doris830505
Jan 9, 2011
Undergraduate / For country, for equity and for poverty gaps. SFS essay, global issue. [3]
Briefly discuss a current global issue, indicating why you consider it important and what you suggest should be done to deal with it.
Globalization & IMF: For country, for equity and for poverty gaps.
People with colorful banners walked up to the street, shouting anti-globalization slogans while handing out fliers. It wasn't long before police scurried to take charge. Anti-globalization movements, or global justice movements, have become highly prevalent in the last decade. After witnessing the protests, many people could not help but wonder, what exactly is wrong with globalization?
Globalization has been beneficial in many ways. Overall, the average quality of life has increased due to cross cultural communication. International trade has facilitated commerce between countries. Countries are no longer isolated. In fact, a single event, the invention of the popular website, facebook.com, has affected the lives of over 500 million people. In other words, globalization made our lives colorful. However, with the advent of globalization come many unfulfilled promises. The original guarantee of global prosperity is replaced by the increase of the poverty gap. According to the latest statistics, at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.and 12% live under the poverty line-$1 a day. International corporations take advantage of globalization and hire children to work in local sweatshops. Globalization have broadened the poverty gap and exacerbated the economic conditions in developing nations.
With the start of globalization, comes the establishment of many international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Just like globalization, the IMF also has its pros and cons.
The IMF, established at Bretton Woods in the year 1944, founded in hopes of stabilizing and rebuilding global economy after the Second World War. Their mission is to give out loans to countries in debt or without resources to stimulate the global economy. Throughout the years, they have strived to fulfill their promises. In 1997, when South Korea faced bankruptcy and sought help from the IMF, the IMF not only provided them with $5.5 billion worth of aid, but also introduced Korea to the world of information technology industries. Renowned companies like LG and Samsung are products of IMF's financial loans. However, this success does not apply to every nation around the world. From many past relief aid cases, the IMF understands countries' urgent need of money, and so during negotiations, they have the apparent upper hand. When signing contracts, they require nations to follow a rigorous set of policies and regulations. For example, by forcing developing nations to open their agricultural market, powerful nations can export their goods and increase revenues. One the other hand, these major countries practice tariff fortresses to prevent other countries from competing. Local farmers in countries like Thailand or Argentina suffers from these policies and has an even harder time struggling to make a living.
Some may claim that the one simple solution to all these problems is to end globalization. But can one imagine life without internet, CNN or even GLEE? People would simply guffaw at this notion. Globalization itself is a great movement. However, the application of many of the IMF and other global organizations' former policies and theories has been the main cause of poverty gaps increasing. Difficult as this might seem, there are ways to ameliorate the IMF's current situation. First of all, the IMF must cooperate more with local officials and thoroughly understand each nation's conditions. They can not expect every developing nation to follow the same policy at the same pace. Also, the IMF should stick to their founding aim. Is this organization working for profits or for the countries in great need? All nations, whether the debtor or debtee, should have the right to speak. Developed nations should not dominate the IMF. Globalization should be about equity between nations and opportunities for all. Most importantly, all results, be they successful or catastrophic, are aimed at the government and citizens and not the IMF, which is why the developing countries should be in control of the reforms. The IMF should always remember that they are there to help, not to take charge.
The global market, as we all know, will not automatically adjust itself. The world's exacerbating conditions demonstrates the urgent need for effective diplomacy, not to fight globalization and the IMF, but to strengthen them. The school of Foreign Service, for me, is an oasis where eager scholars explore diplomacy in a desert of confusion and apathy. Knowing that applying to SFS is indeed a commitment and an intellectual challenge, I gladly fall for the majestic education offered by the SFS, the ideals of which correspond with my wishes of becoming not only a promoter of respect among different cultures, but also a leader who will lead the people, to a better tomorrow.
Are we suitable for globalization? Definitely. Are we up to the challenge? We simply have to wait and see.
THANK YOU SO MUCH
:)
Doris
Briefly discuss a current global issue, indicating why you consider it important and what you suggest should be done to deal with it.
Globalization & IMF: For country, for equity and for poverty gaps.
People with colorful banners walked up to the street, shouting anti-globalization slogans while handing out fliers. It wasn't long before police scurried to take charge. Anti-globalization movements, or global justice movements, have become highly prevalent in the last decade. After witnessing the protests, many people could not help but wonder, what exactly is wrong with globalization?
Globalization has been beneficial in many ways. Overall, the average quality of life has increased due to cross cultural communication. International trade has facilitated commerce between countries. Countries are no longer isolated. In fact, a single event, the invention of the popular website, facebook.com, has affected the lives of over 500 million people. In other words, globalization made our lives colorful. However, with the advent of globalization come many unfulfilled promises. The original guarantee of global prosperity is replaced by the increase of the poverty gap. According to the latest statistics, at least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day.and 12% live under the poverty line-$1 a day. International corporations take advantage of globalization and hire children to work in local sweatshops. Globalization have broadened the poverty gap and exacerbated the economic conditions in developing nations.
With the start of globalization, comes the establishment of many international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Just like globalization, the IMF also has its pros and cons.
The IMF, established at Bretton Woods in the year 1944, founded in hopes of stabilizing and rebuilding global economy after the Second World War. Their mission is to give out loans to countries in debt or without resources to stimulate the global economy. Throughout the years, they have strived to fulfill their promises. In 1997, when South Korea faced bankruptcy and sought help from the IMF, the IMF not only provided them with $5.5 billion worth of aid, but also introduced Korea to the world of information technology industries. Renowned companies like LG and Samsung are products of IMF's financial loans. However, this success does not apply to every nation around the world. From many past relief aid cases, the IMF understands countries' urgent need of money, and so during negotiations, they have the apparent upper hand. When signing contracts, they require nations to follow a rigorous set of policies and regulations. For example, by forcing developing nations to open their agricultural market, powerful nations can export their goods and increase revenues. One the other hand, these major countries practice tariff fortresses to prevent other countries from competing. Local farmers in countries like Thailand or Argentina suffers from these policies and has an even harder time struggling to make a living.
Some may claim that the one simple solution to all these problems is to end globalization. But can one imagine life without internet, CNN or even GLEE? People would simply guffaw at this notion. Globalization itself is a great movement. However, the application of many of the IMF and other global organizations' former policies and theories has been the main cause of poverty gaps increasing. Difficult as this might seem, there are ways to ameliorate the IMF's current situation. First of all, the IMF must cooperate more with local officials and thoroughly understand each nation's conditions. They can not expect every developing nation to follow the same policy at the same pace. Also, the IMF should stick to their founding aim. Is this organization working for profits or for the countries in great need? All nations, whether the debtor or debtee, should have the right to speak. Developed nations should not dominate the IMF. Globalization should be about equity between nations and opportunities for all. Most importantly, all results, be they successful or catastrophic, are aimed at the government and citizens and not the IMF, which is why the developing countries should be in control of the reforms. The IMF should always remember that they are there to help, not to take charge.
The global market, as we all know, will not automatically adjust itself. The world's exacerbating conditions demonstrates the urgent need for effective diplomacy, not to fight globalization and the IMF, but to strengthen them. The school of Foreign Service, for me, is an oasis where eager scholars explore diplomacy in a desert of confusion and apathy. Knowing that applying to SFS is indeed a commitment and an intellectual challenge, I gladly fall for the majestic education offered by the SFS, the ideals of which correspond with my wishes of becoming not only a promoter of respect among different cultures, but also a leader who will lead the people, to a better tomorrow.
Are we suitable for globalization? Definitely. Are we up to the challenge? We simply have to wait and see.
THANK YOU SO MUCH
:)
Doris