meagre wages. Children exploitation occurs as a result of parents roping in their children to help to contribute to the family income. Child labour is hence common in India and Africa. Instead of being educated, these children are forced to work and they are denied the opportunities to improve their quality of lives as they do possess the academic qualifications to pursue a suitable career. This causes a never-ending cycle of poverty as they are unable to break out of their poverty. In addition, many rich countries have exported their goods to these poor countries. Many times, the goods are heavily subsidized by their government, and therefore the rich countries are able to export their goods at a low price to other countries. It would seem beneficial to those foreigners, as they are able to purchase cheap goods. However, the producers of the same goods in those poor countries would suffer as they are unable to compete with the cheap imports from the richer countries, and this would result in a huge amount of losses, and hence aggravate the condition of their poverty.

Besides being manipulated by richer countries, there may be some countries that are unwilling to embrace globalization and technology. These countries may feel that globalization and those technological advances are harmful to their society, and they would prefer to continue with their own way of life than to accept the changes brought about by globalization. In my opinion, countries that are unwilling to accept globalization could be because they fear that with globalization, it would become “Americanization” and their countries would lose their own identity. It is not surprising to see that countries envision globalization to be “Americanization” as America has been at the front line of technological advancements. Fearing of losing their own identity, these countries may end up worsening the problems of poverty in their countries because they would lose out to the other countries which have accepted and embraced globalization as part of their way of lives. With globalization, communication and transport have become faster, goods of higher quality are being produced at larger amounts and in shorter times, and hence trade volumes between countries increase tremendously. Without globalization, countries’ efficiency and output would be of low quality and takes a long time to produce. This will then worsen the problems of poverty in those countries as the people’s quality of lives did not improve at all.

This situation would only occur if countries are unwilling to adopt globalization into their lives. However, in this present time, it is rather unlikely that any country will fully reject globalization altogether. The only difference is that the extent of globalization varies from countries to countries. The world is much more interconnected now with each other; via the internet and the trades with each other, and countries affect each other in more than one way. If poor countries open up their economies more and specialize in what they have a comparative advantage in, these countries welfare will improve for the better. It might not happen in the short run, but in the long run, there will be some rewards for these countries, in terms of skills, labour or revenue gained. Therefore it is not entirely possible that the problems of poverty can only get worse in the current climate, as long as people are willing to see things from a different perspective and change their lifestyles. There are also many foreign aids from other countries to poor countries in present-day lately. These aids usually arrive with the aim of liberating children from labour and grant them education opportunities, providing the people with basic necessities and also for the adults’ chances to find jobs. Hence, there might be a chance that the problems of poverty can improve in the present climate.

Poverty can also be defined as relative poverty when individuals within a society are compared to each other, and relative poverty usually refers to citizens of the lower-end of that society’s income group. In this current climate, with the global financial crisis, the recession has hit many countries, including Japan and Singapore. Many individuals become unemployed and hence add to the problems of relative poverty in their society. In addition to the benefits, globalization has also brought about many problems as well. This is due to the fact that mostly those who are able to afford technological advances are those who truly benefit, while those who are unable to do so are crowded out. Hence, the income gap between the relatively richer and the relatively poorer widens. If this trend continues, there would be more people who will be relatively poorer and this increase the problems of poverty.

International cooperation is necessary in this globalised world. Do you agree?

With recent events such as Brexit and the rising resentment against free trade in the United States as shown by the fierce opposition against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement, we see that there is a rising trend of nationalism that is against the idea of international cooperation. While they might justify such a choice as an excuse to stay competitive, I disagree with the notion that international cooperation has no place in this competitive world, because such cooperation is still crucial in providing humanitarian aid, allows countries to tackle global issues, and lastly, is arguably necessary for a country to advance certain domestic interests in this competitive world.

Firstly, in times of disasters, international cooperation is still needed in order to provide temporary relief to those in need. In the event of an unfortunate natural disaster, chances are it is going to cause great damage to that area, and such damages often cost the countries millions, if not billions of dollars. For developing or less developed countries, they simply do not have that much money in order to repair their infrastructure, so it is the duty of the international community to come in and provide the necessary humanitarian aid. Even if the world is highly competitive, as human beings, there is still a moral imperative for us, the international community, to step in and provide them with the most basic of needs so that they would not be deprived of their most basic human rights that many regards as inalienable. This is why when the earthquake struck Haiti in 2010, countries all over the world stepped in to provide aid for that country thorough various means, even though the world at that time was just as competitive as it is today. With that, it is hard to justify why, even in this competitive world, should there be any reasons to denounce international cooperation in terms of giving aid.

That being said, nationalists would still argue that a country should prioritise their national interests first before anything else including international cooperation, especially since the world today is so competitive. They argue that in a world with such cut-throat competition, they have to think about how to benefit the country first and foremost, and to them, international cooperation would do more harm than good. Similarly, the concept of realpolitik would also mean to them that countries should do everything in the name of self-interest in such a way that they would get to benefit the most. Because of these two ideas, nationalists have often forgone international cooperation in order to further advance their own interests. That is why the USA refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which could have been a crucial step in slowing down global warming. The Bush administration refused to ratify it because they did not want to lose out economically with countries that do not have to cut down on carbon emissions such as China. Their national interest in having an economic edge over countries like China had made them decide against ratifying that treaty. With national interests at stake and the competitive world we live in today, these nationalists would argue that international cooperation has no place in the world today. However, what these nationalists failed to realise is that international cooperation is still essential even if a country only did something in the name of protecting and advancing their own national interests.

For one, there are certain global issues that can only be solved with international cooperation, which means that in order to get it done, countries have to put aside their competition and work together in order to solve it. That would then benefit the cooperating countries themselves. When there is a pressing global issue such as global warming, the outbreak of infectious diseases or the rise of terrorism as we know it today, countries have to work together in order to solve that problem to protect their national interests. With the sheer scale of these problems, it just simply is not possible for any individual country, no matter how small or how big and mighty it is. To solve these issues, international cooperation is the one and only way, even if it means that certain aspects of a country’s national interests might be compromised. For example, countries around the world knew that the depletion of the ozone layer is bad not just for the world, but also their own country in particular because the radiation entering the Earth as a result of the depletion of the ozone layer can negatively affect the health of its people. Because of that, they are willing to come together in order to stop this with the Montreal Protocol. Almost all countries then went on to ratify the treaty, and as such, chlorofluorocarbon (the chemicals that deplete the ozone layer) in the atmosphere has fallen by over 90% since then, and the ozone layer is starting to ‘repair’ itself. This is just one of the many examples that show how international cooperation is still relevant in advancing national interests even in this competitive globalised world. Countries vying for global power like the USA, the (then) British Empire and the Soviets came together to fight off Nazi Germany because the very existence of their countries was at stake. Many countries all over the world today cooperate together despite the intense competition to ward off ISIS because their terrorist attacks can be extremely harmful to the countries themselves. The list goes on. Thus, because of how big certain problems are, international cooperation is still a necessity even in this competitive world, even if a country is guided by the principles of realpolitik.

Moreover, those nationalists also failed to realise that international cooperation might be the only way for them to advance their national interests that do not require international effort as well. Domestically, a country has several objectives they want to achieve, including security, social stability, and a healthy economy. Internationally, they would also want to improve their standing amongst other countries, especially in this competitive world where every country is vying for some form of influence, and in some cases, countries have to work together in order to fulfil these goals, and this means that even if a country is guided by realpolitik, it is only natural for them to work with other countries because doing them would benefit themselves too. The world is not a zero-sum game. When one party stands to benefit, the others do not have to suffer. There is a point for countries to cooperate. Doing so can bring about mutual benefits. When these nationalists argue that international cooperation has no place anymore, they are only saying so because they have a myopic view on global affairs and they assume that everything is a zero-sum game when it, in fact, is not. For instance, many countries including Singapore have signed free trade agreements with each other because they know that doing so is mutually beneficial. The economies in Western Europe grew significantly when they removed trade barriers between each other and started to trade freely between themselves. Today, those countries are amongst the richest in the world, and their free trade benefitted every country in that region. It does not stop there. These European countries do not trade freely with anyone and everyone, they just do so between themselves. This shows that they know that they could not fully cooperate internationally because it hurts their economic interests, but they still cooperated with themselves to ‘maximise’ their national interests. Many countries across the world have also contributed to the fight against Ebola so that it would be effectively contained within Africa itself and that it would not spread and cause a pandemic within their own countries. Countries like Russia and Iran are cooperating and supporting the Assad regime in Syria not because they are doing the government forces a favour on purely ‘humanitarian grounds’, but because they want to exert their influence on the global stage and force others in the national community to acknowledge them. These examples prove that in this competitive world, international cooperation does indeed have a place, and on top of that, is essential if they want to fulfil their national interests.

Hence, in conclusion, even though there are some reasons to believe why international cooperation have no place in this competitive world, the fact that some problems cannot be solved alone and the fact that cooperation is essential to improve one’s own standing suggests otherwise. Moreover, when it comes to relieving a disaster, it is our duty as part of the international community to help a country struck by a disaster. As such, even though the world today is highly competitive and when countries across the world do things in their self-interest in order to stay competitive, international cooperation still has a place for various moral and pragmatic reasons.