反全球化 Anti-Globalization
In November 1999, thousands of anti-globalization protestors gathered in Seattle to oppose another World Trade Organization conference. The anti-globalization protestors had two main appeals. One was to protect the interests of the poor countries; the other was to oppose American-European hegemony. While the protesters were quite will-meaning, their arguments against globalization seem to be somewhat over-simplified.
First, even though the United States controls most of the world’s financial power and has the most powerful military forces in the world, it does not mean that the Europeans would sit back and let the U.S. take over the world market. The unification of the European economic community functions exactly as a counterforce against American hegemony.
Second, big international corporations are powerful but it does not mean that the individual states will tolerate any of their illegal behaviors. Illegal actions will be punished and controlled by laws and institutions of the state. Besides, big corporations basically depend on their “Brand names” and the brand names are built upon people’s trust. If illegal actions end up damaging the brand names, the corporations may prove to be more fragile and vulnerable than they seem.
Third, McDonalization may be considered the forefront of American culture’s invasion to other countries. But it is still the consumers who decide if they want to spend their money at McDonalds or Starbucks. So the real forces of resistance lies with the consumers.
Fourth, this may sound ironic, but it is the reality of globalization that makes such large-scale protests possible in the first place. I don’t mean that the protests are worthless; in fact, they are indispensable to the whole process of globalization because they can function to shape the direction of globalization.
The real issue is--the debate on globalization should not center upon the simple question of whether you are for it or against, but a discussion of how to better control the consequences of globalization.
In November 1999, thousands of anti-globalization protestors gathered in Seattle to oppose another World Trade Organization conference. The anti-globalization protestors had two main appeals. One was to protect the interests of the poor countries; the other was to oppose American-European hegemony. While the protesters were quite will-meaning, their arguments against globalization seem to be somewhat over-simplified.First, even though the United States controls most of the world’s financial power and has the most powerful military forces in the world, it does not mean that the Europeans would sit back and let the U.S. take over the world market. The unification of the European economic community functions exactly as a counterforce against American hegemony.
Second, big international corporations are powerful but it does not mean that the individual states will tolerate any of their illegal behaviors. Illegal actions will be punished and controlled by laws and institutions of the state. Besides, big corporations basically depend on their “Brand names” and the brand names are built upon people’s trust. If illegal actions end up damaging the brand names, the corporations may prove to be more fragile and vulnerable than they seem.
Third, McDonalization may be considered the forefront of American culture’s invasion to other countries. But it is still the consumers who decide if they want to spend their money at McDonalds or Starbucks. So the real forces of resistance lies with the consumers.
Fourth, this may sound ironic, but it is the reality of globalization that makes such large-scale protests possible in the first place. I don’t mean that the protests are worthless; in fact, they are indispensable to the whole process of globalization because they can function to shape the direction of globalization.
The real issue is--the debate on globalization should not center upon the simple question of whether you are for it or against, but a discussion of how to better control the consequences of globalization.