|
The left wing politicians running for president in 2008 have issued many anti globalization sentiments, ranging from "the need to protect our citizens from unsafe Chinese toys" to "the desire to place trade sanctions on human rights violators." The financial impact of a successful global trade strategy is no longer deniable. Consider that The People's Republic of China's Gross Domestic Product was $67.9 Billion in 1952, and was recorded at $18,232 Billion in 2005! The Asian markets are, in fact, among the fastest growing in the world, thanks to globalization. However, anti globalization experts warn us that depending upon foreign nations can be dangerous, as trade has historically been used as an effective bargaining chip. Not only that, but many globalization issues arise over what constitutes a "fair wage" in a country like Cambodia or the Dominican Republic.
It doesn't take much looking around to see the local effect of globalization. For instance, in Buffalo, New York, the only local comedy club packed up and moved to Aruba to cash-in on the tourism industry. Foreign competition and European technological advancement after WWII led to the shutdown of the Bethlehem Steel Corporation and the joblessness of more than 7,000 workers. Trico, Zenith and Fischer-Price have all moved to Mexico. General Motors closed one of its auto plants due to foreign competition, laying off $1,700. Buffalo, once the heart of thriving economic growth, is now in a state of disrepair and economic depression, and it's only one of many cases around the United States. Anti globalization activists also remind us of the larger scope in the globalization debate: the exploitation around the world by money-grubbing tycoons.
According to the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, the North American Free Trade Agreement has resulted in a trade deficit with Canada and Mexico, causing the displacement of 879,280 high-paying manufacturing jobs, which has decimated our middle class. In 1993, NAFTA was signed with the intention of creating more jobs, not moving all the current jobs away and weakening labor unions. In addition to job loss, Americans who remain staunchly anti globalization also fear the globalization impact on our federal budget and consumer commodities. For instance, it is estimated that $860 billion dollars are spent each year on militarism paid to private security companies to protect our overseas investments. Few people living today can forget how Saddam Hussein threatening our oil fields in Kuwait abruptly led to the Persian Gulf War.
Another reason to be anti globalization is the potential impact it has on the environment. With an increase in global warming and companies making use of lax restrictions or enforcements in other countries, there is much to be concerned about, some argue. The World Trade Organization has done little to enforce environmental mandates and instead, actually votes on the side of pro globalization. Take, for instance, the time the US banned shrimp from countries that weren't protecting sea turtles or banned tuna from countries that caught dolphins in their nets. The WTO ruled against both bans. In New Delhi, India, lax auto restrictions and a growing upper class is resulting in drastic spikes in air pollution. Pro globalization experts hope that with the spread of higher education, more people will begin to naturally "do the right thing" and environmental protection will, over time, increase.
|
