Hitchhikers' Guide to Globalisation! (:

Discrimination in Globalisation@
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 - 12:39:00 AM

I think globalisation brings about more negative impacts on the environment than positive ones. All of us know about the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of globalisation that is good for the environment, but it was not successful. Why is this so? I feel that it is mainly due to the fact that US did not participate in this Protocol.

On the other hand, globalisation is devastating for the environment in many other ways. To briefly mention a few events, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) generally discourages environmental policies, considering them to be unfair barriers to free trade. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) have funded roads, dams, and other massive projects that continue to destroy the environment. Rainforests are disappearing largely because of globalization. Export-oriented agriculture is one of the most harmful industries in the world, and it continues to grow because of world trade policies. Environmental problems are becoming concentrated in poorer and less powerful nations. Wealthy countries are exporting their worst industries and toxic waste.

So in a sense, globalisation seems to be discriminating the not so wealthy and less developed countries. On top of that, some of the less developed countries are industrializing at a faster rate, and in that sense, creating their own environmental problems, in addition to the problems being sent from the North. For example, globalisation has allowed China to grow their economy at a phenomenal rate, but this is having a terrible impact on the environment.

Refer to article: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/eadi-cn.htm

I agree with this article, which states that the process of globalisation is playing a more and more crucial role in the determination of the effects of trade, other external economic relations, national development strategies, and human rights fulfillments. Because of globalisation, the richer and more developed countries tend to shine more than the less developed. And with this, I do not mean just globalisation in technology, but in all aspects such as political and cultural. Being more advanced and more all-embracing towards all cultures, the more developed countries are stronger in all sense than less developed countries.

As these more developed countries ‘gain control’ of the world market, the less developed countries will have to succumb to them. This leads to a case whereby it seems that the less developed countries are the puppets of the more developed countries. This brings about my argument of discrimination. I would say that the more developed countries control the fate of the less developed countries. For example, a company in a more developed country prices their goods at a very high price, not allowing the less developed countries to purchase their goods. If say these goods are very important source of food, being unable to afford them, the people in the less developed countries will starve! However, if the goods are priced at reasonable prices, the people of the less developed countries will still be able to afford, and so will not starve. This is exactly why I say the more developed countries are in control of the life and death of the people in less developed countries. Hence, this definitely is discrimination, discrimination to the poorer people.

IMF & WB held responsible for health crisis in Africa

Refer to article: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twe279g.htm

I am quite aghast when I read this article. I cannot believe that WB has actually increased the health funding. I think that they should not do that. When they do that, the poor people of Africa will not be able to afford the medical help that they need!

The report states that in the 42 poorest countries in Africa, for example, spending on healthcare fell by 50% during the 1980s, by the end of which public-health experts were beginning to recognize the potentially devastating impact of the HIV-AIDS pandemic in Africa. This shows the overwhelming effect of what WB & IMF had done. People in Africa are facing major health crisis.

This again reiterates my point about discrimination. Africa is obviously the party being discriminated. WB & IMF left Africa no chance of survival. In addition, as the Africa Action report states, the amounts of money paid by African governments to foreign creditors, including the Bank and the IMF themselves, continued to increase. By the 1990s, most African countries were spending more repaying foreign debts than on health or education for their people, according to the Africa Action report.

What I do not understand is why Africa’s debts are on the rise. It seems as if the creditors are pushing Africa to the end, forcing them to pay up even when they know that Africa is in a bad condition right now. This is why I feel that Africa is being discriminated.

Globalisation does bring about discrimination in some parts of the world, especially to the Third World countries. I really hope that the more developed countries will stop discriminating the less developed countries.

Resources:
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070311125051AAMlhZW
http://www.ban.org/index.html

Environmental & Health Expert,
Elysia Ong.

Labels: Globalisation and Environment

Hitchhikers*