Final exam tomomi

Pros of economic globalization:

Cheaper prices for products and services (more optimized supply chains)
Better availability of products and services
Easier access to capitals and commodities
Increased competition
Producers and retailers can diversify their markets and contribute to economic growth
Cons of economic globalization:

Some countries struggle to compete
Extractive behavior of some foreign companies and investors in resource-rich countries preventing economic diversification
Strong bargaining power of multinational companies vis-à-vis local governments
“Contagion effect” is most likely in times of crises
Problems of “social dumping”

Pros of cultural globalization:

Access to new cultural products (art, entertainment, education)
Better understanding of foreign values and attitudes. Less stereotypes and misconceptions about other people and cultures
Capacity to communicate and defend one’s values and ideals globally
Instant access to information from anywhere in the world
Customisation or adaptation of global cultural trends to local environment (“mestisage”)

Cons of cultural globalization:

Dangers of cultural homogenization
Westernization, cultural imperialism or cultural colonialism
Some small cultures may lose their distinct features
Dangerous or violent ideals can also spread faster
Spread of commodity-based consumer culture

Access to international aid and support
It contributes to world peace. It reduces risk of invasions, more checks to big powers and limitation to nationalism.
Smaller countries can work together and gain more influence internationally
International organizations are often committed to spread values like freedom and to fight abuses within countries
Governments can learn from each other

Cons of political globalization:

State sovereignty is reduced
The functioning of international and supranational organizations is often not “democratic” in terms of representation and accountability.
Big countries can shape decisions in supranational organizations
Sometimes countries can veto decisions and slow down decision making processes
Coordination is difficult and expensive

What is to be done in a crisis like the genocide in Rwanda, when the international community seeks to stop the killing? Can nations, acting through the UN Security Council, fulfill a "responsibility to protect" innocent civilians? Or is such a doctrine just a Trojan horse for great power abuse?

When nations send their military forces into other nations' territory, it is rarely (if ever) for "humanitarian" purposes. They are typically pursuing their narrow national interest - grabbing territory, gaining geo-strategic advantage, or seizing control of precious natural resources. Leaders hope to win public support by describing such actions in terms of high moral purposes - bringing peace, justice, democracy and civilization to the affected area. In the era of colonialism, European governments all cynically insisted that they acted to promote such higher commitments - the "white man's burden," "la mission civilisatrice," and so on and so forth.

The appeal to higher moral purposes continues to infect the political discourse of the great powers. Today's "humanitarian intervention" is only the latest in this long tradition of political obfuscation. In 2003, the US-UK invasion and occupation of Iraq was labeled "humanitarian intervention" by UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Still, should intervention (even multilateral intervention, approved by the Security Council) be excluded in all circumstances?

This section looks at the issues and the fierce debate that has arisen within the United Nations about these "new approaches" to sovereignty and collective action.