This has been an interesting assignment. Good work, everyone.

The project may have ended, but globalization will be going on for quite a while. Everyone should know that by now yes.

So long.

Globalization of Poverty
---------by Rochelle Robinson
Poverty is global, and it is globalization that has kept those in poverty all over the world from rising above it. We have been led to believe that globalization is a process that can enrich our local and global economies. Yet nothing can be further from the truth. Its meaning is unscrupulous, and its results, onerous.
Globalization is just another euphemism for capitalism; a system that has had a devastating effect on the poorest of the land. Statistics show that the richest 1 percent of the country own 47.2 percent of all the wealth, while the bottom 90 percent own only 17.1 percent of this country's wealth. Usually, we are left fighting among ourselves for those scarce resources. When the world's largest populations are situated at the bottom of the economic scale while a miniscule number of people hold all the wealth, something is amiss, and that something is the globalization of poverty.

Today, we live with more awareness and concern about global poverty than at any time in our world’s history. More than ever, people can see or read about swollen stomachs of hungry African children, 11 year-old Asian children working in sweatshops, and Haitian families living in mud huts without medical care, electricity, or clean water. At the same time, many of the richest people are global celebrities. Poverty can no longer be kept secret and neither can prodigious wealth. Yet, the growing world recognition of massive disparities between rich and poor does not necessarily mean that economic inequality is worsening or that poverty is spreading.

Ironically, it is the very improvement in the economic well being of hundreds of millions of people that raised the world's consciousness about poverty and inequality. Until a few hundred years ago, almost everyone experienced material poverty. Few saw themselves as poor relative to their neighbors and hardly any were comfortable enough to worry whether other people had enough food, clothing and shelter. Rising incomes created the large middle classes that could worry about the hungry and expose the poor to what they lacked. In addition, economic growth and technological change fueled the expansion and accessibility of mass communication that makes poverty and income disparities readily observable not only in the rich countries but in many poor countries as well.

This growing recognition of world poverty and inequality is significant, but so too are questions about the realities of material hardships and material wealth. What are today's levels of poverty and inequality? Are they increasing or decreasing? The often emotional debate over globalization's role is hardly surprising, given the apparent stakes for organized labor, investors, farmers, and civil servants in rich, middle, and poor countries and the continuing ideological battle over free markets. Other causes of poverty—such as the decline in two-parent families—attract less attention.

Here, I will focus on how the trends of the standard of world poverty have changed over the years and the role of globalization.

It is not easy to determine whether the trends for the standard of world poverty is decreasing or increasing because its meaning differs from one country to another country and the income statistics may not be examined across countries or across individuals.

The most comprehensive recent analysis of trends in poverty and inequality comes from studies by Columbia University professor Xavier Sala-I-Martin (2002). Professor Martin uses data on income gaps between countries and within countries to portray income differences across all individuals in 125 countries, representing 90 percent of the world's population. He adjusts for inflation and for the fact the purchasing power in some countries, especially low-income countries, is higher than it looks based on translating their currencies into dollars or marks on the basis of exchange rates. Professor Martin's poverty measures are $1/day or $2/day per person in 1985 prices (or $1.52/day or $3.04/day in 1998 terms). Unlike some studies, which treat each country as one unit and thus give people in small countries much greater weight than people in large countries, Martin attaches the same importance to each individual regardless of his or her country.

Sala-i-Martin paints a picture of striking progress. He estimates that the share of the world's population in severe poverty $555/year (hereafter I use 1998 dollars) declined by nearly two-thirds between 1970 and 1998, from 17.2% to 6.7%. Using the more generous poverty line of $1,110 per year, he finds an even greater percentage point decline, from 41% in 1970 to 18.6% in 1998. Most of the headway against poverty has taken place since 1980. Even though world population grew by 1.5 billion between 1980 and 1998, the number experiencing severe poverty declined by 160 million people. Still, as of 1998, 353 million people lived below the $1.52/day threshold and another 620 million lived below the $3.04/day threshold. The World Bank's figures are higher, but both sets of poverty figures show marked reductions in poverty since 1980.

More surprising than the declines in poverty are the reductions in inequality. With the 1980s viewed as the "lost decade" for many developing countries, especially in Africa and Latin America, we might have expected a sharp rise in world inequality. Instead, Sala-i-Martin finds that the world distribution of income became more equal since 1980, after changing little change in the 1970s. True, the improvements were modest, ranging from about 5-11 percent, depending on the indicator of inequality. But small gains in narrowing income gaps are a far better outcome than the "explosive" growth in inequality described by the UN and many outside observers. (Quoted from Europe in World Politics)

Could huge numbers of the world's poor really have escaped poverty and could the gap with people in rich countries really have narrowed?

Progress in Asia provides much of the answer. In 1970, 39% of the world's poor lived in China and 37% lived in other parts of Asia. Of the 1.3 trillion people living on less than $3 a day, 85% lived in Asia. The Asian economic miracle of the 1980s and 1990s lifted the living standards of hundreds of millions of people—the majority of the poor. The percentage of those scraping by on $3/day in Asia fell from 48% in 1980 to 16% in 1998. China's bullish performance was quite impressive but so were the improvements in Asia outside China, where $3/day poverty rates declined from 42% to 13% in the 1980-98 periods. Meanwhile, since the 1980s, poverty rates have stagnated in Latin America and worsened in Africa. While Africans accounted for only 16 percent of the world's deep poverty in 1980, they made up two-thirds of the poor in 1998. By the $3/day standard, 64% of Africans were poor in 1998, up from 55% in 1980. Poverty in Latin America—with rates of 2% at the $1.5/day standard and 10% at the $3/day standard—is not nearly as severe as African poverty. Moreover, poverty did fall some in Latin America during the 1990s, though only enough to compensate for the rise in poverty during the 1980s. It is troubling that neither Latin America nor Africa gained on the rich countries or lowered their overall poverty rates in the last two decades.

Continuing growth in populous India and China, where most people in developing countries still live, will mean significant progress in the reduction of world poverty and inequality. But, unless Africa and Latin America fare better than they have in the last two decades, severe poverty will continue to fester and world inequality will increase.

So what is the exactly role globalization played in these developments and maybe the spread of poverty in some areas of the world?

One way of analyzing globalization's impact is to take the long view and assess trends from the perspective of centuries. Jeffrey Williamson (2002) and his colleagues (Lindert and Williamson 2001) have done so and they offer a largely positive verdict. Income gaps did widen in the 1820-1950 period, when rapid industrial development took place in Europe, the United States and other European offshoots, and Japan. Starting from a state of nearly universal poverty, the world became more unequal when some countries developed rapidly while others remained poor. Still, in periods of globalization, income gaps narrowed among countries taking part in global trade, immigration, and investment. By far, the main force closing the gap was large-scale immigration. True to theory, the immigration of 60 million European increased wages in the sending, low wage countries, decreased wages in the receiving, high wage countries, and substantially raised incomes for the immigrants themselves. Trade helped incomes converge as well, boosting the prices received by producers and lowering the prices their consumers and producers paid for imports. Investment was the one component that went against expectations. Flows of international capital moved toward already rich countries, perhaps following the movement of workers and perhaps because additional capital is sometimes more productive in places where concentrations of capital are already present—a phenomenon vividly described by William Easterly (2001) in his thoughtful book on growth.( quoted from Robert I. Lerman’s article)

Overall, globalization helped the poor countries that adopted sound policies and contributed to income convergence among the countries participating in the global system. However, since stagnation continued in many countries isolated from globalization, world inequality still rose.

Non-Governmental Organisations

The traditional autonomy of Foreign Policy has also been challenged by the rise of what are known as non-governmental organisations - often referred to in shorthand as NGOs.

Where once, there were a few hundred, now there are thousands working across the world. Good examples are aid organisations, such as Oxfam or Save the Children, or the human rights organisation Amnesty International.

While individual governments cannot control what these organisations do, their opinions can carry considerable weight.

When Amnesty questions a country's human rights policy, its voice is heard around the world. That's not always convenient for foreign policy. Take, for instance, the recent military campaign in Afghanistan. Amnesty was the first to raise questions about events in Mazar I Sharif, where hundreds of foreign Taleban prisoners were killed by the West's allies in the Northern Aliance.

First, it was the MNCs. Now, it's the NGOs. Ahhh. Save us.

Climate change

Protests in Sweden as President Bush tears up the Kyoto treaty on climate change

The global challenge of climate change is one area where the old certainties of international diplomacy have been stood on their head.

Here, you can forget the so-called special relationship between Britain and America: the two disagree fundamentally on how to tackle global warming.

Britain has been at the forefront of climate change negotiations held under the auspices of the UN, while the United States, the world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, has refused to implement the reductions required by the Kyoto protocol.

As if to underline the point, Britain's place at the climate change negotiations has been filled not by its Foreign Office team, but by its environment ministers. At one memorable meeting in November 2000, a last minute deal hammered out by the environment secretary and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott fell apart - he said, because the French environment minister was too tired to sign.

In Kyoto, December 1997 the UN brokered the world's first treaty to tackle global warming. Signatories pledged to cut their greenhouse gas emissions in the next decade by just over five per cent from 1990 levels.

But the USA has dragged its feet on implementing the Kyoto protocol and in March 2001, the new president, George W Bush abandoned the Kyoto treaty altogether, saying it is against his country's economic interests.

The Kyoto Protocol. *Sigh* Do we really have to go through this again? Yes, I know what you are thinking. It has been gone over by the other commentators but I simply cannot let go of it. It just so reeks of, I don't know, politics? Hear ye, hear ye. Of all negotiations, the Kyoto Protocol stood out because Singapore is part of this so-called agreement. In this dire situation, the wanting need to save mother earth has taken a back seat while personal interests and politics comes to the forefront. Globalisation has led countries to join forces and handle the problem together as one, as a global community. In this case, it was the serious issue of emission of greenhouse gases especially carbon dioxide. However, big nations like the United States of America has decided that it would affect their economy and therefore, blatantly refuse to adhere to the treaty. None of the nations to do with the protocal could do anything to the US as any wrong move could escalate into a war. It also touhes on the issue of the sovereignty of a nation and how far one can go to engage the other nation. In my opinion, average nation could do anything to any nation bigwigs as it would be total suicide. The furthest you can go is just to engage in more negotiations or call in another bigwig to handle the situation but that would show the world how weak you are, right?

Economic globalization in Asia

The Chinese proverb: "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime," has never been more relevant than today.

Globalization, the integration of national markets through international trade and investment, offers infinite possibilities, greater freedom and new hope for the world's poor.

Since globalization emerged in the 1970s, world infant mortality rates have fallen by almost half, adult literacy has increased by more than a third, primary school enrollment has risen and the average life span has shot up 11 years. Due to successful efforts to lower global barriers, international trade and investment has become a primary engine of world growth. And growth is responsible for reducing poverty. Studies indicate that developing countries with open economies grew by approximately 5% a year in the 1970s and 1980s, while those with closed economies grew less than 1% annually.

Chinese foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan said Asia's development process over the past half century, especially in the recent 30 years clearly tells that "the success and failures or ups and downs of Asia are always closely related to the process of economic globalization."

The economic globalization in Asia has definitely brought opportunities and benefits to Asia.

Asian countries, especially those in East Asia, have seized such opportunities as market openness, commodity exchanges, capital interflow and technology transfer. As a result, they have achieved a rapid economic growth, gradually improved the lives of their people and built Asia into one of the most dynamic and promising regions in the world.

On the other hand, economic globalization has also presented Asia with risks and challenges. The extensive and close links of the world economies have increased the vulnerability of Asian economies to fluctuation. The disorderly flow of short-term capital is impairing and even ravaging economic stability and the unequal international economic order has exacerbated the development gap between the South and North. And moreover, the erroneous theories such as "human rights overriding sovereignty", "humanitarian intervention knowing no boundary" have eroded the foundation of the norms governing international relations and threatened the sovereignty and security of developing countries.

All in all, as Tang described, the economic globalization is a double-edged sword. "For most developing countries, it means challenges and pressures more than opportunities and benefits."

To promote long-term development and prosperity, Asian nations need to make efforts to take advantage of the favorable factors of economic globalization while avoiding the unfavorable ones, Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said Friday in Bangkok.

It is important for the Asian nations to take an active part in the economic globalization, and to adapt to the international environment of economic globalization.

The Asian countries should give full consideration to their own national conditions, development levels and comparative advantages while pressing forward readjustment and reform, upgrading industrial structures, promoting scientific and technological advances. By doing so, they would be able to steadily increase their aggregate national strength, competitiveness and the capacity to protect themselves from risks. Besides, the Asian nations have learned an important revelation from the financial crisis, that is, to gradually expand regional economic cooperation. Countries in the region should strengthen their cooperation in finance, trade, investment and technology on the basis of equality and mutual benefit so as to take advantage of each other's strengths and attain common development. This is an important way for countries in the region to meet the challenges of globalization.
Tang said countries should share the benefit of globalization which, he believed, should be a process "leading to the common prosperity of the South and North, rather than one of polarization of the world."

In view of the growing accumulation of wealth by a few countries or interest groups and the widening gap between the rich and the poor in the world as a whole, developed nations to fulfill their duties and obligations, further open their markets to the developing countries, offer them financial assistance, and work with them in the reform and improvement of international financial structure and rules, and establish a just and reasonable new international economic order.

Finally, there is a need for the democratization of international relations. In the age of globalization, different cultural traditions, lifestyles, social systems and values of nations should be respected and the principles of sovereign equality and noninterference in other countries' internal affairs maintained.

Ever wondered why ‘Global Warming’ was termed ‘Global Warming’? Was it because the effect is Global, or was it due to the fact that everyone all over the world is causing this ‘disease’ Mother Earth now face? Either way, it can be argued that both explanations are close to the truth – Globalization has taught us that we are forever interlinked, and thus, chances are, we do the same thing, and no matter who does what, so long that there’s one who does not follow, the effect will still be the same for all of us.

Globalization is change. Change experienced by everyone, all over the world. If such a principle were to hold, then why is the world not really working together to solve such a great problem that could greatly threaten mankind? Globalization has changed our lives, and it will continue to do so. Yet the idea of the “global village” that comes along with Globalization is simply difficult to imagine. In fact, it seems that the different countries in the world would never put aside their differences and privileges to work together. When faced with problems brought about by industrialization all over the world due to Globalization, it makes sense if everyone were to play a part in solving these problems. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

(Definition of The Kyoto Protocol taken from Wikipedia)

Kyoto Protocol is a noble intention, a treaty brought about by Globalization. Thanks to Globalization, everyone is given the chance to industrialize, and in turn, the harm to nature is greater. Its effect can be felt regardless of whether a country take part in the pollution, and thus it is important. The Kyoto Protocol targets are reducing emissions in order to combat Global Warming. But firstly, is everybody accepting the Global Warming exists?

The Deniers




The above cartoons are good examples of a group of people known as the Deniers of Global Warming, and if one were to like to narrow the category, America would certainly fit in. America is known to have signed the Kyoto Protocol but not ratify it for various reasons. It is oxymoronic to even think that America was the one who initiated the Protocol in the first place.
The Deniers basically deny the existence of Global Warming. And in doing so, they could very well undermine the movement which aims at saving ourselves from Global Warming. They are not without backing either. Statistics such as those that claims that the climate and temperature change is just part of the natural cycle backs the deniers up. Either they deny that it is not happening, or they feel that it is self-correcting. In other words, it is not due to our actions. Such ideas are open to all of us thanks to Globalization, but imagine if people were to blindly follow such excuses. Is Kyoto Protocol really nonsense?

Kyoto Protocol

Perhaps one of the biggest flaws of the Kyoto Protocol would be that only Annex I countries are required to ratify it. Annex I countries are countries that are already developed. The idea would be that they already have the necessary infrastructure and background which would make things easier. However, like the USA argues, developing countries DO give out emissions. All are effects of Globalization, and Kyoto Protocol is too. Therefore, why should Kyoto Protocol leave out the developing countries? Isn’t it better to nip the problem in the bud? If we are all part of this “Global Village”, then everyone SHOULD be included in this treaty. Whatever the case, USA has no excuse to not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, as it is in fact one of the more influential members of the International Community.


In conclusion, if the Kyoto Protocol is all about combating the major side effect of Globalization, then everyone, regardless of race, size and influence, in the International Community should be part of it as well. If Globalization was the force that brought the world together, it is only right that with Globalization, we ought to remain together to solve the issues brought about by Globalization.

This writer assumes the role of environment and health expert. =)-Teresa

Nuclear. The issue has undoubtedly raised concerns and worries of the world regarding its use. Many have sworn against the use of this energy for destruction, that is, in the form of nuclear weaponry, deriving from nuclear reactions of either nuclear fission or the more powerful fusion. History has left the world with a scar, reminding us of the doom and devastation the technology has caused. However, with the increase in international conflicts, we are now seeing the rise of regional arms races. A race for power, and yet for deterance. Let us now look into the reason behind this growing and paradoxical necessity.

The Political Factor

Extracted from: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249782,00.html

Response of Dr. Shahram Chubin, the director of studies at the Geneva Center for Security Policy (GCSP), regarding the dangers of potential nuclear bombs in Iran and the options of decision makers: "I believe that Iran is interested in the weapon. It will provide Iran with status and influence in the region. It will also afford an internal legitimacy – the nuclear program is very much the regime's need to offer its people something instead of a rundown economy and shaky foreign relations. That's the reason they treat the progress of the nuclear program in terms of 'respect' do not allow the enrichment to be done outside Iran."

One of the rather obvious reasons for having nuclear technology would be to gain the power and respect from the other countries. Imagine, having the key to unlocking a weapon, whose small amount has the potential to wipe out an entire city. Countries have used this technology as a warning sign; to deter the enemies, to prevent any unnecessary outbreak of war or to demand respect for their sovereignity. However, many wanted to gain utmost supremacy and power while maintaining peace. This can be seen during the nuclear arms race, the competition for supremacy in nuclear weapons between the United States and Soviet Union during the Cold War. It was a time where both governments devoted massive amounts of resources to increasing the quality and quantity of their nuclear arsenal. Stalin saw the need to compete as he realised that the Americans were monopolizing the nuclear market. It was this that had led the Soviets to develop more atomic weapons, to stay on par with their competitors and to allow an equal spread of power in the economy.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

The threat of nuclear is also the reason behind the rush for the technology. Those within approximately a six square mile area (for a 1 megaton blast) will indeed be close enough to "ground zero" to be killed by the gamma rays emitting from the blast itself. Ghostly shadows of these people will be formed on any concrete or stone that lies behind them, and they will be no more. They literally won't know what hit them, since they will be vaporized before the electrical signals from their sense organs can reach their brains. The aftermaths of such weapons are also horrendous; it will cause the internal molecular structure of the living cells within their bodies to break down as a result of the disruptive effects of the high radiation dose they received. The destructive potential of this weapon is enough to deter many from invading a country that owns it. It will prevent war and help promote peace.

Social/Economical Factor

Taken from: http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm

Nuclear technology has the power and is already providing about 17 percent of the world's electricity. Nuclear power plants rely on the method of nuclear fission. This process releases an incredible amount of energy, in the form of heat and gamma radiation, when a single atom splits. Need an example? A pound of highly enriched uranium, equal to something on the order of a million gallons of gasoline, can be used to power a nuclear submarine or nuclear aircraft carrier. Many countries have tapped on the potential of uranium to empower themselves. An added bonus would be the fact that nuclear energy is environmentally friendly and more effective as compared to fossil fuels. It will also result in lesser wastage as 95% of spent fuel can be recycled to be returned to usage in a power plant.

Conclusion We have all seen the devastation caused by the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during the days of World War II. The Chernobyl disaster has also reminded us of the harm of nuclear; a 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that as many as 9000 people, among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed, may die from some form of cancer (one of the induced diseases). Despite history's repeated warnings, many are still continuing their pursuit for this technology due to its equally impressive benefits as well. We can also see that the threat of nuclear knows no boundaries; this can be seen in the Chernobyl disaster, where the effects crosses international boundaries, and the Iranian nuclear conflict, where many countries have their separate views regarding it. Technology has once again made the world smaller.