The Way of the Big Mac

social.studies@tjc

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

I've always been a movie buff, especially when it comes to politically-inspired movies that get me thinking (and often end up criticizing one government or another-that's the fun part:D) Today, for my final post on our beloved SS blog, this political expert is going to introduce one of my favourite movies-Syriana! Go here to watch the trailer on youtube (yes, the movie is my source for today).

http://youtube.com/watch?v=iS3GFnSGOfk

Despite the many confusing and inter-related plot lines, my main focus today will be about international relations between countries, especially when it comes to dealing with global problems. In the film itself, an underlying theme was the prominent tension between the United States and the Middle Eastern region over the issue of oil. To cut a long story short, the United States was desperate for oil which the Middle Eastern region wanted to keep for itself, and eventually resorted to underhand methods to obtain the oil it wanted-and this is where the plot gets confusing. But let's not go into that, shall we? The more important question is, to what extent does globalisation reshape state sovereignty, especially the sovereignty of the United States?

I have stated in most of my previous posts that globalisation is a force to be reckoned with in the world of international relations, as global organisations such as the United Nations redefine and over-ride state sovereignty. But yet, has anyone ever considered the fact that globalisation has actually STRENGTHENED the power and sovereignty of certain countries, such as the United States and other Western powers?

Think about it. In today's globalised world, we always talk about culture becoming homogenous, about national boundaries crumbling, about the whole world becoming one big country of sorts. But what culture are we following in today's day and age? Why, western culture, of course! The influence of the west is everywhere and is undeniable-the movie and recording industry, the way people dress and even the way we talk, think and act. The fact that all countries around the world are becoming clones of Western countries allows these Western countries to wield a significant amount of power, especially in terms of the revenue they rake in annually.

Being comparatively richer than other countries, as a result of globalisation that's mentioned above, allows Western countries to be more developed and to be able to have more say and influence in the international arena. One very good example would be the United States (yes, an often exhausted example, but bear with me!)

The leaders of the land of the free rarely listen or take advice from anyone but themselves. President Bush quashed the objections of the Security Council and the rest of the Big 5 members and went ahead with the Iraq War. Why could he do this without facing any consequences? It is simply because the United States holds the most power in the world today. Economic sanctions and other forms of punishment would have little effect, as the country is already relatively self-sufficient. Furthermore, if the United States does not get its way, it might thrown an ugly tantrum, and other countries quake with fear at the thought of the United States as an enemy. Globalisation has made it an economic, political and military force to be reckoned with. Revenue as a result of globalisation has enabled the United States to build itself up into the formidable force it is today.

The fact of the matter is, the United States (and therefore other Western countries) are so strong that they are able to dominate proceedings in international organisations such as the UN and the WTO. These organisations supposedly are led by no particular country, yet it is undeniable that they would be largely ineffective without the participation of the United States. Globalisation has inadvertently strengthened the position and sovereignty of the United States-it is able to voice out its national concerns and look out for its national interests, even when these conflict with global interests. For example, trade agreements involving coffee at the WTO usually shortchanges African countries such as Ethiopia, in the favour of the United States. Whenever the US is unhappy with any particular country (and this happens often, mind you, think of the nuclear power tussles with Iran and North Korea), all it has to do is threaten the country with economic sanctions or the threat of bombings, and these countries begin to seriously reconsider the possibility of disarming. No country would want to incur the wrath of the United States.

It is a plain fact the United States is the most dominant power today. It is a representation of the power of Western civiliztions. But I reiterate, where would it be without the power of globalisation? Globalisation has ensured that Western culture is able to pervade all countries, whether they like it or not, raking in much revenue for the US in the process.

I have argued that globalisation will ultimately make states and nations crumble, reducing state sovereignty to something seemingly irrelevant. However, I have also shown you in my post today how globalisation can actually cause the sovereignty and power of certain states to be strengthened. So, after my 5 posts, the question remains-will globalisation make or break state sovereignty? It's something for you to think about, and as a political expert, I'll leave you with a statement most politicians enjoy saying (especially during campaigning periods)-The Power Is In Your Hands. You Decide.

Eternally Politically Incorrect and bidding a fond farewell,
Xiu Qing(:

ended entry at
10:37 PM