Globalization leads to the need for some sort of global governance system. But its development may have very negative consequences for many.
[A] major priority of the free trade agreements that are currently
being negotiated is a restriction on countries’ capacity to regulate the
use of genetically modified organisms, either by restricting imports or
preventing their farmers from planting such crops. Farmers also will
be prohibited from replanting the GMO seeds they buy from the United
States, something that resonates with Hubert Humphrey’s unpleasant
celebration of dependence. Such policies mean that the world will
become increasingly dependent on a handful of seed companies, which
would displace the previously heterogeneous population of seeds. Such
genetic homogenization of crops ultimately poses a threat to the world
food supply.
While trade agreements limit the rights of nations, such as Mexico,
to help their farmers, farmers in California receive highly subsidized
water transfers to be able to plant cotton on arid land, which would
otherwise be unsuitable for cotton. As a result, the Colorado River no
longer reaches Mexico, which badly needs that river’s water. The
resulting U.S. cotton harvest has managed to snuff out the demand for a
good deal of African cotton production, thereby ensuring, or even
increasing, poverty there.
Globalization, "Free Trade," and Food as a Strategic Weapon
I think this resonates with Galeono's landmark book Open Veins of Latin America, which described the region's dependence on the United States for economic activity. There are many conflicting growth theories, one of which stipulates that unregulated, free trade will bring the best outcome to all nations. Although this generally is true (more competitors means better products,) I think it disproportionately aids the wealthier countries. Those countries, like the US, that consume more than produce goods benefit from cheaper foreign products. But the economies that are responsible for supplying those products become dependent on the demand from another country. This is the point of Galeano's book and is also highlighted in this article.
ReplyDeleteIt is somewhat paradoxical that the US promotes free trade yet has a host of economic protection for its own agriculture. One could say that other countries should simply mimic the United States, but this policy would only work if their agricultural system were comparatively strong. In globalization, the wealthiest countries get to dictate the policy, which means that they almost always get what they want. If not, then they won't agree to free trade policy. Smaller, poorer countries do not have this choice. In many cases, global trade could help them tremendously; many workers are dependent on this business and thus are desperate for increased demand from foreign countries. Free trade doesn't exactly work like it's supposed to when a country's main focus is exporting; there is no mutual flow of goods.
"Globalization leads to the need for some sort of global governance system." This reminds me of the issues that the European Union faces as a supranational organization. Each separate country seeks to maximize and protect their economic potential, yet to the potential detriment of the aggregate, meanwhile, policies that benefit the aggregate are usually detrimental to select individual member states. A key purpose of the EU is to give smaller European states a larger voice, however, it's no surprise that wealthier member states who contribute more money have more influence over policy. In the context of globalization this plays out in a similar fashion, where wealthier countries preach the efficiency of a freely trading world, yet meanwhile these countries are aggressively protecting their own economic potential, while hurting the economic sanctity of others. I do agree that globalization calls for a global governance system, however, I believe that globalization currently perpetuates inequality, and even in the face of a global governing body, has the potential to keep doing so.
ReplyDelete