The true definition of globalisation is as follows; 'The emergence of a complex web of interconnectedness that means our lives are increasingly shaped by events that occur, and decisions that are made, at a great distance from us.' To sum this definition up I see globalisation as the merging of countries through Trans National Co operations and International Organisations. For example McDonald's has a restaurant in 119 countries. This then allows all these countries to experience what once was original American food (now factory made). This is therefore known as cultural Globalisation as every one of these 119 states shares something similar and can then be linked through this. Moving on to the International Organisations, these create what is known as Political globalisation. This refers to the fact that these international organisations are rapidly growing in importance and they are beginning to have more power than some Third World Nation states. An example of an International Organisation is the United Nations (UN), the UN however differs from certain other international organisations such as the European Union. This is because the UN keeps the sovereignty within the Nation state and this is then known as Intergovernmentalism. Were as joining the EU means that the Nation State will subsequently lose some of its sovereignty as in certain areas the EU has sovereignty. An example of this is with Fishing regulations and the fact that Spanish ships are allowed to fish in British waters. Not only this but the free movement agreement has significantly reduced a states sovereignty and this can also be linked back to the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 as in this agreement state borders were laid out. However due to the EU's free movement agreement this has been infringed. This is then known as Supranationalism; which implies that states will lose some of their sovereignty by joining particular bodies and not only this but these organisations are able to impose their will on member states.
Who heads these bodies and is is just Americanisation in disguise?
Before I begin to talk about whether Globalisation is Americanisation in disguise, I would like to discuss who actually is the head of these international bodies and therefore the ones heading this so called 'Globalisation'. I say so called as I don't really think it exists. In the case of talking about who heads these international organisations I am going to ignore the EU as it is not World Wide. I have picked out 4 World Wide organisations (1. UN 2. World Bank 3. IMF 4. World Trade Organisation) the leaders of these four organisations come from South Korea (Heavily supported by the US), U.S.A, France and Brazil. So surely these so called international organisations, decisions will therefore only help the Nation states who do something in return for the leaders nation or if they grant them a certain fund for example it will make the leaders nation better off in some shape or form? Although I do understand that you can not have someone from a totally neutral nation as they will always have certain links or favour particular nation states. Therefore I believe that if these organisation were to truly push forward globalisation and really help everyone not just those at the top then they should not have a leader, instead have a board of people from every member nation state.Then just have someone who referees if you like the discussions but even then you could argue it would create favoritism.
Now on to the main point, is this Globalisation just Americanisation in disguise? In mind my their is no doubt that it is Americanisation in disguise. However I do not think it comes from what the government or the current President (Obama) are pushing forward. In fact I believe that their hands are tied by the transnational corporations and corruption that comes with these and their billionaire owners. I suppose you could argue that the government is also corrupt but I don't think this is true. For example Shell have a GDP the same as Iran so if you think how significant Iran is within Global Politics then you just don't know what Shell are doing or saying behind closed doors. The main reason I have highlighted Shell is that when it comes to the UN and their environmental policies. In my opinion they are never quite good enough and nothing still seems to be happening about the development of Cars and their efficiency especially electric cars when their are perfectly good ones out their i.e Tesla. This is because these transnational corporations have to much power and are only interested in making money. This interest then links to the American policy of every man for himself (Capitalism). Their is no doubt that they are trying to spread this World Wide. One in order to increase their global power and remain as the greatest super power and the other to increase their own nation states profit through the use of cheap labour abroad.
So why would the U.S do this? Going back to the above paragraph and the leaders of the four highlighted World organisations. One leader is directly from the US the other is from South Korea which has received masses of support from the U.S down the years i.e foe example the US helped establish the nation as it is seen today in 1950. The other two leaders are from Brazil and France. So it can therefore be argued that the US has a certain hand in two and has close links with the other two nation states. This then means that they will almost certainly get decisions in their favour and then not in favour of its opponents or third world nations who are willing to ignore the US led Globalisation. The US may go about taking control of these organisations as it may feel a threat from other nations. However in my eyes i don't think they feel threatened at all. I believe that it is simply down to corruption and that those at the top are getting richer and more powerful and those at the bottom and getting poorer and weaker. This is therefore precisely what these billionaire owners want. Not only that but if they can hied what they are doing and put a good spin on it at the same time, known as 'Globalisation' then it looks even better on these people and it makes America particularly look like the savior of the planet. But as you can see from the following photo is it really doing enough?
So yes Globalisation does look like Americanisation in my view. However I do also believe that they are not the only ones putting this false front forward (Globalisation). For example the U.K and most of Europe also promote it. This can especially be seen in the case of Indonesia in the 60s when over a million Indonesians were brutally murdered by General Suharto and his men who had the full support of the US and UK governments and even the Queen. This was simply because he was willing to open up Indonesia rich resources to the World and also allow them to use the countries cheap Labour possibilities to the world (Globalisation). Also not only the US is guilty of buying cheap clothes that are made in these sweat shops. The whole of Europe does it and nearly every high street in the UK has a Primark which is renowned for its use of sweat shops in Third World nation states. So is Globalisation real? I believe not. But are the Americans trying to promote their policies thorough this? Almost Certainly.
No comments:
Post a Comment