Relation of the West to the Third World - Essay Example

Essay Question 2 There is a wide gap between the West and the Third World in terms of wealth, development and levels of industrialization. Cohen notes that these differences are not brought about by cases of exploitation, in which the West exploited the developing countries, but rather by globalization. According to Cohen, this phenomenon did not take place equally across the globe and contributed to the inequalities between these two levels of countries. The world was, however, divided according to axis and hemispheres. Cohen brings out three ages of globalization and their associated stages. The first one is the one that took place in the 16th Century. This globalization involved global conquests and opposes Diamond’s ideologies of why some countries are richer than others. According to Diamond, genetics and the climate of countries determined their prosperity. However, Cohen opposes these views by bringing out the fact that agriculture and domesticated plants and animals played a key role in dividing countries according to their modernization and wealth. The fact that Europeans subdued natives from other regions is supported by the claims that they had animals that provided them with the immunity to communicable diseases, unlike the natives. The tyranny of others, as explained by Cohen, enabled them to immunize their large populations against effects of globalization, which, on the other hand, destroyed natives of the regions they conquered. The aspect of having large countries with larger populations also helped developed countries in Europe come up with helpful innovations, and the east-west axis they lived in created common problems and solutions for them. This is contrary to the north-south axis that characterized some of the poor regions such as Africa (Cohen, 2006). The 19th Century globalization also influenced the difference in wealth between countries. This age was characterized by the communications revolution that transformed trade between nations. It also witnessed one of the largest migrations in the history of humankind, with the Europeans moving to newly discovered territories such as the Americas. This movement was characterized by the exportation of wealth and manpower, the two primary factors that promoted the development of infrastructure in the countries that received the European immigrants. This exportation explains the difference in development between Africa and North America. The migration also raised the wages in England, increasing the people’s wealth relative to the rest of the world. The conquest of territories and the implementation of international division of labor created poverty in some countries such as India and made England rich. The New World Economy as seen in the 20th Century has also contributed to the differences in wealth between countries. In this stage of globalization, movement was more of immobile, and the internet took over the communications sector. Business was enhanced between European countries as opposed to David Ricardo’s argument that real business was between distant and different countries. The adoption of economies of scale and full trade sustainability defines the difference between the rich and poor nations. The poor developmental decisions made by states after the colonialism period also affected their wealth and mortality rate, with some increasing the rate at which diseases and malnutrition endangered their population (Cohen, 2006). Looking at these arguments by Cohen, it is evident that globalization is a crucial factor in determining why some countries are richer than others. They eliminate the belief that the rich initially exploited the poor so as to gain their current statuses. According to Jaggar, globalization is not good for women. The ideal globalization is characterized by the reduction of political, economic and social distances between physically distant countries and continents. It features overseas trading and interaction among people from other nations for the development of all (Jaggar, 2001). This globalization in its ideal form comes with characteristics or promises that are not achievable in the real world. These promises include global peace in which countries willing to maintain good business deals are at peace with each other. Another promise is social justice, accompanied by prosperity. This promise is promoted by the fact that scarce resources are optimally utilized for the maximum economic benefits, rewarding countries according to their contributions. Thirdly, increased democracy is expected as a result of trade movements. Globalization is also expected to curb environmental pollution, and united efforts will be geared towards reducing environmental degradation. Ethnicity and racism are also expected to decrease with the increased interactions of people from different regions. They will depend on each other for prosperity and economic development. In the end, this globalization will combat the male chauvinist mentality in both the economy and politics. The women will have equal opportunities in all aspects. However, the opposite is true as explained by Jaggar. Globalization has brought about more harm than good for women and children, as well as men. The women, however, are the most affected the world over, be it in the prosperous northern hemisphere or the less fortunate southern hemisphere. Evidence of globalization can be traced as far back as half a millennium ago, and has been characterized by many civil and global wars. This neoliberal globalization has also seen widening rifts between the rich and the poor, as well as corrupt democracies and ethnic hatred which has resulted in genocides. Societies around the globe have stuck to their cultures of unequal rights and communal statuses between men and women. They have also undermined women in both the political and economic arenas. Among the factors of globalization that have made this purposed form of development evil for women are the wars associated with it. Natives oppose the exploitation of their resources by multinationals, and this has resulted in conflicts among the people involved. Most casualties of war are civilians, who mostly consist of women and children. A lot of money has also been invested in the production of weapons, benefiting some women investing in this business but negatively affecting many of them. Very few women are employed in this sector. Jaggar notes that war has significantly affected the southern hemisphere through the militarization of countries. They concentrate all their revenue on the acquisition of weapons at the expense of sanitation, health, nutrition and education. Military governments also promote gender inequality through the promotion of masculine ideologies. The women are seen as national resources and should give birth to future soldiers. They are also discouraged from following their careers. The men in such countries are violent and take this violence to their women in homes and streets. Women are also used as sexual trophies for warrior heroes (Jaggar, 2001). Women are demeaned by poverty levels that have hit many parts of the world due to globalization. There has been an increasing level of inequality around the globe. In the north, well-paid jobs were taken over by private corporations and moved to the south, where they were paid less. In the north, they were replaced by less-paying casual jobs that had no benefits at all. Women have been victims of unemployment following the collapse of socialist economies. Educated women have even resolved to move into prostitution and begging after being dropped out of top positions in the economy, all due to globalization. Democracy, a result of globalization, has sidelined women in the political arena. The democracy has been due to the decline of dictatorships in third world countries and the end of communist governments in Eastern Europe. This democracy is also characterized by free trade, which is in turn filled with cases of corruption in the World Trade Organization. Powerful countries always have their way in the trading arena, as opposed to poor countries. This inequality due to democracy puts women on a low level of income, with some having to produce products they can sell. Comparing Cohen’s and Jaggar’ arguments, the two agree that globalization has contributed to the prosperity of some nations and the poverty of many of them. Through globalization, Europe has emerged superior over third world countries and has developed at a higher rate than all the other regions of the world. The two also agree on the fact that globalization is characterized by inequalities around the world, with different levels of prosperity and poverty across the globe. Similarly, globalization is characterized by extensive travel and trading, bringing about wealth to various parts of the world. This wealth, however, is not evenly distributed as was expected at the onset of globalization. The two arguments, however, also have differing views in terms of the sources of trouble as brought about by globalization. According to Cohen, the inequalities around the world are caused by the differences in the plants and animals that can be domesticated in a particular region. However, Jaggar identifies various factors as causes of inequalities and that are related to globalization. She focuses on globalization as the cause of evil for women and children, whereas Cohen defends globalization. Cohen stands for the idea that exploitation was not a cause of inequalities, but rather the way in which different people took up the events of globalization. Moreover, there are differences in the two arguments in that Jaggar looks at the negatives of globalization on women, and the gender inequalities it brings about (Jaggar, 2001). The argument by Cohen does not pinpoint women as the primary targets of inequalities, but regions in general. Another difference in the arguments is the idea that a vast population contributes to the immunization of a population against adverse effects of development and disease, which is according to Cohen (Cohen, 2006). Jaggar identifies vast populations as a crucial influence of poverty and poor nutrition since the available resources are not sufficient for the population. According to me, globalization is good for human beings but has to be implemented with caution so as to mitigate the adverse effects that accompany it. With globalization, we can trade on international levels and learn from people all over the world. It can bring about positive change in people economically, socially and politically. Through globalization, one gains from other people not only in trade items, but also in shared experiences. Works cited Jaggar, A. Is Globalization Good for Women? Vol. 53. Duke UP, 2001. 298-314. Cohen, Daniel. Globalization and Its Enemies. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2006. Read More