With the Bush administration set to unveil an overhaul of the nation's fragmented financial regulatory system today, and Congress likely to offer a counterproposal in the coming months, it might be tempting to tune the whole debate out. After all, this is a topic unusually rich in detail and complexity.
But the question at its core is really quite simple. Should financial institutions capable of doing great harm to markets or necessitating taxpayer bailouts be left alone to decide what level of risks they wish to undertake? The answer is just as simple: no.
The government learned that lesson in the Great Depression, which was triggered in part by runs at undercapitalized banks. It set up a system requiring banks to maintain sufficient reserves. It also created federal deposit insurance to give people confidence that their money would be safe.
But since then, a parallel universe of unregulated financial institutions has come to be and taken over much of the business of financing. In this universe, the traditional bank lending its own money to people it knows has been replaced by a series of impersonal and interdependent institutions such as investment banks and hedge funds. These firms have turned the basics of banking — lending, borrowing, managing risk — into a system of readily tradable, but impossibly complex, securities.
This system has been a failure. Rather than spreading and diversifying risks as intended, it has enabled certain institutions, such as Bear Stearns Cos., to place enormous bets in housing and other areas, without the government, shareholders, or even top executives fully appreciating the risks involved or knowing whether the institutions have the means to cover their losses. That is a scary proposition given how Wall Street's largest houses can have a domino effect if they fail.
An enhanced government role in overseeing these institutions need not be overly regulatory. Washington should have little interest in signing off on every new financial instrument issued. But if it is going to rush in when large institutions get into trouble, it has an interest in keeping them out of trouble in the first place. This entails requiring them to maintain adequate reserves should their financial conditions rapidly deteriorate. It also entails some way to promote greater transparency and simplicity in credit markets.
There's no sense in allowing so much of the financial world to play by its own rules when times are good and expect a bailout when they are not. That lesson was learned in the 1930s, and needs to be relearned now.
Sabtu, 05 April 2008
Climate change: Time to get serious
As the most authoritative report to date on climate change is published, it is time for the world to get serious about curbing greenhouse gas emissions, argues Oliver Tickell. He calls on all nations to embrace a "Kyoto 2" framework, full of "bold measures" to prevent "severe and adverse consequences".
The Earth's average temperature will almost certainly rise by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) during this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
Thanks to "positive feedback" in the Earth's climate system, it could even rise by 6.4C (11.5F). Temperature rises even at the middle of this scale would mean catastrophe.
Hundreds of millions of people would be forced from their homes by sea level rises, storms, floods and drought. And our planet's biodiversity would face the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.
The situation is not beyond remedy. In 1997, the world took a significant step to controlling greenhouse gas emissions with the Kyoto Protocol.
Symbolic gesture
Yet the main value of the Kyoto Protocol is symbolic: it shows that the world can act collectively to safeguard the Earth's future, and sets a precedent for future action.
Its effect on actually reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain, and appears to be small. The rise in global greenhouse gas emissions has continued on an even path since 1997, unperturbed by the Kyoto Protocol.
In any case, the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and then what? I believe that a new climate agreement is needed which must go far beyond the existing Protocol in its scope and its ambitions.
It has to produce genuine global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Its core framework must encompass all countries, in a way that is efficient and equitable.
It must forge a new path for global development which moves away from fossil fuels. And it must address those impacts of climate change which are already inescapable, and which will disproportionately affect the countries least able to withstand them.
It is to meet these objectives that I have drafted a set of proposals under the name Kyoto 2, departing significantly from the ineffective framework of the existing Kyoto Protocol.
Key features include:
impose a series of global caps on annual greenhouse gas production
set aside the country-based approach, replacing it with a unified global approach
control greenhouse gases at point of production, not of emission; in the case of fossil fuel emissions, control the production of the fuel itself as close as feasible to the mine or well-head, based on the global warming potential of the fuel in question when burnt
sell greenhouse gas production "Rights" at a global auction open to all bidders
limit the fossil fuel production of any company in any year to the level for which they have obtained Rights
treat other industrial production of greenhouse gases in the same way, for example: carbon dioxide (CO2) from cement production; and surplus radiative impacts for aviation
for avoidable diffuse greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and CO2 from forest burning, issue limited Rights to governments on a per capita of population basis
credit Rights to companies who demonstrably destroy or safely bury greenhouse gases
use the funds raised at the global auction to address both the causes and consequences of climate change
Taken as a whole, these measures offer a new approach which would achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas production in a way that is economically efficient, fair and equitable. And the climate funds - which could easily reach $500bn-$1 trillion (£250-£500bn) per year - could be used in many positive ways, for example:
establish a Climate Adaptation Fund to help the worst affected countries adapt to climate change
finance programmes to reduce fossil fuel demand, aimed especially at poorer countries and populations
pay "rent" to countries with natural biomes acting as carbon sinks and stores within their territories, such as forests and swamps, to maintain and expand those sinks and stores
establish a Low Carbon Development Bank to support viable low-carbon energy developments
fund low-carbon energy research, for example, into renewable generation technologies
buy out fossil fuel deposits to prevent their exploitation, which will also give an economic return to countries losing revenue from fossil fuel sales
Tough times
I do not pretend that it will be easy to put these or similar proposals in place. Fossil fuel producers, both countries and companies, would be faced with, in effect, a new tax.
However, there would also be upsides for them: a level global playing field ensuring fair competition among rival producers; greater certainty as to the future, essential for long term investment decisions; and the prolongation of their fossil fuel reserves' lifetime, thanks to a slower rate of production.
Opposition would also come from the rich countries now responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions.
Although their governments would not be bound by specific targets as at present, most of the money going into the "greenhouse fund" would ultimately derive from their economies.
Burning a barrel of oil produces about 0.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide, so a $20 (£10) price for Rights (per tonne of CO2) would put about $8 (£4) on a barrel of oil - or 5 US cents (2.5p) on a litre of petrol.
No doubt there would be complaints, but few could seriously argue that costs at that level are unaffordable. In any case, any system for controlling greenhouse gases will ultimately have to be financed mainly by the rich world, and those who produce most emissions.
These would be bold measures but the global threats we face deserve nothing less.
Fail to act at this decisive time and the Earth, its people and its whole panoply of life will face the most severe and adverse consequences - as the IPCC's latest report abundantly confirms.
The Earth's average temperature will almost certainly rise by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) during this century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
Thanks to "positive feedback" in the Earth's climate system, it could even rise by 6.4C (11.5F). Temperature rises even at the middle of this scale would mean catastrophe.
Hundreds of millions of people would be forced from their homes by sea level rises, storms, floods and drought. And our planet's biodiversity would face the greatest extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago.
The situation is not beyond remedy. In 1997, the world took a significant step to controlling greenhouse gas emissions with the Kyoto Protocol.
Symbolic gesture
Yet the main value of the Kyoto Protocol is symbolic: it shows that the world can act collectively to safeguard the Earth's future, and sets a precedent for future action.
Its effect on actually reducing global greenhouse gas emissions is uncertain, and appears to be small. The rise in global greenhouse gas emissions has continued on an even path since 1997, unperturbed by the Kyoto Protocol.
In any case, the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and then what? I believe that a new climate agreement is needed which must go far beyond the existing Protocol in its scope and its ambitions.
It has to produce genuine global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Its core framework must encompass all countries, in a way that is efficient and equitable.
It must forge a new path for global development which moves away from fossil fuels. And it must address those impacts of climate change which are already inescapable, and which will disproportionately affect the countries least able to withstand them.
It is to meet these objectives that I have drafted a set of proposals under the name Kyoto 2, departing significantly from the ineffective framework of the existing Kyoto Protocol.
Key features include:
impose a series of global caps on annual greenhouse gas production
set aside the country-based approach, replacing it with a unified global approach
control greenhouse gases at point of production, not of emission; in the case of fossil fuel emissions, control the production of the fuel itself as close as feasible to the mine or well-head, based on the global warming potential of the fuel in question when burnt
sell greenhouse gas production "Rights" at a global auction open to all bidders
limit the fossil fuel production of any company in any year to the level for which they have obtained Rights
treat other industrial production of greenhouse gases in the same way, for example: carbon dioxide (CO2) from cement production; and surplus radiative impacts for aviation
for avoidable diffuse greenhouse gas emissions such as methane and CO2 from forest burning, issue limited Rights to governments on a per capita of population basis
credit Rights to companies who demonstrably destroy or safely bury greenhouse gases
use the funds raised at the global auction to address both the causes and consequences of climate change
Taken as a whole, these measures offer a new approach which would achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas production in a way that is economically efficient, fair and equitable. And the climate funds - which could easily reach $500bn-$1 trillion (£250-£500bn) per year - could be used in many positive ways, for example:
establish a Climate Adaptation Fund to help the worst affected countries adapt to climate change
finance programmes to reduce fossil fuel demand, aimed especially at poorer countries and populations
pay "rent" to countries with natural biomes acting as carbon sinks and stores within their territories, such as forests and swamps, to maintain and expand those sinks and stores
establish a Low Carbon Development Bank to support viable low-carbon energy developments
fund low-carbon energy research, for example, into renewable generation technologies
buy out fossil fuel deposits to prevent their exploitation, which will also give an economic return to countries losing revenue from fossil fuel sales
Tough times
I do not pretend that it will be easy to put these or similar proposals in place. Fossil fuel producers, both countries and companies, would be faced with, in effect, a new tax.
However, there would also be upsides for them: a level global playing field ensuring fair competition among rival producers; greater certainty as to the future, essential for long term investment decisions; and the prolongation of their fossil fuel reserves' lifetime, thanks to a slower rate of production.
Opposition would also come from the rich countries now responsible for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions.
Although their governments would not be bound by specific targets as at present, most of the money going into the "greenhouse fund" would ultimately derive from their economies.
Burning a barrel of oil produces about 0.4 tonnes of carbon dioxide, so a $20 (£10) price for Rights (per tonne of CO2) would put about $8 (£4) on a barrel of oil - or 5 US cents (2.5p) on a litre of petrol.
No doubt there would be complaints, but few could seriously argue that costs at that level are unaffordable. In any case, any system for controlling greenhouse gases will ultimately have to be financed mainly by the rich world, and those who produce most emissions.
These would be bold measures but the global threats we face deserve nothing less.
Fail to act at this decisive time and the Earth, its people and its whole panoply of life will face the most severe and adverse consequences - as the IPCC's latest report abundantly confirms.
World's most wanted: climate change
Human-induced climate change must be treated as an immediate threat to national security and prosperity, says John Ashton, the UK's climate change envoy. He argues that we must secure a stable climate whatever the cost, as failure to do so will cost far more.
The first priority of any government is to provide the conditions necessary for security and prosperity in return for the taxes that citizens pay.
Climate change is potentially the most serious threat there has ever been to this most fundamental of social contracts.
On 28 August 2005, New Orleans was a prosperous, stable and relatively harmonious city. By the next evening, most of its population had been driven from their homes and lacked access to electricity, food, fresh water and medical services.
Within a week, gunmen roamed the streets as law and order broke down; simmering racial and political tensions exploded as the buck for dealing with the catastrophe - as well as preventing it - was hurled about. For months, neighbouring cities and states were inundated with refugees as the political and racial stresses spilled across the country. New Orleans is unlikely ever fully to recover.
Hurricane Katrina hit a city in the world's richest nation. If anywhere should have been resilient enough to deal with the force of nature, it was the United States.
The economic and security impacts of extreme climatic events in more vulnerable regions, such as Africa and South Asia, or more strategically important regions, like the Middle East, will be more dramatic.
We can see this already in Africa. A major contributing factor to the conflict in Darfur has been a shift in rainfall that has put nomadic herders and settled pastoralists into conflict with each other.
Economic threat
Conflict always has multiple causes, but a changing climate amplifies all the other factors. Katrina and Darfur illustrate how an unstable climate will make it harder to deliver security unless we act more effectively now to neutralise the threat.
Our prosperity is also at stake. Europe's economic health increasingly depends on a thriving Chinese economy. Should China falter as we progress through this century, European pension funds would struggle to earn the returns necessary to pay our pensions. As Europe's population ages, the drag on our economies would be immense.
China's economy is one of the most vulnerable to a changing climate. China is already planning to divert water hundreds of kilometres from the south, where it is currently abundant, to the arid but populous north, in order to maintain economic stability. But that plan will fail if the Himalayan glaciers that feed China's southern rivers continue to melt at an accelerating rate because of a rising temperature.
Last week, Professor John Holdren, the newly elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a distinguished scientist not noted for sensational pronouncements, told the BBC: "We are not talking any more about what climate models say might happen in the future. We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we are going to experience more."
What this means is that we need to treat climate change not as a long-term threat to our environment but as an immediate threat to our security and prosperity.
We need to see a stable climate as a public good without which it will become increasingly difficult to deliver the other public goods that citizens rightly expect from those who govern them.
We need to see the pursuit of a stable climate as an imperative to be secured whatever it costs through the urgent construction of a low carbon global economy, because the cost of not securing it will be far greater.
Hard talking
This poses a challenge. Governments have traditionally invested in instruments of hard power as a backstop against the consequences of political and diplomatic failure.
But there is no hard power option either for mitigating climate change or for dealing with its direct impacts. You cannot use military force to make everyone else on the planet reduce their carbon emissions. No weapon system can halt the advance of a hurricane bearing down on a city, or stem the rising sea, or stop the glaciers melting.
If we want to achieve climate security, governments will need to invest more resources in the emerging techniques of soft power. There is no backstop: the politics and diplomacy have to work.
Governments will need, as a matter of security, to build the avenues of trust and opportunity that will divert investment from high carbon to low carbon infrastructure.
They will need to negotiate the agreements that will enable us to do that cost-effectively and without divisive market distortions. They will need to design and mobilise coalitions of mutual interest across sectoral and cultural boundaries to transform the way we supply and consume energy, achieve mobility, and use land.
And they will need to do all of this very fast. It is now becoming increasingly clear that it is what we do in the next 15 years that matters most.
The technologies to avoid an even more unstable climate are already available. Deploying them rapidly is well within what we can afford. What is needed is an investment internationally of political imagination backed up by public resources on the scale that publics routinely expect for the more traditional aspects of national security.
But, as scientists like John Holdren are warning with mounting urgency, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
If we fail to see this threat to security very soon for what it is and make our dispositions accordingly, we will end up paying far more and experiencing more insecurity.
John Ashton is the UK foreign secretary's special representative for climate change and a visiting professor at Imperial College London. This article reflects his personal views
The first priority of any government is to provide the conditions necessary for security and prosperity in return for the taxes that citizens pay.
Climate change is potentially the most serious threat there has ever been to this most fundamental of social contracts.
On 28 August 2005, New Orleans was a prosperous, stable and relatively harmonious city. By the next evening, most of its population had been driven from their homes and lacked access to electricity, food, fresh water and medical services.
Within a week, gunmen roamed the streets as law and order broke down; simmering racial and political tensions exploded as the buck for dealing with the catastrophe - as well as preventing it - was hurled about. For months, neighbouring cities and states were inundated with refugees as the political and racial stresses spilled across the country. New Orleans is unlikely ever fully to recover.
Hurricane Katrina hit a city in the world's richest nation. If anywhere should have been resilient enough to deal with the force of nature, it was the United States.
The economic and security impacts of extreme climatic events in more vulnerable regions, such as Africa and South Asia, or more strategically important regions, like the Middle East, will be more dramatic.
We can see this already in Africa. A major contributing factor to the conflict in Darfur has been a shift in rainfall that has put nomadic herders and settled pastoralists into conflict with each other.
Economic threat
Conflict always has multiple causes, but a changing climate amplifies all the other factors. Katrina and Darfur illustrate how an unstable climate will make it harder to deliver security unless we act more effectively now to neutralise the threat.
Our prosperity is also at stake. Europe's economic health increasingly depends on a thriving Chinese economy. Should China falter as we progress through this century, European pension funds would struggle to earn the returns necessary to pay our pensions. As Europe's population ages, the drag on our economies would be immense.
China's economy is one of the most vulnerable to a changing climate. China is already planning to divert water hundreds of kilometres from the south, where it is currently abundant, to the arid but populous north, in order to maintain economic stability. But that plan will fail if the Himalayan glaciers that feed China's southern rivers continue to melt at an accelerating rate because of a rising temperature.
Last week, Professor John Holdren, the newly elected president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a distinguished scientist not noted for sensational pronouncements, told the BBC: "We are not talking any more about what climate models say might happen in the future. We are experiencing dangerous human disruption of the global climate and we are going to experience more."
What this means is that we need to treat climate change not as a long-term threat to our environment but as an immediate threat to our security and prosperity.
We need to see a stable climate as a public good without which it will become increasingly difficult to deliver the other public goods that citizens rightly expect from those who govern them.
We need to see the pursuit of a stable climate as an imperative to be secured whatever it costs through the urgent construction of a low carbon global economy, because the cost of not securing it will be far greater.
Hard talking
This poses a challenge. Governments have traditionally invested in instruments of hard power as a backstop against the consequences of political and diplomatic failure.
But there is no hard power option either for mitigating climate change or for dealing with its direct impacts. You cannot use military force to make everyone else on the planet reduce their carbon emissions. No weapon system can halt the advance of a hurricane bearing down on a city, or stem the rising sea, or stop the glaciers melting.
If we want to achieve climate security, governments will need to invest more resources in the emerging techniques of soft power. There is no backstop: the politics and diplomacy have to work.
Governments will need, as a matter of security, to build the avenues of trust and opportunity that will divert investment from high carbon to low carbon infrastructure.
They will need to negotiate the agreements that will enable us to do that cost-effectively and without divisive market distortions. They will need to design and mobilise coalitions of mutual interest across sectoral and cultural boundaries to transform the way we supply and consume energy, achieve mobility, and use land.
And they will need to do all of this very fast. It is now becoming increasingly clear that it is what we do in the next 15 years that matters most.
The technologies to avoid an even more unstable climate are already available. Deploying them rapidly is well within what we can afford. What is needed is an investment internationally of political imagination backed up by public resources on the scale that publics routinely expect for the more traditional aspects of national security.
But, as scientists like John Holdren are warning with mounting urgency, the window of opportunity is rapidly closing.
If we fail to see this threat to security very soon for what it is and make our dispositions accordingly, we will end up paying far more and experiencing more insecurity.
John Ashton is the UK foreign secretary's special representative for climate change and a visiting professor at Imperial College London. This article reflects his personal views
Developing nations need cloning
Animal cloning can help deliver environmental benefits in developing nations, says Professor Caletous Juma. In this week's Green Room, he argues that biotechnology could ensure the survival of rare cattle breeds that are well suited to cope with harsh conditions.
After five years of study, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.
Some consumer organisations, however, remain uneasy about the decision and are calling for an examination of the ethical aspects of cloning.
While their concerns are understandable, they fail to take into account the potential environmental benefits of cloning, especially for developing countries.
For example, anticipated impacts of climate change are likely to have far-reaching implications for the livestock industries of poor nations, especially those in Africa.
Adapting to such disruptions will require additional investments in technological innovation, including animal cloning for food and conservation.
Africa's farming systems are already under stress. Cattle breeds resistant to diseases such as sleeping sickness are dwindling at an alarming rate as local farmers adopt larger zebu breeds to replace their hardier but smaller taurine relatives.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that nearly 1,500, or 30%, of livestock breeds are threatened with extinction, most of which are in developing countries. Less than 100 are currently being conserved.
Ecological disruption is likely to accelerate such trends. Slowing the decline will require the use of reproductive techniques such as animal cloning for predictable livestock production, in addition to expanded breeding conservation programmes.
Seeking stability
Adapting to ecological disruption and maintaining economic stability could benefit from cloning.
This will help farmers in developing countries increase meat and milk production without the use of expensive hormones, antibiotics and chemicals. Such uses could also have positive environmental benefits.
Researchers have already started to use cloning for conservation purposes.
The US-based Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species has produced wildcat kittens (Felis libyca) from cloned adults.
Scientists are hoping to use cloning to save threatened species such as Vietnam's saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), gaur (Bos gaurus) and banteng (Bos javanicus) and the wild water buffalo (Bubalus arnee).
In 2004, for example, Indian scientists announced a plan to spend $1m (£500,000) to clone the endangered Asian lion because less than 300 of the animals were estimated to exist.
Other endangered species, especially fish and amphibians, could also benefit from assisted reproductive techniques such as cloning.
Consumer organisations, however, raise legitimate safety and ethical concerns about cloning. Their arguments need to be considered in light of new scientific evidence and the needs of developing countries.
For example, take safety. The peer-reviewed journal Theriogenology has published a collection of articles that examined the health of cloned animals, their nutritional composition and other relevant parameters.
They came to the same conclusions as the FDA. And a nutritional study by France's National Agricultural Research Institute (INRA) showed no differences between meat and milk products of cloned animals and their traditional counterparts.
A study covering some 100 parameters of specific proteins and nutrients carried out by Japan's Kagoshima Prefectural Cattle Breeding Development Institute and the University of Connecticut showed that beef from cloned cattle could not be distinguished from that obtained from traditionally bred cattle.
Food from cloned animals is therefore as safe as its conventional counterpart.
Researchers at Japan's Research Institute for Animal Science in Biochemistry and Toxicology revealed that there were no significant changes in the urine and blood of rats arising from the consumption of meat and milk from cloned cattle.
There are ethical concerns that need to addressed, especially those related to animal welfare.
A study conducted by Argentine, American and Brazilian scientists has concluded there is an increase in the frequency of health risks posed to cloned cattle in parts of their life cycle. However, the study does not show that cloning poses risks that are qualitatively different from those posed by conventional means.
Animal welfare is an important aspect of our humanity and should be addressed by improving animal breeding and management techniques and not by outlawing their use.
The scientific community should continue to work closely with animal experts and ethicists to monitor and help improve the ethical standards of cloning techniques.
Ethical dilema
The needs of developing countries, on other the hand, raise new ethical issues. Their most urgent concerns are associated with having access to techniques that will help them adapt their production system to changing ecologies and markets.
Cloning is more expensive than conventional breeding methods. While the economic benefits of cloned animals may offset the initial investment, many of the world's poor farmers cannot afford the high cost of cloned animals, with prices of up to $20,000 (£10,000) per clone.
The main limiting factor is the lack of domestic technical capacity in poor countries to apply cloning techniques for economic and conservation purposes.
One way forward is to create research partnerships that will help developing countries become genuine partners in the development and use of cloning techniques. Such arrangements will also help promote consumer acceptance of products from cloned animals in developing countries.
Contributing to advances in such technologies would not only help developing countries raise the quality of their animal products, but they would also help them use the techniques to restore endangered species.
Critics of cloning are justified to raise concerns about the safety and ethical aspects of cloning, but their concerns should take into account the possible benefits of cloning for conservation purposes.
There is no guarantee that cloning would have a major impact on the wider threats to species survival, but foregoing the use of these techniques would raise new ethical concerns.
Calestous Juma is a professor of international development at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and co-chairs a high-level expert panel of the African Union on modern biotechnology
The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
After five years of study, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently announced that food from cloned animals is safe to eat.
Some consumer organisations, however, remain uneasy about the decision and are calling for an examination of the ethical aspects of cloning.
While their concerns are understandable, they fail to take into account the potential environmental benefits of cloning, especially for developing countries.
For example, anticipated impacts of climate change are likely to have far-reaching implications for the livestock industries of poor nations, especially those in Africa.
Adapting to such disruptions will require additional investments in technological innovation, including animal cloning for food and conservation.
Africa's farming systems are already under stress. Cattle breeds resistant to diseases such as sleeping sickness are dwindling at an alarming rate as local farmers adopt larger zebu breeds to replace their hardier but smaller taurine relatives.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that nearly 1,500, or 30%, of livestock breeds are threatened with extinction, most of which are in developing countries. Less than 100 are currently being conserved.
Ecological disruption is likely to accelerate such trends. Slowing the decline will require the use of reproductive techniques such as animal cloning for predictable livestock production, in addition to expanded breeding conservation programmes.
Seeking stability
Adapting to ecological disruption and maintaining economic stability could benefit from cloning.
This will help farmers in developing countries increase meat and milk production without the use of expensive hormones, antibiotics and chemicals. Such uses could also have positive environmental benefits.
Researchers have already started to use cloning for conservation purposes.
The US-based Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species has produced wildcat kittens (Felis libyca) from cloned adults.
Scientists are hoping to use cloning to save threatened species such as Vietnam's saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), gaur (Bos gaurus) and banteng (Bos javanicus) and the wild water buffalo (Bubalus arnee).
In 2004, for example, Indian scientists announced a plan to spend $1m (£500,000) to clone the endangered Asian lion because less than 300 of the animals were estimated to exist.
Other endangered species, especially fish and amphibians, could also benefit from assisted reproductive techniques such as cloning.
Consumer organisations, however, raise legitimate safety and ethical concerns about cloning. Their arguments need to be considered in light of new scientific evidence and the needs of developing countries.
For example, take safety. The peer-reviewed journal Theriogenology has published a collection of articles that examined the health of cloned animals, their nutritional composition and other relevant parameters.
They came to the same conclusions as the FDA. And a nutritional study by France's National Agricultural Research Institute (INRA) showed no differences between meat and milk products of cloned animals and their traditional counterparts.
A study covering some 100 parameters of specific proteins and nutrients carried out by Japan's Kagoshima Prefectural Cattle Breeding Development Institute and the University of Connecticut showed that beef from cloned cattle could not be distinguished from that obtained from traditionally bred cattle.
Food from cloned animals is therefore as safe as its conventional counterpart.
Researchers at Japan's Research Institute for Animal Science in Biochemistry and Toxicology revealed that there were no significant changes in the urine and blood of rats arising from the consumption of meat and milk from cloned cattle.
There are ethical concerns that need to addressed, especially those related to animal welfare.
A study conducted by Argentine, American and Brazilian scientists has concluded there is an increase in the frequency of health risks posed to cloned cattle in parts of their life cycle. However, the study does not show that cloning poses risks that are qualitatively different from those posed by conventional means.
Animal welfare is an important aspect of our humanity and should be addressed by improving animal breeding and management techniques and not by outlawing their use.
The scientific community should continue to work closely with animal experts and ethicists to monitor and help improve the ethical standards of cloning techniques.
Ethical dilema
The needs of developing countries, on other the hand, raise new ethical issues. Their most urgent concerns are associated with having access to techniques that will help them adapt their production system to changing ecologies and markets.
Cloning is more expensive than conventional breeding methods. While the economic benefits of cloned animals may offset the initial investment, many of the world's poor farmers cannot afford the high cost of cloned animals, with prices of up to $20,000 (£10,000) per clone.
The main limiting factor is the lack of domestic technical capacity in poor countries to apply cloning techniques for economic and conservation purposes.
One way forward is to create research partnerships that will help developing countries become genuine partners in the development and use of cloning techniques. Such arrangements will also help promote consumer acceptance of products from cloned animals in developing countries.
Contributing to advances in such technologies would not only help developing countries raise the quality of their animal products, but they would also help them use the techniques to restore endangered species.
Critics of cloning are justified to raise concerns about the safety and ethical aspects of cloning, but their concerns should take into account the possible benefits of cloning for conservation purposes.
There is no guarantee that cloning would have a major impact on the wider threats to species survival, but foregoing the use of these techniques would raise new ethical concerns.
Calestous Juma is a professor of international development at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and co-chairs a high-level expert panel of the African Union on modern biotechnology
The Green Room is a series of opinion pieces on environmental topics running weekly on the BBC News website
Barren sea
Global fish consumption has increased dramatically over the last few years and has resulted in 50% of the world's wild fish stocks being fished to their biological limit, with 25% being overfished.
If stocks are not managed responsibly, we risk losing them forever; not only would this result in a breakdown of the marine eco-system, it could also mean that millions of people would be without a job and more than a billion could lose their primary source of protein.
The MSC urges people to choose fish with its bold blue eco-label to reverse this trend and instead create sustainable, productive fisheries that will meet the needs for future generations and support a flourishing marine environment.
If stocks are not managed responsibly, we risk losing them forever; not only would this result in a breakdown of the marine eco-system, it could also mean that millions of people would be without a job and more than a billion could lose their primary source of protein.
The MSC urges people to choose fish with its bold blue eco-label to reverse this trend and instead create sustainable, productive fisheries that will meet the needs for future generations and support a flourishing marine environment.
'Cahoots with the devil'
It is also clear that not all people share Mr Charlesworth's viewpoint. For example, as part of our work we interviewed a lady from Herefordshire who said that she felt so strongly about the landscape impact of all the polytunnels that had been erected in her county she would buy strawberries from anywhere except Herefordshire.
All in all, the thing that came out most clearly from the responses was how strongly people held beliefs about food, and how quickly they became angry when I questioned those beliefs.
This has been an important lesson for me, and it was a point also noted by someone writing under the name of Foulopinion: "However, the best bit is all those annoyed who write in to complain - when a scientist says something you don't agree with, he is obviously in cahoots with the devil, or rather a big oil company in the words of this 21st Century religion."
Sometimes I wish I was in cahoots with the devil, and then maybe I wouldn't have to spend hot July days writing articles about local food!
All in all, the thing that came out most clearly from the responses was how strongly people held beliefs about food, and how quickly they became angry when I questioned those beliefs.
This has been an important lesson for me, and it was a point also noted by someone writing under the name of Foulopinion: "However, the best bit is all those annoyed who write in to complain - when a scientist says something you don't agree with, he is obviously in cahoots with the devil, or rather a big oil company in the words of this 21st Century religion."
Sometimes I wish I was in cahoots with the devil, and then maybe I wouldn't have to spend hot July days writing articles about local food!
'Global experiment'
The expansion of biofuel crops is certainly having an impact on food commodity prices already, which the commodity traders may consider good news. But in many parts of the tropics, land that may be extremely important for biodiversity is being converted to grow bioenergy crops.
Even under the most efficient forms of lignocellulosic processing, we are beginning a massive global experiment whose results are far from certain. Our current way of life is highly energy-intensive, at least for those of us living in cities or developed countries.
This calls for increased investments in research and development to find alternative solutions, along with a serious reconsideration of what "quality of life" really means
Even under the most efficient forms of lignocellulosic processing, we are beginning a massive global experiment whose results are far from certain. Our current way of life is highly energy-intensive, at least for those of us living in cities or developed countries.
This calls for increased investments in research and development to find alternative solutions, along with a serious reconsideration of what "quality of life" really means
Waste of energy?
Perhaps worse, last November's issue of BioScience reported that the various inputs required to convert maize to ethanol consume 29% more energy than is contained in the ethanol produced.
Ethanol from cellulosic biomass requires 50% more energy than the final product can deliver; and each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons (6,400 litres) of water and produces 6-12 gallons (23-26 litres) of noxious organic effluent.
Of course, this is just the first generation of just one type of biofuel, and greater investments in second and third generations may greatly improve the picture.
Having said that, I do recognise that bioethanol is simply one of numerous energy options. Biodiesel is undoubtedly a better alternative, and lignocellulosic energy may be even better. And there are more options on the table: methanol, solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power.
So while my article raised some warning flags about moving ahead too quickly on bioethanol without considering the full costs and benefits, I also believe that a thoughtful consideration of the costs and benefits of all of the energy options are well justified.
This is not anti-capitalist, but the straight-forward application of the precautionary principle, ensuring that we have given careful consideration to the full implications of our investments before we rush ahead to spend them.
Moving ahead too quickly without considering the options is, to use an extreme example, like invading Iraq without thinking about the future implications.
Most energy experts will agree that our first line of response should be improved energy efficiency and conservation. Banning cars would certainly be unpopular but, with appropriate incentives, the use of alternative forms of transport, ranging from walking and cycling to improved public transport systems, would all be relevant in reducing energy demand.
Ethanol from cellulosic biomass requires 50% more energy than the final product can deliver; and each gallon of ethanol requires 1,700 gallons (6,400 litres) of water and produces 6-12 gallons (23-26 litres) of noxious organic effluent.
Of course, this is just the first generation of just one type of biofuel, and greater investments in second and third generations may greatly improve the picture.
Having said that, I do recognise that bioethanol is simply one of numerous energy options. Biodiesel is undoubtedly a better alternative, and lignocellulosic energy may be even better. And there are more options on the table: methanol, solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power.
So while my article raised some warning flags about moving ahead too quickly on bioethanol without considering the full costs and benefits, I also believe that a thoughtful consideration of the costs and benefits of all of the energy options are well justified.
This is not anti-capitalist, but the straight-forward application of the precautionary principle, ensuring that we have given careful consideration to the full implications of our investments before we rush ahead to spend them.
Moving ahead too quickly without considering the options is, to use an extreme example, like invading Iraq without thinking about the future implications.
Most energy experts will agree that our first line of response should be improved energy efficiency and conservation. Banning cars would certainly be unpopular but, with appropriate incentives, the use of alternative forms of transport, ranging from walking and cycling to improved public transport systems, would all be relevant in reducing energy demand.
Anti-globalization (mundialism)
Anti-globalization is a term used to describe the political stance of people and groups who oppose neoliberal policies of unfettered globalization.
“Anti-globalization" may involve the process or actions taken by a state in order to demonstrate its sovereignty and practice democratic decision-making. Anti-globalization may occur in order to put brakes on the international transfer of people, goods and ideology, particularly those determined by the organizations such as the IMF or the WTO in imposing the radical deregulation program of free market fundamentalism on local governments and populations. Moreover, as Canadian journalist Naomi Klein argues in her book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (also subtitled No Space, No Choice, No Jobs) anti-globalism can denote either a single social movement or an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements [23] such as nationalists and socialists. In either case, participants stand in opposition to the unregulated political power of large, multi-national corporations, as the corporations exercise power through leveraging trade agreements which damage in some instances the democratic rights of citizens, the environment particularly air quality index and rain forests, as well as national governments sovereignty to determine labor rights including the right to unionize for better pay, and better working conditions, or laws as they may otherwise infringe on cultural practices and traditions of developing countries.
Most people who are labeled "anti-globalization" consider the term to be too vague and inaccurate [24]
“
... That enhances what's called "globalization," a term of propaganda used conventionally to refer to a certain particular form of international integration that is (not surprisingly) beneficial to its designers: Multinational corporations and the powerful states to which they are closely linked.
”
Critics have observed that the term's contemporary usage comprises several meanings, for example Noam Chomsky states that: [25]
“
The term "globalization," like most terms of public discourse, has two meanings: its literal meaning, and a technical sense used for doctrinal purposes. In its literal sense, "globalization" means international integration. Its strongest proponents since its origins have been the workers movements and the left (which is why unions are called "internationals"), and the strongest proponents today are those who meet annually in the World Social Forum and its many regional offshoots. In the technical sense defined by the powerful, they are described as "anti-globalization," which means that they favor globalization directed to the needs and concerns of people, not investors, financial institutions and other sectors of power, with the interests of people incidental. That's "globalization" in the technical doctrinal sense.
”
Stiglitz, Joseph & Andrew Charlton. 2005. Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote Development. p. 54 n. 23 (writing that "The anti-globalization movement developed in opposition to the perceived negative aspects of globalization. The term 'anti-globalization' is in many ways a misnomer, since the group represents a wide range of interests and issues and many of the people involved in the anti-globalization movement do support closer ties between the various peoples and cultures of the world through, for example, aid, assistance for refugees, and global environmental issues.") preferring instead to describe themselves as the Global Justice Movement, the Anti-Corporate-Globalization Movement, the Movement of Movements (a popular term in Italy), the "Alter-globalization" movement (popular in France), the "Counter-Globalization" movement, and a number of other terms.
Anti-globalization is seen as a critical response to the development of neoliberalism, which is widely seen to have commenced with Margaret Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's policies toward creating laissez-faire capitalism on a global scale by promoting the liberalization of countries’ economies and the weakening of trade and business regulations. Neoliberal proponents argue the increase of free trade and the reduction of the public sector will bring benefits to poor countries and to disadvantaged people in rich countries. Most anti-globalization advocates strongly disagree, adding that neoliberal policies may bring a loss of sovereignty to democratic institutions. Noam Chomsky states that [26] [27]
“
The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity - that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.
”
Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, as well as the perceived human costs, such as increased poverty, inequality, miscegenation, injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to globalization. They challenge directly the metrics, such as GDP, used to measure progress promulgated by institutions such as the World Bank, and look to other measures, such as the Happy Planet Index,[28] created by the New Economics Foundation[29]. They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences--social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"[30] which they claim are the unintended but very real consequences of globalization.
Critics argue that:
Poorer countries are sometimes at disadvantage: While it is true that globalization encourages free trade among countries on an international level, there are also negative consequences because some countries try to save their national markets. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural goods. It is difficult for these countries to compete with stronger countries that subsidize their own farmers. Because the farmers in the poorer countries cannot compete, they are forced to sell their crops at much lower price than what the market is paying. [31]
Exploitation of foreign impoverished workers: The deterioration of protections for weaker nations by stronger industrialized powers has resulted in the exploitation of the people in those nations to become cheap labor. Due to the lack of protections, companies from powerful industrialized nations are able to offer workers enough salary to entice them to endure extremely long hours and unsafe working conditions. The abundance of cheap labor is giving the countries in power incentive not to rectify the inequality between nations. If these nations developed into industrialized nations, the army of cheap labor would slowly disappear alongside development. With the world in this current state, it is impossible for the exploited workers to escape poverty. It is true that the workers are free to leave their jobs, but in many poorer countries, this would mean starvation for the worker, and possible even his/her family. [32]
Shift from manufacturing to service work: The low cost of offshore workers have enticed corporations to move production to foreign countries. The laid off unskilled workers are forced into the service sector where wages and benefits are low, but turnover is high. This has contributed to the widening economic gap between skilled and unskilled workers. The loss of these jobs has also contributed greatly to the slow decline of the middle class which is a major factor in the increasing economic inequality in the United States. Families that were once part of the middle class are forced into lower positions by massive layoffs and outsourcing to another country. This also means that people in the lower class have a much harder time climbing out of poverty because of the absence of the middle class as a stepping stone. [33]
The rise of contingent work: As globalization causes more and more jobs to be shipped overseas, and the middle class declines, there is less need for corporations to hire full time employees. Companies are less inclined to offer benefits (health insurance, bonuses, vacation time, shares in the company, and pensions), or reduce benefits, to part time workers. Most companies don’t offer any benefits at all. Even though most of the middle class workers still have their jobs, the reality is that their buying power has decreased due to decreased benefits. Job security is also a major issue with contingent work. [34]
Weakening of labor unions: The surplus in cheap labor coupled with an ever growing number of companies in transition has caused a weakening of labor unions in the United States. Unions lose their effectiveness when their membership begins to decline. As a result unions hold less power over corporations that are able to easily replace workers, often for lower wages, and have the option to not offer unionized jobs anymore. [35]
In December 2007, World Bank economist Branko Milanovichas called much previous empirical research on global poverty and inequality into question because, according to him, improved estimates of purchasing power parity indicate that developing countries are worse off than previously believed. Milanovic remarks that "literally hundreds of scholarly papers on convergence or divergence of countries’ incomes have been published in the last decade based on what we know now were faulty numbers. With the new data, economists will revise calculations and possibly reach new conclusions" moreover noting that "implications for the estimates of global inequality and poverty are enormous. The new numbers show global inequality to be significantly greater than even the most pessimistic authors had thought. Until the last month, global inequality, or difference in real incomes between all individuals of the world, was estimated at around 65 Gini points – with 100 denoting complete inequality and 0 denoting total equality, with everybody’s income the same – a level of inequality somewhat higher than that of South Africa. But the new numbers show global inequality to be 70 Gini points – a level of inequality never recorded anywhere." [36]
The critics of globalization typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to corporate interests, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way.[37]
The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, peasant unionists, intellectuals, artists, protectionists, anarchists, those in support of relocalization and others. Some are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for what they believe is a more humane system than capitalism) and others are reactionary, believing globalization destroys national industry and jobs.
One of the key points made by critics of recent economic globalization is that income inequality, both between and within nations, is increasing as a result of these processes. One article from 2001 found that significantly, in 7 out of 8 metrics, income inequality has increased in the twenty years ending 2001. Also, "incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s". Furthermore, the World Bank's figures on absolute poverty were challenged. The article was skeptical of the World Bank's claim that the number of people living on less than $1 a day has held steady at 1.2 billion from 1987 to 1998, because of biased methodology.[38]
A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so-called 'champagne glass' effect[39] , was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.[40]
+ Distribution of world GDP, 1989
Quintile of Population
Income
Richest 20%
82.7%
Second 20%
11.7%
Third 20%
2.3%
Fourth 20%
1.4%
Poorest 20%
1.2%
SOURCE: United Nations Development Program. 1992 Human Development Report[41]
Most importantly, critics of recent economic globalization see that these developments are not at all occurring in a vacuum, but feed into ethnic, religious, and factional tensions that lead to wars and help breed terrorism. Furthermore, these terrorists, now globally interconnected and empowered with knowledge, create a whole new category of warfare based, in part, on the disruption of the interconnections which are both created by and necessary for globalization. [42] Some commentators believe the nation-state is ill-equipped to deal with this emergent threat.[43]
In terms of the controversial global migration issue, disputes revolve around both its causes, whether and to what extent it is voluntary or involuntary, necessary or unnecessary; and its effects, whether beneficial, or socially and environmentally costly. Proponents tend to see migration simply as a process whereby white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services, while critics tend to emphasize negative causes such as economic, political, and environmental insecurity, and cite as one notable effect, the link between migration and the enormous growth of urban slums in developing countries. According to "The Challenge of Slums," a 2003 UN-Habitat report, "the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalization — in particular, global economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly — contribute to the enormous growth of slums."[44]
Even supporters of globalization are highly critical of some current policies. In particular, the very high subsidies to and protective tariffs for agriculture in the developed world. For example, almost half of the budget of the European Union goes to agricultural subsidies, mainly to large farms and agricultural businesses, which form a powerful lobby.[45] Japan gave 47 billion dollars in 2005 in subsidies to its agricultural sector,[46] nearly four times the amount it gave in total foreign aid.[47] The US gives 3.9 billion dollars each year in subsidies to its cotton sector, including 25,000 growers, three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa’s 500 million people.[48] This drains the taxed money and increases the prices for the consumers in developed world; decreases competition and efficiency; prevents exports by more competitive agricultural and other sectors in the developed world due to retaliatory trade barriers; and undermines the very type of industry in which the developing countries do have comparative advantages. Tariffs and trade barriers, thereby, hinder the economic development of developing economies, adversely affecting living standards in these countries.[49]
Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice.[50] Indeed, the global justice movement is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondialisme in French.
There are a wide variety of types of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations, the working class, and the natural environment into account. One of the proposed solutions to the uncontrolled environmental damage created by global economic expansion is to set prices for that environmental damage done to the biosphere, so that the economy 'sees' the price signals from the environment, and begins to internalize the value of the environment. [51] The present global economic system, critics of globalization would note, does not price the damage (e.g., pollution) done to limited environmental resources making those resources, in effect, free.[51] Economic theory, however, holds that items of economic utility and in limited supply should be priced in order to be used efficiently by the market.[52] Presently, the two proposals for sending these price signals to the economy are a 'Carbon Tax', proposed by in the U.S. by Al Gore, and a "Cap and Trade" system, as has been created in the European Union.
Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.[53]
Americanization related to a period of high political American clout and of significant growth of America's shops, markets and object being brought into other countries. So globalization, a much more diversified phenomenon, relates to a multilateral political world and to the increase of objects, markets and so on into each others countries.
Some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as the promotion of corporatist interests.[54] They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political policy of countries.[55] [56]
Some anti-globalization groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic; it can therefore be said that "globalization" is another term for a form of Americanization, as it is believed by some observers that the United States could be one of the few countries (if not the only one) to truly profit from globalization.[citation needed]
Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises. [56]
The world increasingly is confronted with problems that cannot be solved by individual nation-states acting alone. Examples include over-fishing of the oceans, water pollution, global warming, global trade, and international terrorist networks. Solutions to these problems necessitate new forms of cooperation and the creation of new global institutions. Since the end of WWII, following the advent of the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions, there has been an explosion in the reach and power of multinational corporations and the rapid growth of global civil society.[57]
The financial crises in Southeast Asia that began in 1997 in the relatively small, debt-ridden economy of Thailand but quickly spread to the economies of South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, the Philippines and eventually were felt all around the world [58], demonstrated the new risks and volatility in rapidly changing globalized markets[citation needed]. The IMF's subsequent 'bailout' money came with conditions of political change (i.e. government spending limits) attached and came to be viewed by critics as undermining national sovereignty in neo-colonialist fashion[citation needed]. Anti-Globalization activists pointed to the meltdowns as proof of the high human cost of the indiscriminate global economy.[citation needed]
Many global institutions that have a strong international influence are not democratically ruled, nor are their leaders democratically elected. Therefore they are considered by some as supranational undemocratic powers.[59][60][61][62]
The main opposition is to unfettered globalization guided by governments and what are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are not held responsible through transparent or democratic processes by the populations that they affect and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism."
Some anti-globalization activists and supporters object to the fact that the currently globalization encompasses money and corporations, but not people, the environment, and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls in nearly all countries, and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world.
Another, more conservative, camp opposed to globalization is state-centric nationalists who fear globalization is displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as encroaching upon the power of individual nations. Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen and Ned Pencil.
Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some, such as Noam Chomsky, have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.
“Anti-globalization" may involve the process or actions taken by a state in order to demonstrate its sovereignty and practice democratic decision-making. Anti-globalization may occur in order to put brakes on the international transfer of people, goods and ideology, particularly those determined by the organizations such as the IMF or the WTO in imposing the radical deregulation program of free market fundamentalism on local governments and populations. Moreover, as Canadian journalist Naomi Klein argues in her book No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies (also subtitled No Space, No Choice, No Jobs) anti-globalism can denote either a single social movement or an umbrella term that encompasses a number of separate social movements [23] such as nationalists and socialists. In either case, participants stand in opposition to the unregulated political power of large, multi-national corporations, as the corporations exercise power through leveraging trade agreements which damage in some instances the democratic rights of citizens, the environment particularly air quality index and rain forests, as well as national governments sovereignty to determine labor rights including the right to unionize for better pay, and better working conditions, or laws as they may otherwise infringe on cultural practices and traditions of developing countries.
Most people who are labeled "anti-globalization" consider the term to be too vague and inaccurate [24]
“
... That enhances what's called "globalization," a term of propaganda used conventionally to refer to a certain particular form of international integration that is (not surprisingly) beneficial to its designers: Multinational corporations and the powerful states to which they are closely linked.
”
Critics have observed that the term's contemporary usage comprises several meanings, for example Noam Chomsky states that: [25]
“
The term "globalization," like most terms of public discourse, has two meanings: its literal meaning, and a technical sense used for doctrinal purposes. In its literal sense, "globalization" means international integration. Its strongest proponents since its origins have been the workers movements and the left (which is why unions are called "internationals"), and the strongest proponents today are those who meet annually in the World Social Forum and its many regional offshoots. In the technical sense defined by the powerful, they are described as "anti-globalization," which means that they favor globalization directed to the needs and concerns of people, not investors, financial institutions and other sectors of power, with the interests of people incidental. That's "globalization" in the technical doctrinal sense.
”
Stiglitz, Joseph & Andrew Charlton. 2005. Fair Trade for All: How Trade Can Promote Development. p. 54 n. 23 (writing that "The anti-globalization movement developed in opposition to the perceived negative aspects of globalization. The term 'anti-globalization' is in many ways a misnomer, since the group represents a wide range of interests and issues and many of the people involved in the anti-globalization movement do support closer ties between the various peoples and cultures of the world through, for example, aid, assistance for refugees, and global environmental issues.") preferring instead to describe themselves as the Global Justice Movement, the Anti-Corporate-Globalization Movement, the Movement of Movements (a popular term in Italy), the "Alter-globalization" movement (popular in France), the "Counter-Globalization" movement, and a number of other terms.
Anti-globalization is seen as a critical response to the development of neoliberalism, which is widely seen to have commenced with Margaret Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's policies toward creating laissez-faire capitalism on a global scale by promoting the liberalization of countries’ economies and the weakening of trade and business regulations. Neoliberal proponents argue the increase of free trade and the reduction of the public sector will bring benefits to poor countries and to disadvantaged people in rich countries. Most anti-globalization advocates strongly disagree, adding that neoliberal policies may bring a loss of sovereignty to democratic institutions. Noam Chomsky states that [26] [27]
“
The term "globalization" has been appropriated by the powerful to refer to a specific form of international economic integration, one based on investor rights, with the interests of people incidental. That is why the business press, in its more honest moments, refers to the "free trade agreements" as "free investment agreements" (Wall St. Journal). Accordingly, advocates of other forms of globalization are described as "anti-globalization"; and some, unfortunately, even accept this term, though it is a term of propaganda that should be dismissed with ridicule. No sane person is opposed to globalization, that is, international integration. Surely not the left and the workers movements, which were founded on the principle of international solidarity - that is, globalization in a form that attends to the rights of people, not private power systems.
”
Critiques of the current wave of economic globalization typically look at both the damage to the planet, in terms of the perceived unsustainable harm done to the biosphere, as well as the perceived human costs, such as increased poverty, inequality, miscegenation, injustice and the erosion of traditional culture which, the critics contend, all occur as a result of the economic transformations related to globalization. They challenge directly the metrics, such as GDP, used to measure progress promulgated by institutions such as the World Bank, and look to other measures, such as the Happy Planet Index,[28] created by the New Economics Foundation[29]. They point to a "multitude of interconnected fatal consequences--social disintegration, a breakdown of democracy, more rapid and extensive deterioration of the environment, the spread of new diseases, increasing poverty and alienation"[30] which they claim are the unintended but very real consequences of globalization.
Critics argue that:
Poorer countries are sometimes at disadvantage: While it is true that globalization encourages free trade among countries on an international level, there are also negative consequences because some countries try to save their national markets. The main export of poorer countries is usually agricultural goods. It is difficult for these countries to compete with stronger countries that subsidize their own farmers. Because the farmers in the poorer countries cannot compete, they are forced to sell their crops at much lower price than what the market is paying. [31]
Exploitation of foreign impoverished workers: The deterioration of protections for weaker nations by stronger industrialized powers has resulted in the exploitation of the people in those nations to become cheap labor. Due to the lack of protections, companies from powerful industrialized nations are able to offer workers enough salary to entice them to endure extremely long hours and unsafe working conditions. The abundance of cheap labor is giving the countries in power incentive not to rectify the inequality between nations. If these nations developed into industrialized nations, the army of cheap labor would slowly disappear alongside development. With the world in this current state, it is impossible for the exploited workers to escape poverty. It is true that the workers are free to leave their jobs, but in many poorer countries, this would mean starvation for the worker, and possible even his/her family. [32]
Shift from manufacturing to service work: The low cost of offshore workers have enticed corporations to move production to foreign countries. The laid off unskilled workers are forced into the service sector where wages and benefits are low, but turnover is high. This has contributed to the widening economic gap between skilled and unskilled workers. The loss of these jobs has also contributed greatly to the slow decline of the middle class which is a major factor in the increasing economic inequality in the United States. Families that were once part of the middle class are forced into lower positions by massive layoffs and outsourcing to another country. This also means that people in the lower class have a much harder time climbing out of poverty because of the absence of the middle class as a stepping stone. [33]
The rise of contingent work: As globalization causes more and more jobs to be shipped overseas, and the middle class declines, there is less need for corporations to hire full time employees. Companies are less inclined to offer benefits (health insurance, bonuses, vacation time, shares in the company, and pensions), or reduce benefits, to part time workers. Most companies don’t offer any benefits at all. Even though most of the middle class workers still have their jobs, the reality is that their buying power has decreased due to decreased benefits. Job security is also a major issue with contingent work. [34]
Weakening of labor unions: The surplus in cheap labor coupled with an ever growing number of companies in transition has caused a weakening of labor unions in the United States. Unions lose their effectiveness when their membership begins to decline. As a result unions hold less power over corporations that are able to easily replace workers, often for lower wages, and have the option to not offer unionized jobs anymore. [35]
In December 2007, World Bank economist Branko Milanovichas called much previous empirical research on global poverty and inequality into question because, according to him, improved estimates of purchasing power parity indicate that developing countries are worse off than previously believed. Milanovic remarks that "literally hundreds of scholarly papers on convergence or divergence of countries’ incomes have been published in the last decade based on what we know now were faulty numbers. With the new data, economists will revise calculations and possibly reach new conclusions" moreover noting that "implications for the estimates of global inequality and poverty are enormous. The new numbers show global inequality to be significantly greater than even the most pessimistic authors had thought. Until the last month, global inequality, or difference in real incomes between all individuals of the world, was estimated at around 65 Gini points – with 100 denoting complete inequality and 0 denoting total equality, with everybody’s income the same – a level of inequality somewhat higher than that of South Africa. But the new numbers show global inequality to be 70 Gini points – a level of inequality never recorded anywhere." [36]
The critics of globalization typically emphasize that globalization is a process that is mediated according to corporate interests, and typically raise the possibility of alternative global institutions and policies, which they believe address the moral claims of poor and working classes throughout the globe, as well as environmental concerns in a more equitable way.[37]
The movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, peasant unionists, intellectuals, artists, protectionists, anarchists, those in support of relocalization and others. Some are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for what they believe is a more humane system than capitalism) and others are reactionary, believing globalization destroys national industry and jobs.
One of the key points made by critics of recent economic globalization is that income inequality, both between and within nations, is increasing as a result of these processes. One article from 2001 found that significantly, in 7 out of 8 metrics, income inequality has increased in the twenty years ending 2001. Also, "incomes in the lower deciles of world income distribution have probably fallen absolutely since the 1980s". Furthermore, the World Bank's figures on absolute poverty were challenged. The article was skeptical of the World Bank's claim that the number of people living on less than $1 a day has held steady at 1.2 billion from 1987 to 1998, because of biased methodology.[38]
A chart that gave the inequality a very visible and comprehensible form, the so-called 'champagne glass' effect[39] , was contained in the 1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population controlling 82.7% of the world's income.[40]
+ Distribution of world GDP, 1989
Quintile of Population
Income
Richest 20%
82.7%
Second 20%
11.7%
Third 20%
2.3%
Fourth 20%
1.4%
Poorest 20%
1.2%
SOURCE: United Nations Development Program. 1992 Human Development Report[41]
Most importantly, critics of recent economic globalization see that these developments are not at all occurring in a vacuum, but feed into ethnic, religious, and factional tensions that lead to wars and help breed terrorism. Furthermore, these terrorists, now globally interconnected and empowered with knowledge, create a whole new category of warfare based, in part, on the disruption of the interconnections which are both created by and necessary for globalization. [42] Some commentators believe the nation-state is ill-equipped to deal with this emergent threat.[43]
In terms of the controversial global migration issue, disputes revolve around both its causes, whether and to what extent it is voluntary or involuntary, necessary or unnecessary; and its effects, whether beneficial, or socially and environmentally costly. Proponents tend to see migration simply as a process whereby white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services, while critics tend to emphasize negative causes such as economic, political, and environmental insecurity, and cite as one notable effect, the link between migration and the enormous growth of urban slums in developing countries. According to "The Challenge of Slums," a 2003 UN-Habitat report, "the cyclical nature of capitalism, increased demand for skilled versus unskilled labour, and the negative effects of globalization — in particular, global economic booms and busts that ratchet up inequality and distribute new wealth unevenly — contribute to the enormous growth of slums."[44]
Even supporters of globalization are highly critical of some current policies. In particular, the very high subsidies to and protective tariffs for agriculture in the developed world. For example, almost half of the budget of the European Union goes to agricultural subsidies, mainly to large farms and agricultural businesses, which form a powerful lobby.[45] Japan gave 47 billion dollars in 2005 in subsidies to its agricultural sector,[46] nearly four times the amount it gave in total foreign aid.[47] The US gives 3.9 billion dollars each year in subsidies to its cotton sector, including 25,000 growers, three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa’s 500 million people.[48] This drains the taxed money and increases the prices for the consumers in developed world; decreases competition and efficiency; prevents exports by more competitive agricultural and other sectors in the developed world due to retaliatory trade barriers; and undermines the very type of industry in which the developing countries do have comparative advantages. Tariffs and trade barriers, thereby, hinder the economic development of developing economies, adversely affecting living standards in these countries.[49]
Various aspects of globalization are seen as harmful by public-interest activists as well as strong state nationalists. This movement has no unified name. "Anti-globalization" is the media's preferred term; it can lead to some confusion, as activists typically oppose certain aspects or forms of globalization, not globalization per se. Activists themselves, for example Noam Chomsky, have said that this name is meaningless as the aim of the movement is to globalize justice.[50] Indeed, the global justice movement is a common name. Many activists also unite under the slogan "another world is possible", which has given rise to names such as altermondialisme in French.
There are a wide variety of types of "anti-globalization". In general, critics claim that the results of globalization have not been what was predicted when the attempt to increase free trade began, and that many institutions involved in the system of globalization have not taken the interests of poorer nations, the working class, and the natural environment into account. One of the proposed solutions to the uncontrolled environmental damage created by global economic expansion is to set prices for that environmental damage done to the biosphere, so that the economy 'sees' the price signals from the environment, and begins to internalize the value of the environment. [51] The present global economic system, critics of globalization would note, does not price the damage (e.g., pollution) done to limited environmental resources making those resources, in effect, free.[51] Economic theory, however, holds that items of economic utility and in limited supply should be priced in order to be used efficiently by the market.[52] Presently, the two proposals for sending these price signals to the economy are a 'Carbon Tax', proposed by in the U.S. by Al Gore, and a "Cap and Trade" system, as has been created in the European Union.
Economic arguments by fair trade theorists claim that unrestricted free trade benefits those with more financial leverage (i.e. the rich) at the expense of the poor.[53]
Americanization related to a period of high political American clout and of significant growth of America's shops, markets and object being brought into other countries. So globalization, a much more diversified phenomenon, relates to a multilateral political world and to the increase of objects, markets and so on into each others countries.
Some opponents of globalization see the phenomenon as the promotion of corporatist interests.[54] They also claim that the increasing autonomy and strength of corporate entities shapes the political policy of countries.[55] [56]
Some anti-globalization groups argue that globalization is necessarily imperialistic; it can therefore be said that "globalization" is another term for a form of Americanization, as it is believed by some observers that the United States could be one of the few countries (if not the only one) to truly profit from globalization.[citation needed]
Some argue that globalization imposes credit-based economics, resulting in unsustainable growth of debt and debt crises. [56]
The world increasingly is confronted with problems that cannot be solved by individual nation-states acting alone. Examples include over-fishing of the oceans, water pollution, global warming, global trade, and international terrorist networks. Solutions to these problems necessitate new forms of cooperation and the creation of new global institutions. Since the end of WWII, following the advent of the UN and the Bretton Woods institutions, there has been an explosion in the reach and power of multinational corporations and the rapid growth of global civil society.[57]
The financial crises in Southeast Asia that began in 1997 in the relatively small, debt-ridden economy of Thailand but quickly spread to the economies of South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, the Philippines and eventually were felt all around the world [58], demonstrated the new risks and volatility in rapidly changing globalized markets[citation needed]. The IMF's subsequent 'bailout' money came with conditions of political change (i.e. government spending limits) attached and came to be viewed by critics as undermining national sovereignty in neo-colonialist fashion[citation needed]. Anti-Globalization activists pointed to the meltdowns as proof of the high human cost of the indiscriminate global economy.[citation needed]
Many global institutions that have a strong international influence are not democratically ruled, nor are their leaders democratically elected. Therefore they are considered by some as supranational undemocratic powers.[59][60][61][62]
The main opposition is to unfettered globalization guided by governments and what are claimed to be quasi-governments (such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank) that are not held responsible through transparent or democratic processes by the populations that they affect and instead respond mostly to the interests of corporations. Many conferences between trade and finance ministers of the core globalizing nations have been met with large, and occasionally violent, protests from opponents of "corporate globalism."
Some anti-globalization activists and supporters object to the fact that the currently globalization encompasses money and corporations, but not people, the environment, and unions. This can be seen in the strict immigration controls in nearly all countries, and the lack of labour rights in many countries in the developing world.
Another, more conservative, camp opposed to globalization is state-centric nationalists who fear globalization is displacing the role of nations in global politics and point to NGOs as encroaching upon the power of individual nations. Some advocates of this warrant for anti-globalization are Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie Le Pen and Ned Pencil.
Many have decried the lack of unity and direction in the movement, but some, such as Noam Chomsky, have claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.
Pro-globalization (globalism)
Globalization advocates such as Jeffrey Sachs point to the above average drop in poverty rates in countries, such as China, where globalization has taken a strong foothold, compared to areas less affected by globalization, such as Sub-Saharan Africa, where poverty rates have remained stagnant.[10]
Supporters of free trade claim that it increases economic prosperity as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations, enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. Economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher standard of living for those in developing countries.[10][11]
One of the ironies of the recent success of India and China is the fear that... success in these two countries comes at the expense of the United States. These fears are fundamentally wrong and, even worse, dangerous. They are wrong because the world is not a zero-sum struggle... but rather is a positive-sum opportunity in which improving technologies and skills can raise living standards around the world.
—Jeffrey D. Sachs, The End of Poverty, 2005
Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say that higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world are ends in themselves and also produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism. [10]
Supporters of democratic globalization are sometimes called pro-globalists. They believe that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be followed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of world citizens. The difference from other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orient this will, but would leave it to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process[citation needed].
Some, such as Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., simply view globalization as inevitable and advocate creating institutions such as a directly-elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.
Supporters of globalization argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence[citation needed] to support their protectionist view, whereas worldwide statistics strongly support globalization:
From 1981 to 2001, according to World Bank figures, the number of people living on $1 a day or less declined from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion in absolute terms. At the same time, the world population increased, so in percentage terms the number of such people in developing nations declined from 40% to 20% of the population.[12] with the greatest improvements occurring in economies rapidly reducing barriers to trade and investment; yet, some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should be studied instead [13].
The percentage of people living on less than $2 a day has decreased greatly in areas effected by globalization, whereas poverty rates in other areas have remained largely stagnant. In East-Asia, including China, the percentage has decreased by 50.1% compared to a 2.2% increase in Sub-Saharan Africa
Supporters of free trade claim that it increases economic prosperity as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations, enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. Economic theories of comparative advantage suggest that free trade leads to a more efficient allocation of resources, with all countries involved in the trade benefiting. In general, this leads to lower prices, more employment, higher output and a higher standard of living for those in developing countries.[10][11]
One of the ironies of the recent success of India and China is the fear that... success in these two countries comes at the expense of the United States. These fears are fundamentally wrong and, even worse, dangerous. They are wrong because the world is not a zero-sum struggle... but rather is a positive-sum opportunity in which improving technologies and skills can raise living standards around the world.
—Jeffrey D. Sachs, The End of Poverty, 2005
Libertarians and other proponents of laissez-faire capitalism say that higher degrees of political and economic freedom in the form of democracy and capitalism in the developed world are ends in themselves and also produce higher levels of material wealth. They see globalization as the beneficial spread of liberty and capitalism. [10]
Supporters of democratic globalization are sometimes called pro-globalists. They believe that the first phase of globalization, which was market-oriented, should be followed by a phase of building global political institutions representing the will of world citizens. The difference from other globalists is that they do not define in advance any ideology to orient this will, but would leave it to the free choice of those citizens via a democratic process[citation needed].
Some, such as Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., simply view globalization as inevitable and advocate creating institutions such as a directly-elected United Nations Parliamentary Assembly to exercise oversight over unelected international bodies.
Supporters of globalization argue that the anti-globalization movement uses anecdotal evidence[citation needed] to support their protectionist view, whereas worldwide statistics strongly support globalization:
From 1981 to 2001, according to World Bank figures, the number of people living on $1 a day or less declined from 1.5 billion to 1.1 billion in absolute terms. At the same time, the world population increased, so in percentage terms the number of such people in developing nations declined from 40% to 20% of the population.[12] with the greatest improvements occurring in economies rapidly reducing barriers to trade and investment; yet, some critics argue that more detailed variables measuring poverty should be studied instead [13].
The percentage of people living on less than $2 a day has decreased greatly in areas effected by globalization, whereas poverty rates in other areas have remained largely stagnant. In East-Asia, including China, the percentage has decreased by 50.1% compared to a 2.2% increase in Sub-Saharan Africa
Effects of globalization
Globalization has various aspects which affect the world in several different ways such as:
Industrial (alias trans nationalization) - emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of foreign products for consumers and companies
Financial - emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external financing for corporate, national and subnational borrowers
Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.
Political - political globalization is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization. [8] Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers; in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of Globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, China has experience some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power. [9]
Informational - increase in information flows between geographically remote locations
Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture"
Ecological- the advent of global environmental challenges that can not be solved without international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Many factories are built in developing countries where they can pollute freely.
Social - the achievement of free circulation by people of all nations
Transportation - fewer and fewer European cars on European roads each year (the same can also be said about American cars on American roads) and the death of distance through the incorporation of technology to decrease travel time.[clarify]
Greater international cultural exchange
Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity (e.g. through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies). However, the imported culture can easily supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity through hybridization or even assimilation. The most prominent form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures has taken place over most of Asia for many centuries.
Greater international travel and tourism
Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
Spread of local consumer products (e.g. food) to other countries (often adapted to their culture)
World-wide fads and pop culture such as Pokémon, Sudoku, Numa Numa, Origami, Idol series, YouTube, Orkut, Facebook, and MySpace.
World-wide sporting events such as FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games.
Formation or development of a set of universal values
Technical/legal
Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites, submarine fiber optic cable, and wireless telephones
Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws, patents and world trade agreements.
The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements.
Sexual awareness – It is often easy to only focus on the economic aspects of Globalization. This term also has strong social meanings behind it. Globalization can also mean a cultural interaction between different countries. Globalization may also have social effects such changes in sexual inequality, and to this issue brought about a greater awareness of the different (often more brutal) types of gender discrimination throughout the world. For example, Women and girls in African countries have long been subjected to female circumcision- such a harmful procedure has been since exposed to the world, and the practice is now decreasing in occurrence.
Industrial (alias trans nationalization) - emergence of worldwide production markets and broader access to a range of foreign products for consumers and companies
Financial - emergence of worldwide financial markets and better access to external financing for corporate, national and subnational borrowers
Economic - realization of a global common market, based on the freedom of exchange of goods and capital.
Political - political globalization is the creation of a world government which regulates the relationships among nations and guarantees the rights arising from social and economic globalization. [8] Politically, the United States has enjoyed a position of power among the world powers; in part because of its strong and wealthy economy. With the influence of Globalization and with the help of The United States’ own economy, China has experience some tremendous growth within the past decade. If China continues to grow at the rate projected by the trends, then it is very likely that in the next twenty years, there will be a major reallocation of power among the world leaders. China will have enough wealth, industry, and technology to rival the United States for the position of leading world power. [9]
Informational - increase in information flows between geographically remote locations
Cultural - growth of cross-cultural contacts; advent of new categories of consciousness and identities such as Globalism - which embodies cultural diffusion, the desire to consume and enjoy foreign products and ideas, adopt new technology and practices, and participate in a "world culture"
Ecological- the advent of global environmental challenges that can not be solved without international cooperation, such as climate change, cross-boundary water and air pollution, over-fishing of the ocean, and the spread of invasive species. Many factories are built in developing countries where they can pollute freely.
Social - the achievement of free circulation by people of all nations
Transportation - fewer and fewer European cars on European roads each year (the same can also be said about American cars on American roads) and the death of distance through the incorporation of technology to decrease travel time.[clarify]
Greater international cultural exchange
Spreading of multiculturalism, and better individual access to cultural diversity (e.g. through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies). However, the imported culture can easily supplant the local culture, causing reduction in diversity through hybridization or even assimilation. The most prominent form of this is Westernization, but Sinicization of cultures has taken place over most of Asia for many centuries.
Greater international travel and tourism
Greater immigration, including illegal immigration
Spread of local consumer products (e.g. food) to other countries (often adapted to their culture)
World-wide fads and pop culture such as Pokémon, Sudoku, Numa Numa, Origami, Idol series, YouTube, Orkut, Facebook, and MySpace.
World-wide sporting events such as FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games.
Formation or development of a set of universal values
Technical/legal
Development of a global telecommunications infrastructure and greater transborder data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites, submarine fiber optic cable, and wireless telephones
Increase in the number of standards applied globally; e.g. copyright laws, patents and world trade agreements.
The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements.
Sexual awareness – It is often easy to only focus on the economic aspects of Globalization. This term also has strong social meanings behind it. Globalization can also mean a cultural interaction between different countries. Globalization may also have social effects such changes in sexual inequality, and to this issue brought about a greater awareness of the different (often more brutal) types of gender discrimination throughout the world. For example, Women and girls in African countries have long been subjected to female circumcision- such a harmful procedure has been since exposed to the world, and the practice is now decreasing in occurrence.
Measuring globalization
apanese McDonald's fast food as an evidence of international integration.
Looking specifically at economic globalization, it can be measured in different ways. These centre around the four main economic flows that characterize globalization:
Goods and services, e.g. exports plus imports as a proportion of national income or per capita of population
labor/people, e.g. net migration rates; inward or outward migration flows, weighted by population
Capital, e.g. inward or outward direct investment as a proportion of national income or per head of population
Technology, e.g. international research & development flows; proportion of populations (and rates of change thereof) using particular inventions (especially 'factor-neutral' technological advances such as the telephone, motorcar, broadband)
As globalization is not only an economic phenomenon, a multivariate approach to measuring globalization is the recent index calculated by the Swiss Think tank KOF. The index measures the three main dimensions of globalization: economic, social, and political. In addition to three indices measuring these dimensions, an overall index of globalization and sub-indices referring to actual economic flows, economic restrictions, data on personal contact, data on information flows, and data on cultural proximity is calculated. Data is available on a yearly basis for 122 countries, as detailed in Dreher, Gaston and Martens (2008) [5]. According to the index, the world's most globalized country is Belgium, followed by Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The least globalized countries according to the KOF-index are Haiti, Myanmar the Central African Republic and Burundi.[7] Other measures conceptualize Globalization as Diffusion and develop interactive procedure to capture the degree of its impact Jahn 2006.
A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy Magazine jointly publish another Globalization Index. According to the 2006 index, Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the U.S., the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark are the most globalized, while Egypt, Indonesia, India and Iran are the least globalized among countries listed.
Looking specifically at economic globalization, it can be measured in different ways. These centre around the four main economic flows that characterize globalization:
Goods and services, e.g. exports plus imports as a proportion of national income or per capita of population
labor/people, e.g. net migration rates; inward or outward migration flows, weighted by population
Capital, e.g. inward or outward direct investment as a proportion of national income or per head of population
Technology, e.g. international research & development flows; proportion of populations (and rates of change thereof) using particular inventions (especially 'factor-neutral' technological advances such as the telephone, motorcar, broadband)
As globalization is not only an economic phenomenon, a multivariate approach to measuring globalization is the recent index calculated by the Swiss Think tank KOF. The index measures the three main dimensions of globalization: economic, social, and political. In addition to three indices measuring these dimensions, an overall index of globalization and sub-indices referring to actual economic flows, economic restrictions, data on personal contact, data on information flows, and data on cultural proximity is calculated. Data is available on a yearly basis for 122 countries, as detailed in Dreher, Gaston and Martens (2008) [5]. According to the index, the world's most globalized country is Belgium, followed by Austria, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The least globalized countries according to the KOF-index are Haiti, Myanmar the Central African Republic and Burundi.[7] Other measures conceptualize Globalization as Diffusion and develop interactive procedure to capture the degree of its impact Jahn 2006.
A.T. Kearney and Foreign Policy Magazine jointly publish another Globalization Index. According to the 2006 index, Singapore, Ireland, Switzerland, the U.S., the Netherlands, Canada and Denmark are the most globalized, while Egypt, Indonesia, India and Iran are the least globalized among countries listed.
Globalization
Economic globalization has had an impact on the worldwide integration of different cultures. Shown here is a steel plant in the United Kingdom owned by the Indian company Tata Group.
Globalization in a literal sense is international integration.[1] It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and functioning together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces.[2] Globalization, as a term, is very often used to refer to economic globalization, that is integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and spread of technology.[3] The word globalization is also used, in a doctrinal sense not a literal one, to describe the neoliberal form of economic globalization.[4] Globalization is also defined as the internationalization of everything related to different countries; Internationalization however, as a contrasted phenomenon, differs from globalization in that Global is commonly used as a synonym for "international", however such usage is typically incorrect as "global" implies "one world" as a single unit, while "international" (between nations) recognizes that different peoples, cultures, languages, nations, borders, economies, and ecosystems exist.
The process of globalization had its origins in Europe, through the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, and English territorial and maritime expansion into all habitable continents, and included the discovery and colonization of the New World. The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friendman, "examines the impact of the 'flattening' of the globe, an international leveling of business competition enabled by increasing interconectedness. Friedman argues that globalized trade, outsourcing, offshoring, supply-chaining, and six other economic, technological, and political forces have changed the world permanently. He examines the positive and negative effects flattening has had and will continue to have on global politics and business.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Recent evolutions
3 Measuring globalization
4 Effects of globalization
5 Pro-globalization (globalism)
6 Anti-globalization (mundialism)
7 References
8 Further reading
9 See also
10 External links
[edit] History
This section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2007)
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)
The word "globalization" has been used by economists since 1981; however, its concepts did not permeate popular consciousness until the later half of the 1990s. The earliest concepts and predictions of globalization were penned by an American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze Russell who first coined the term 'corporate giants' in 1897. [4] Various social scientists have tried to demonstrate continuity between contemporary trends of globalization and earlier periods.[6] The first era of globalization (in the fullest sense) during the 19th century was the rapid growth of international trade between the European imperial powers, the European colonies, and the United States. After World War II, globalization was restarted and was driven by major advances in technology, which led to lower trading costs.
Globalization in its largest extent began a bit before the turn of the 16th century, in Portugal. The country's global adventurism in the 16th century linked continents, economies and cultures as never before. The then Kingdom of Portugal kicked off what has come to be known as the Age of Discovery, in the mid-1400s. The westernmost country in Europe, was the first to significantly probe the Atlantic Ocean, colonizing the Azores, Madeira and other Atlantic islands, then braving the west coast of Africa. In 1488, Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias was the first to sail around the southern tip of Africa, and in 1498 his countryman Vasco da Gama repeated the experiment, making it as far as India. The Portuguese Empire would establish ports, forts and trading posts as far west as Brazil, as far east as Japan and Timor, and along the coasts of Africa, India and China. For the first time in history, a wave of global trade, colonization, and enculturation reached all corners of the world.
Globalization is viewed as a centuries long process, tracking the expansion of human population and the growth of civilization, that has accelerated dramatically in the past 50 years. Early forms of globalization existed during the Roman Empire, the Parthian empire, and the Han Dynasty, when the silk road started in China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued onwards towards Rome. The Islamic Golden Age is also an example, when Muslim traders and explorers established an early global economy across the Old World resulting in a globalization of crops, trade, knowledge and technology; and later during the Mongol Empire, when there was greater integration along the Silk Road. Global integration continued through the expansion of European trade, as in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires reached to all corners of the world after expanding to the Americas.
Globalization became a business phenomenon in the 17th century when the Dutch East India Company, which is often described as the first multinational corporation, was established. Because of the high risks involved with international trade, the Dutch East India Company became the first company in the world to share risk and enable joint ownership through the issuing of shares: an important driver for globalization.
Liberalization in the 19th century is sometimes called "The First Era of Globalization" a period characterized by rapid growth in international trade and investment, between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and, later, the United States. It was in this period that areas of sub-saharan Africa and the Island Pacific were incorporated into the world system. The "First Era of Globalization" began to break down at the beginning with the first World War, and later collapsed during the gold standard crisis in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
[edit] Recent evolutions
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)
Globalization in the era since World War II was first the result of planning by economists, business interests, and politicians who recognized the costs associated with protectionism and declining international economic integration. Their work led to the Bretton Woods conference and the founding of several international institutions intended to oversee the renewed processes of globalization, promoting growth and managing adverse consequences.
These were the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund. It has been facilitated by advances in technology which have reduced the costs of trade, and trade negotiation rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT, which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on free trade.
Since World War II, barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered through international agreements - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), for which GATT is the foundation, have included:
Promotion of free trade:
Reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
Reduced transportation costs, especially from development of containerization for ocean shipping.
Reduction or elimination of capital controls
Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
Restriction of free trade:
Harmonization of intellectual property laws across the majority of states, with more restrictions.
Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the United States)
The Uruguay round (1984 to 1995) led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization (WTO), to mediate trade disputes and set up a uniform platform of trading. Other bi- and multilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.
Globalization in a literal sense is international integration.[1] It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and functioning together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces.[2] Globalization, as a term, is very often used to refer to economic globalization, that is integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and spread of technology.[3] The word globalization is also used, in a doctrinal sense not a literal one, to describe the neoliberal form of economic globalization.[4] Globalization is also defined as the internationalization of everything related to different countries; Internationalization however, as a contrasted phenomenon, differs from globalization in that Global is commonly used as a synonym for "international", however such usage is typically incorrect as "global" implies "one world" as a single unit, while "international" (between nations) recognizes that different peoples, cultures, languages, nations, borders, economies, and ecosystems exist.
The process of globalization had its origins in Europe, through the Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, French, and English territorial and maritime expansion into all habitable continents, and included the discovery and colonization of the New World. The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friendman, "examines the impact of the 'flattening' of the globe, an international leveling of business competition enabled by increasing interconectedness. Friedman argues that globalized trade, outsourcing, offshoring, supply-chaining, and six other economic, technological, and political forces have changed the world permanently. He examines the positive and negative effects flattening has had and will continue to have on global politics and business.[5]
Contents
[hide]
1 History
2 Recent evolutions
3 Measuring globalization
4 Effects of globalization
5 Pro-globalization (globalism)
6 Anti-globalization (mundialism)
7 References
8 Further reading
9 See also
10 External links
[edit] History
This section is written like a personal reflection or essay and may require cleanup.
Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (December 2007)
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)
The word "globalization" has been used by economists since 1981; however, its concepts did not permeate popular consciousness until the later half of the 1990s. The earliest concepts and predictions of globalization were penned by an American entrepreneur-turned-minister Charles Taze Russell who first coined the term 'corporate giants' in 1897. [4] Various social scientists have tried to demonstrate continuity between contemporary trends of globalization and earlier periods.[6] The first era of globalization (in the fullest sense) during the 19th century was the rapid growth of international trade between the European imperial powers, the European colonies, and the United States. After World War II, globalization was restarted and was driven by major advances in technology, which led to lower trading costs.
Globalization in its largest extent began a bit before the turn of the 16th century, in Portugal. The country's global adventurism in the 16th century linked continents, economies and cultures as never before. The then Kingdom of Portugal kicked off what has come to be known as the Age of Discovery, in the mid-1400s. The westernmost country in Europe, was the first to significantly probe the Atlantic Ocean, colonizing the Azores, Madeira and other Atlantic islands, then braving the west coast of Africa. In 1488, Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias was the first to sail around the southern tip of Africa, and in 1498 his countryman Vasco da Gama repeated the experiment, making it as far as India. The Portuguese Empire would establish ports, forts and trading posts as far west as Brazil, as far east as Japan and Timor, and along the coasts of Africa, India and China. For the first time in history, a wave of global trade, colonization, and enculturation reached all corners of the world.
Globalization is viewed as a centuries long process, tracking the expansion of human population and the growth of civilization, that has accelerated dramatically in the past 50 years. Early forms of globalization existed during the Roman Empire, the Parthian empire, and the Han Dynasty, when the silk road started in China, reached the boundaries of the Parthian empire, and continued onwards towards Rome. The Islamic Golden Age is also an example, when Muslim traders and explorers established an early global economy across the Old World resulting in a globalization of crops, trade, knowledge and technology; and later during the Mongol Empire, when there was greater integration along the Silk Road. Global integration continued through the expansion of European trade, as in the 16th and 17th centuries, when the Portuguese and Spanish Empires reached to all corners of the world after expanding to the Americas.
Globalization became a business phenomenon in the 17th century when the Dutch East India Company, which is often described as the first multinational corporation, was established. Because of the high risks involved with international trade, the Dutch East India Company became the first company in the world to share risk and enable joint ownership through the issuing of shares: an important driver for globalization.
Liberalization in the 19th century is sometimes called "The First Era of Globalization" a period characterized by rapid growth in international trade and investment, between the European imperial powers, their colonies, and, later, the United States. It was in this period that areas of sub-saharan Africa and the Island Pacific were incorporated into the world system. The "First Era of Globalization" began to break down at the beginning with the first World War, and later collapsed during the gold standard crisis in the late 1920s and early 1930s.
[edit] Recent evolutions
This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007)
Globalization in the era since World War II was first the result of planning by economists, business interests, and politicians who recognized the costs associated with protectionism and declining international economic integration. Their work led to the Bretton Woods conference and the founding of several international institutions intended to oversee the renewed processes of globalization, promoting growth and managing adverse consequences.
These were the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund. It has been facilitated by advances in technology which have reduced the costs of trade, and trade negotiation rounds, originally under the auspices of GATT, which led to a series of agreements to remove restrictions on free trade.
Since World War II, barriers to international trade have been considerably lowered through international agreements - General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Particular initiatives carried out as a result of GATT and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), for which GATT is the foundation, have included:
Promotion of free trade:
Reduction or elimination of tariffs; construction of free trade zones with small or no tariffs
Reduced transportation costs, especially from development of containerization for ocean shipping.
Reduction or elimination of capital controls
Reduction, elimination, or harmonization of subsidies for local businesses
Restriction of free trade:
Harmonization of intellectual property laws across the majority of states, with more restrictions.
Supranational recognition of intellectual property restrictions (e.g. patents granted by China would be recognized in the United States)
The Uruguay round (1984 to 1995) led to a treaty to create the World Trade Organization (WTO), to mediate trade disputes and set up a uniform platform of trading. Other bi- and multilateral trade agreements, including sections of Europe's Maastricht Treaty and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have also been signed in pursuit of the goal of reducing tariffs and barriers to trade.
Nobel Prize and Indonesia
rofessor Muhammad Yunus, an economist from Bangladesh was finally awarded Nobel peace prize in October this year, surpassing the nomination of prominent figures such as former Finnish President Martii Ahtisaari, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, GAM leader Zaini Abdullah and his colleagues who played an important role in the Aceh peace process.
Muhammad Yunus has done to many people in need in his country people then realized how much he deserved the prestigious prize. At one time he felt his Ph.D degree in economics was meaningless if he couldn’t help his poor folks. He then established the Grameen Bank to help millions of poor people in Bangladesh. Although he didn’t do much to promote his work but his deeds did not unnoticed. The Nobel committee in Norway decided to award him the prize.
Yunus gained Ph.D degree in economics from Vanderbilt University, US but at one time he said that the degree was meaningless if he cannot help his poor folks in Bangladesh. When many people in Indonesia are thirsty of and starving for many university degrees, Yunus’ principle of life is very relevant for contemplation. The great education achievement and university degrees are meaningless if in the end they are not useful to help many who are in need. Probably we can add that the many bright stars on the shoulders of generals will be also meaningless if people are still starving of freedom and security.
Previously Mother Theresa from Calcutta was also awarded nobel prize for helping the poor. An Albanian descent, born as Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje, Macedonia decided to leave her own country and good family to help many of the poorest of the poor people in India. Her abundant life and nice home which was very much influenced by her courageous Christian father who commonly used to help the weak muslim neighbourhood from the attacks of their Christian friends. This is still relevant for Indonesia today. Although her father finally died from being poisoned by his Christian friends for the accusation of taking side with the muslim newcomers in the neighbourhoods, but her generous and tolerant father was very influential in her life that finally helped her decide to help many in need in India. Indonesians, especially in Poso, Maluku, need to learn from Mother Theresa’s father who was willingly help the weak although possessing different religion and faith.
The life of Muhammad Yunus and Mother Theresa must be with a lot of struggle and perseverance. Yunus began fighting poverty in 1974 in Bangladesh with a loan of only 27 dollars to save the poor from the moneylenders. Two years later he established the Grameen Bank, and now it has some 6,5 million borrowers most of them are poor. Mother Theresa had even risked her own life due to the hostile attitude of poor Indians who accusing her threatening the faith and religion of the people. However it was for their unceasing struggle and perseverance they deserved recognition from the international community, including the awarding of the noble prize.
Although Indonesia has not been awarded with nobel prize, it does not need to feel belittled. Like Muhammad Yunus, Indonesia does not need to chase the noble prize. When the deeds of Indonesia deserve noble prize, the international community will recognize that. Not that the promotion of Aceh peace process was not sufficient that the noble prize was not awarded for Aceh process, but there is something else that deserves it. Not that Habibie’s decision to grant second option leading to the independence of East Timor in 1999 was not recognized by the international community, but it was not worthy for the noble peace prize at the time. The writer Pramudya Ananta Toer had been several times nominated, yet the time was not yet prune.
However doing the noble thing is much more important than the nobel prize itself.
There must be some considerations for awarding the prize, however no body would argue that the noble recipients such as Mother Theresa and Muhammad Yunus who worked for many poor and needy do not deserve such a prize.
It is worthwhile to follow the life exemplified by Mother Theresa and Muhammad Yunus. Their dedication to help many poor people is even imperative for Indonesia at this stage with more than thirty millions are still living in poverty. Albeit the noble prize is not awarded, the impact of such wonderful lifes will contribute significantly to the development of Indonesia.
Muhammad Yunus has done to many people in need in his country people then realized how much he deserved the prestigious prize. At one time he felt his Ph.D degree in economics was meaningless if he couldn’t help his poor folks. He then established the Grameen Bank to help millions of poor people in Bangladesh. Although he didn’t do much to promote his work but his deeds did not unnoticed. The Nobel committee in Norway decided to award him the prize.
Yunus gained Ph.D degree in economics from Vanderbilt University, US but at one time he said that the degree was meaningless if he cannot help his poor folks in Bangladesh. When many people in Indonesia are thirsty of and starving for many university degrees, Yunus’ principle of life is very relevant for contemplation. The great education achievement and university degrees are meaningless if in the end they are not useful to help many who are in need. Probably we can add that the many bright stars on the shoulders of generals will be also meaningless if people are still starving of freedom and security.
Previously Mother Theresa from Calcutta was also awarded nobel prize for helping the poor. An Albanian descent, born as Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu in Skopje, Macedonia decided to leave her own country and good family to help many of the poorest of the poor people in India. Her abundant life and nice home which was very much influenced by her courageous Christian father who commonly used to help the weak muslim neighbourhood from the attacks of their Christian friends. This is still relevant for Indonesia today. Although her father finally died from being poisoned by his Christian friends for the accusation of taking side with the muslim newcomers in the neighbourhoods, but her generous and tolerant father was very influential in her life that finally helped her decide to help many in need in India. Indonesians, especially in Poso, Maluku, need to learn from Mother Theresa’s father who was willingly help the weak although possessing different religion and faith.
The life of Muhammad Yunus and Mother Theresa must be with a lot of struggle and perseverance. Yunus began fighting poverty in 1974 in Bangladesh with a loan of only 27 dollars to save the poor from the moneylenders. Two years later he established the Grameen Bank, and now it has some 6,5 million borrowers most of them are poor. Mother Theresa had even risked her own life due to the hostile attitude of poor Indians who accusing her threatening the faith and religion of the people. However it was for their unceasing struggle and perseverance they deserved recognition from the international community, including the awarding of the noble prize.
Although Indonesia has not been awarded with nobel prize, it does not need to feel belittled. Like Muhammad Yunus, Indonesia does not need to chase the noble prize. When the deeds of Indonesia deserve noble prize, the international community will recognize that. Not that the promotion of Aceh peace process was not sufficient that the noble prize was not awarded for Aceh process, but there is something else that deserves it. Not that Habibie’s decision to grant second option leading to the independence of East Timor in 1999 was not recognized by the international community, but it was not worthy for the noble peace prize at the time. The writer Pramudya Ananta Toer had been several times nominated, yet the time was not yet prune.
However doing the noble thing is much more important than the nobel prize itself.
There must be some considerations for awarding the prize, however no body would argue that the noble recipients such as Mother Theresa and Muhammad Yunus who worked for many poor and needy do not deserve such a prize.
It is worthwhile to follow the life exemplified by Mother Theresa and Muhammad Yunus. Their dedication to help many poor people is even imperative for Indonesia at this stage with more than thirty millions are still living in poverty. Albeit the noble prize is not awarded, the impact of such wonderful lifes will contribute significantly to the development of Indonesia.
Germany expects no more 'incidents' off Lebanese coast
German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung said in Beirut on Friday that he expects no more shooting incidents between the Israeli Army and German forces backing up a UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon. The German defense ministry said last week that in two separate incidents, Israeli warplanes fired shots over a German helicopter and on an unarmed German vessel off the Lebanese coast.
"I assure you that no more incidents of this kind are going to happen ... The important thing is to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1701," Jung said following talks in Beirut with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
"We are currently implementing our mandate ... and I assure that there'll be no more incidents of this kind, so we are able to fulfill our mission here," he said before flying to Israel.
Two US officials demanded that Israeli Air Force overflights of Lebanon be halted, saying that such flights undermine the standing of Siniora, Haaretz daily reported on Friday.
The two US diplomats, David Welch and Elliott Abrams, held short meetings Thursday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
The incident also follows repeated warnings by France and the United Nations over the past three weeks that Israel was endangering the multinational peace mission in Lebanon by sending its fighter planes into Lebanese airspace.
The confrontations came just days after Germany assumed command of the marine component of the UN Interim forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) on October 18, in its first military foray into the Middle East since World War II.
Germany has sent a force of eight ships and 1,000 service personnel charged with preventing weapons smuggling and helping maintain the cease-fire.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
The country is only heading the naval component of the UN force in Lebanon, having refused to contribute ground troops in a bid to avoid clashes with Israeli forces due to lingering sensitivities over the Holocaust.
Jung said he discussed the incidents with his Israeli counterpart and added "I hope that we all cooperate together to fully implement resolution 1701 and we are doing our best to do so."
"I believe we should fully implement the resolution to ensure Lebanon's sovereignty, existence for Israel and a clear solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he said.
"The cease-fire is a precondition for finding political solutions for the Middle East."
Jung also held talks on Friday with his Lebanese counterpart Elias Murr.
Flying from Beirut, Jung went straight into talks with his Israeli counterpart, Amir Peretz, at the Defense Ministry in Israel's commercial capital, Tel Aviv.
Israeli officials said the talks focused on Iran's nuclear program and on the situation in Lebanon since the UN-brokered August 14 cease-fire that ended the war in Lebanon.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday apologized for "misunderstandings" following the shooting incidents.
The incidents were the first reported clash between the Israeli Army and the international peacekeeping force in Lebanon. - Agencies
"I assure you that no more incidents of this kind are going to happen ... The important thing is to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1701," Jung said following talks in Beirut with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.
"We are currently implementing our mandate ... and I assure that there'll be no more incidents of this kind, so we are able to fulfill our mission here," he said before flying to Israel.
Two US officials demanded that Israeli Air Force overflights of Lebanon be halted, saying that such flights undermine the standing of Siniora, Haaretz daily reported on Friday.
The two US diplomats, David Welch and Elliott Abrams, held short meetings Thursday with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.
The incident also follows repeated warnings by France and the United Nations over the past three weeks that Israel was endangering the multinational peace mission in Lebanon by sending its fighter planes into Lebanese airspace.
The confrontations came just days after Germany assumed command of the marine component of the UN Interim forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) on October 18, in its first military foray into the Middle East since World War II.
Germany has sent a force of eight ships and 1,000 service personnel charged with preventing weapons smuggling and helping maintain the cease-fire.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
The country is only heading the naval component of the UN force in Lebanon, having refused to contribute ground troops in a bid to avoid clashes with Israeli forces due to lingering sensitivities over the Holocaust.
Jung said he discussed the incidents with his Israeli counterpart and added "I hope that we all cooperate together to fully implement resolution 1701 and we are doing our best to do so."
"I believe we should fully implement the resolution to ensure Lebanon's sovereignty, existence for Israel and a clear solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he said.
"The cease-fire is a precondition for finding political solutions for the Middle East."
Jung also held talks on Friday with his Lebanese counterpart Elias Murr.
Flying from Beirut, Jung went straight into talks with his Israeli counterpart, Amir Peretz, at the Defense Ministry in Israel's commercial capital, Tel Aviv.
Israeli officials said the talks focused on Iran's nuclear program and on the situation in Lebanon since the UN-brokered August 14 cease-fire that ended the war in Lebanon.
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday apologized for "misunderstandings" following the shooting incidents.
The incidents were the first reported clash between the Israeli Army and the international peacekeeping force in Lebanon. - Agencies
United Kingdom UK Country in northwest Europe off the coast of France
consisting of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Government The UK is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. There is no written constitution. Cabinet government, which is at the heart of the system, is founded on rigid convention, and the relationship between the monarch as head of state and the prime minister as head of government is similarly based. Parliament is sovereign, in that it is free to make and unmake any laws that it chooses, and the government is subject to the laws that Parliament makes, as interpreted by the courts. Since the UK joined the European Union (EU), the supremacy of Parliament has been challenged and it has become clear that domestic legislation can in certain circumstances be overridden by that of the EU as a whole. Parliament has two legislative and debating chambers, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords has three main kinds of members: those who are there by accident of birth, the hereditary peers; those who are there because of some office they hold; and those who are appointed to serve for life, the life peers. There are nearly 800 hereditary peers. Among those sitting by virtue of their position are 2 archbishops and 24 bishops of the Church of England and 9 senior judges, known as the law lords. The appointed life peers include about 65 women, or peeresses. The House of Commons has 651 members, elected by universal adult suffrage from single -member geographical constituencies, each constituency containing, on average, about 65,000 electors. Although the House of Lords is termed the upper house, its powers, in relation to those of the Commons, have been steadily reduced so that now it has no control over financial legislation and merely a delaying power, of a year, over other bills. Before an act of Parliament becomes law it must pass through a five-stage process in each chamber - first reading, second reading, committee stage, report stage, and third reading - and then receive the formal royal assent. Bills, other than financial ones, can be introduced in either house, but most begin in the Commons. The monarch appoints as prime minister the leader of the party with most support in the House of Commons, and he or she, in turn, chooses and presides over a cabinet. The voting system, which does not include any form of proportional representation, favours two-party politics, and both chambers of Parliament are physically designed to accommodate two parties, the ruling party sitting on one side of the presiding Speaker and the opposition on the other. The party with the second-largest number of seats in the Commons is recognized as the official opposition, and its leader is paid a salary out of public funds and provided with an office within the Palace of Westminster, as the Houses of Parliament are called. History For earlier periods of the history of the British Isles see Britain, ancient, Roman Britain, England: history to 1485, England: history 1485-1714, United Kingdom: history 1714-1815 , United Kingdom: history 1815- 1914, United Kingdom: history 1914 -45, Ireland: history to 1921, Scotland: history from 1513, and Wales: history to 1536. In 1945 the UK was still nominally at the head of an empire that covered a quarter of the world's surface and included a quarter of its population, and, although two world wars had gravely weakened it, many of its citizens and some of its politicians still saw it as a world power. The reality of its position soon became apparent when the newly elected Labour government confronted the problems of rebuilding the war-damaged economy. This renewal was greatly helped, as in other Western European countries, by support from the USA through the Marshall Plan. The 1945 election The ending of World War II in Europe in May 1945 was quickly followed by the dissolution of Winston Churchill's coalition government. The general election in July resulted in the return of a Labour government with a large absolute majority, and Clement Attlee became prime minister. This was the third Labour government in Britain's history, but the first that held both office and effective power. The Labour Party put forward an industrial programme for the nationalization of the coal, gas, and electricity industries, of inland transport services, and of the iron and steel industries. They also advocated public ownership of the Bank of England and the creation of a National Investment Board. The Conservatives, under the leadership of wartime prime minister Winston Churchill, opposed this domestic policy, and the electoral battle was fought mainly on the issue of nationalization. The Conservatives suffered one of the severest defeats in their whole history; for in a House of Commons of 640 members the Labour Party won 393 seats as against 166 in the previous Parliament; the Conservatives dropped from 358 to only 189 seats; while the Liberal Party, who had put forward 307 candidates, had only 12 elected. Post-war austerity The keynote of life in Britain in the years following the end of the war was austerity. The sudden end of the war with Japan (September 1945) hastened the rate of demobilization, and by 30 November 955,315 men and 147,229 women had been discharged from the armed forces, freeing them to take part in Britain's export drive to earn US dollars. Financial stringency had become doubly necessary in Britain following the cessation on 2 September of the US lend-lease programme. Because Britain had sold off its foreign investments to finance the war effort, and had converted a great proportion of its industry to munitions and other war supplies, the country had relied on lend-lease to feed its people. Until Britain could restore its export trade, it needed to secure a large credit in US dollars to survive the period of reconstruction, and after many weeks of negotiation in Washington a loan of £1,100 million was arranged, but with certain stringent conditions attached. Increased production both for domestic needs and export was essential. However, when by 1947 production had still not come up to requirements, there was an economic and financial crisis, since the large US loan was rapidly being exhausted. In the effort to restore the balance of trade, austerity measures were increased and the resultant hardships resulted in a fall in the government's popularity. In the course of 1948 there was a rapid increase in production, coupled with a slowing down of inflation and an improvement in the balance of payments. The economic situation was also improved by the start of US aid under the Marshall Plan. Taxation remained high in 1949 and was even increased in several directions, the chancellor of the Exchequer, Stafford Cripps admitting that it was impossible to reduce it so long as defence commitments and the social services continued on the existing scale. By 1951 rationing of various staple foods still existed in Britain, although not in most other West European countries, and this, coupled with the continuous housing shortage, caused increasing irritation in the country at large. Nationalization and the welfare state Despite the great difficulties of the economic situation, the Labour government pressed ahead with a radical restructuring of British society. In the first session of the new Parliament alone, no fewer than 84 acts were passed. The system of national insurance was extended by the National Insurance Act, which also provided for the making of payments towards the cost of a national health service. Complementary to this the National Health Service Act established a free national health service (NHS) for England and Wales. The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act made new provision for compensation for industrial casualties. The government proceeded with its programme of nationalization, completing legislation to bring the coal mines, all inland transport, and the electricity and gas industries under state control. The government deferred their intention to extend nationalization to the iron and steel industry, and instead declared preventive war on the House of Lords in the shape of a bill to amend the Parliament Act 1911. It was proposed to reduce from two years to 12 months the period during which the House of Lords might delay the enactment of a bill that it refuses to pass. The Parliament Bill came up for second reading in the House of Lords (27 January 1949). It was defeated there, and the government then decided to resort to the procedure of the Parliament Act 1911 to carry their new bill into law. The bill was passed by the Commons in September 1949. An Iron and Steel Bill introduced in the 1948-49 session of Parliament proposed to nationalize the principal firms engaged in the basic processes of the iron and steel industry. This bill was particularly strongly opposed by the Conservatives, but eventually became law. The Conservatives, however, undertook to denationalize the iron and steel industry as soon as they returned to power. Altered circumstances induced the government to increase from 12 to 18 months the period of compulsory whole-time military service. In 1950 the general election saw a bitter struggle between the two main parties, Labour and Conservative, and a further decline in the number of Liberals returned. The Labour Party fought the election on the legislative record of the preceding five years, promising, in addition, a future programme involving more nationalization. The Conservatives alleged that the government had seriously increased Britain's economic difficulties. In the election Labour retained power, with a greatly reduced majority (of 8, as against 186 in 1945). For the next 18 months the party battle in the House of Commons was continuous and bitter. There were also splits within the Labour government, and in April 1951 Aneurin (Nye) Bevan and Harold Wilson left the government over the introduction of prescription charges in the NHS. Post-war foreign and imperial policy Ernest Bevin, the Labour foreign secretary, for the most part continued Churchill's foreign policy, in particular sharing Churchill's distrust of the USSR. Although Britain, the USA, France, and the USSR had divided the defeated Germany into four occupation zones, and agreed on the post-war treatment of Germany at the Potsdam Conference (July- August 1945), the wartime alliance did not long survive the end of hostilities. As the Cold War intensified, Britain's close relationship with the USA continued. Britain played an important role in the formation of the post-war Western alliance, and became a founder- member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949. Britain also began to develop its own nuclear deterrent, leading to the test explosion of its first atomic bomb in 1952. In June 1950 the Cold War heated up with the outbreak of the Korean War. In Britain the Conservative opposition supported Attlee in his policy of full cooperation with the USA and the United Nations on this issue. Before the end of the year British troops were serving in Korea, and they played an important part in holding the Chinese offensive of April 1951. Chinese intervention in Korea raised the problem of Communist China's status in the world, and at the UN Britain had already recognized the Beijing government as the de facto government of China; but the USA had not done so. In many quarters in Britain and Western Europe US policy in east Asia was occasionally viewed with misgiving, as being too ready to be interventionist. Truce talks began in Korea in 1951, although an armistice was not concluded until two years later. Finally, it was the post-war Labour government that saw through the granting of independence to India, Pakistan, Ceylon (Sri Lanka), and Burma (Myanmar), and the restyling of the British Empire as the British Commonwealth. Although this was the fruition of long-term imperial policies, Britain's greatly weakened economic power meant that the shedding of its empire had become as necessary as it was politically desirable. The Conservatives return to power In the autumn of 1951 there was another general election. The result was a Conservative victory, with a majority of 16, and Winston Churchill became the new prime minister. Early in 1952 George VI died suddenly and was succeeded by his elder daughter as Queen Elizabeth II, who was crowned on 2 June 1953. The Conservative government concentrated on the economic plight of the country. They had accepted the bulk of the nationalization carried out by their predecessors, but they did repeal the acts that had nationalized iron and steel and road transport. The internal economic situation showed steady improvement : full employment was maintained, and many controls were abolished. The international situation appeared to have eased since the death of the Soviet leader Stalin (1953). In 1954 the foreign secretaries of the major powers (including Communist China) met at Geneva and agreed a settlement that concluded the Indochina War. In the same year the French Assembly, fearing the re- creation of a German army, finally rejected the proposed European Defence Community, but subsequently the agreements signed in London (1954) solved the problems of West European defence and led to the creation of the Western European Union. Though there were serious internal troubles in two British colonies, Kenya and Cyprus, settlements of two other outstanding problems were reached in 1954. In July Britain and Egypt signed an agreement by which British troops were to leave the Suez Canal zone within 20 months, while in August the dispute with Iran over the latter's nationalization of British oil interests (dating from 1951) was settled, compensation being paid to Britain. Eden takes over from Churchill On 5 April 1955 Churchill resigned from the premiership and was succeeded by Anthony Eden. At the general election in May 1955 Eden's government was returned with an increased majority. In December Attlee resigned from leadership of the parliamentary Labour Party and was granted an earldom. The new Labour leader was Hugh Gaitskell, elected in preference to Herbert Morrison and Nye Bevan. By 1956 the economic situation in Britain was uncertain. Anti- inflationary measures produced a temporary rise in unemployment, and in September the TUC rejected wage restraint. In foreign affairs, relations with the USSR appeared to be easing. In July 1955 a meeting of the heads of government of Britain, France, the USSR, and the USA took place at Geneva, the first meeting of this kind since the Potsdam Conference ten years earlier, while in April 1956 the Soviet leaders Bulganin and Khruschev visited Britain. However, later in the year the unrest in Poland and the Hungarian uprising cast a cloud over East-West relations. The Suez Crisis In Britain the European news was soon overshadowed by the growing crisis in the Middle East, following the announcement on 26 July 1956 by President Nasser that Egypt was nationalizing the Suez Canal. The seizure of the canal was regarded as illegal in Western Europe and the USA, but only in Britain and France was there any serious demand for stern action against Egypt. Israel reached a secret understanding with Britain and France, and invaded Egypt on 29 October 1956, advancing into Sinai. France and Britain called on both belligerents to cease fighting, and when this did not occur Anglo-French forces began to bomb Egyptian military targets (31 October) and launched an airborne invasion (5 November). The British and French governments claimed their main objective was the protection of the Suez Canal, and the maintenance of free navigation, which they said was threatened by the invading Israeli forces. Egypt responded to these attacks by blocking the Suez Canal and making it impassable, the very thing that Britain and France had tried to avoid. World opinion, including the USA and USSR, condemned the Anglo- French action. The Arab states united in their support of Egypt, which emerged as the leader of Arab nationalism, and thereafter turned increasingly to the USSR for support, putting paid to Western influence in the Middle East for several years. Britain, France, and Israel were branded as aggressors at the UN and called upon to cease their military activities. A ceasefire was declared from midnight on 6 November, and US pressure brought about a gradual withdrawal of Anglo-French forces, which were replaced by a special UN force. Britain's action in Egypt aroused the most bitter controversy in the country and was condemned by the Labour Party. The government justified their action on the grounds that it had prevented a war in the Middle East and ensured active UN intervention. There was no doubt, however - whatever the merits of the case - that Britain's prestige had suffered severely, and the blocking of the canal and the consequent disruption of oil supplies increased Britain's economic difficulties. In January 1957 Eden announced his resignation from the premiership and retirement from political life on account of ill- health. Macmillan succeeds Eden Eden was succeeded as premier and leader of the Conservative Party by Harold Macmillan. After the shambles of Suez, Britain's steady withdrawal from empire continued in a more measured way. Sudan had become independent at the beginning of 1956, and in 1957 both Ghana (March) and Malaya (August) became dominions within the Commonwealth. There was a conference of Commonwealth prime ministers in London in June 1957; and in January 1958 Macmillan made history by embarking on a highly successful Commonwealth tour - the first such tour undertaken by a British premier in office. In December 1957 Macmillan attended the NATO heads of government conference in Paris. Here agreement was reached in principle on the US offer to supply European members with nuclear weapons; this agreement was much criticized by the Labour Party in Parliament. At home the government's unpopularity showed no apparent improvement. Inflationary pressure continued, and by autumn there were rumours of an impending devaluation of the pound. On 19 September 1958 the bank rate was raised from 5 to 7% (the highest rate since 1920). Subsequently Britain's international currency position improved. A major (and very controversial) piece of legislation enacted in 1957 was the Rent Act, which freed a large number of privately owned properties from rent control altogether and made rent increases possible in many others. Macmillan's second administration By 1959 a marked improvement in Britain's economic situation helped to return the Conservatives to power once again at the general election in October, with a larger majority than before. More and more of Britain's colonies became independent: Cyprus (1959), Nigeria (1960), Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uganda (all in 1962), and several more followed within the next two years. Macmillan had made clear his commitment to decolonization and his opposition to apartheid in his 1960 `wind of change ´ speech to the South African parliament, and in 1961 South Africa, refusing to compromise on its policy of apartheid, left the Commonwealth and became an independent republic outside it. Beyond the Commonwealth, Macmillan established working relationships with the US presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, but was sufficiently realistic to see that the UK's long-term economic and political future lay in Europe. The framework for the European Economic Community (EEC) had been created by the mid-1950s, with the UK an onlooker rather than a participant. In November 1959 the agreement under which European Free Trade Association (EFTA) was set up (of which Britain was a leading member)was initialled in Stockholm. The government's opening of negotiations to join the EEC (August 1961) caused controversy within its own ranks, and also within the Labour Party and among Commonwealth members. Distrusting Britain's closeness to the USA - particularly after the 1962 agreement by which the USA would supply the UK with Polaris nuclear missiles - the French president, Charles de Gaulle, blocked the British application (1963). The period of high East- West tension came to an end with the diffusion of the Cuban missile crisis (November 1962), and a new era of `peaceful coexistence´ was marked by the signing of the Nuclear Test- Ban Treaty (August 1963) At home, Macmillan showed his commitment to `one-nation´ Conservatism by the establishment in 1961 of the National Economic Development Council, which involved government, management, and trade unions in joint consultations over economic issues. In 1960 the economic situation had again begun to cause concern. A wages pause began in July 1961, and there were tax increases in an effort to curb home demand and avert inflation. The government's popularity declined as a result. There were also balance-of- payments problems. The winter of 1962-63 was the worst in Britain since 1947, and unemployment rose sharply, though temporarily. Despite rising living standards, the UK's economic performance was not as successful as that of many of its competitors, such as West Germany and Japan. There was a growing awareness that there was insufficient investment in industry, that young talent was going into the professions or financial institutions rather than manufacturing, and that training was poorly planned and inadequately funded. The defeat of the Conservatives In June 1963 the government barely survived the scandal that centred on the minister of war, John Profumo (who resigned on 7 June), and which led to a judicial enquiry by Lord Denning into the security aspects of the affairs. In October Macmillan suddenly resigned on the grounds of ill health. The Conservatives then chose as their new leader, and prime minister, Lord Home, who then disclaimed his peerage to become Sir Alec Douglas-Home. The internal controversy caused by Douglas-Home's succession further weakened the Conservative Party, which had now held office for 12 years. Though Douglas-Home continued his predecessor's progressive Commonwealth policy, and carried through domestic reforms such as the bill abolishing resale price maintenance (1964), a significant proportion of voters turned to the Liberals and to the Labour Party, which now presented a much more dynamic image under Harold Wilson, its leader since Gaitskell's death early in 1963. As a result, Labour won the general election in October 1964, though only by a majority of four, subsequently reduced to three. Wilson became prime minister, and early in 1965 Edward Heath replaced Douglas-Home as Conservative leader, under a new system of selection by election. Wilson's Labour government, 1964-66 The election had been fought on the issue of the economy. Wilson created the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) to challenge the short-term conservatism of the Treasury (although the DEA was disbanded in 1969), and brought in a leading trade unionist to head a new Department of Technology. The new government inherited from its predecessor a serious balance of payments crisis, and its own initial pronouncements and actions exacerbated this by creating a crisis of confidence in sterling abroad. Devaluation was only narrowly avoided, and huge international loans were obtained and import surcharges levied. By the autumn of 1965 Britain's balance of payments position appeared healthier than for some years past. This position had been reached, however, by imposing measures such as credit restrictions, which hampered Labour's development plans and alienated some of its supporters. Despite government efforts to establish an effective prices and incomes policy, and the National Plan for future economic development, announced by secretary of economic affairs George Brown in September 1965, the basic British post-war problem of combining domestic expansion with international solvency, and of maintaining full employment without creating persistent inflation, remained. Other separate issues, such as the housing shortage, and the immigration issue, were still pressing in 1966, while overseas the Vietnam War and Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence in November 1965 (see Zimbabwe) all affected Britain directly or indirectly. Labour continues in power, 1966- 70 In March 1966 the Labour Party won the general election with a greatly increased majority. A subsequent budget included the novel proposal of a Selective Employment Tax and a promise that Britain would change to decimal coinage in 1971. Two issues dominated foreign and Commonwealth affairs: the question of whether Rhodesian sovereignty could be handed over to a white minority, and Britain's renewed application to join the EEC. By 1969 the rupture with Rhodesia was almost complete, but the resignation of President de Gaulle in France renewed hopes of Britain's eventual membership of the EEC. But economic issues rather than foreign affairs dominated political life. Between 1958 and 1965 Britain's gross national product had increased by only a third, while that of the EEC had gone up by more than a half. To improve the economy the government sought to impose a pay freeze, later changed to a pay pause, to increase exports and reduce imports, to modernize technology, and to increase production. Its measures proved insufficient to maintain the pound at 2.8 to the dollar and in November 1967 the pound was devalued to 2.4 to the dollar. Public spending was cut, particularly on defence. This virtually committed Britain to abandoning its military presence east of Suez by 1971. A monetary squeeze, applied with varying severity by all British governments during the 1960s, became steadily more severe. The bank rate seldom dropped below 7% . These monetary policies made it increasingly difficult for industry to raise new capital. It became more difficult to reconcile plans for economic expansion with the policy of seeking a permanent solution to Britain's balance of payments problem. The second consideration was given priority and by 1969 the banks were virtually forbidden to make loans outside terms imposed by the Bank of England. More and more, Britain's economic policy had to be brought into line with international trends. With this aim in mind the government attempted to introduce an ambitious plan for the reform of industrial relations, but this was dropped in the face of trade- union opposition. The economic situation improved in 1969 and a surplus in the balance of payments was achieved for the first time in years. This surplus was maintained in 1970 and a general election called, in which the franchise was extended to people aged 18-21. However, Wilson's promises of fundamental changes in economic planning, industrial investment, and improved work practices had not been fulfilled, and the Labour Party was defeated. A Conservative government was formed under Edward Heath, with an overall majority of 30. Social developments in the 1960s A number of liberalizing reforms had been introduced in the 1960s. Both abortion and homosexuality became legalized in 1967, with certain qualifications. Capital punishment was abolished in 1965; there was a simplification of the divorce laws; majority juries were introduced; and road-safety legislation enacted that resulted in a decrease in accidents. In 1968 race relations became strained as a result of agitation by EnochPowell, who came to the fore as a critic of immigration policy, even after a Commonwealth Immigrants Act imposed severe restrictions on entry to Britain. The Race Relations Act introduced legal penalties for manifestations of race prejudice, and was possibly successful in subsequently improving race relations. Catholic grievances in Northern Ireland over inadequate civil liberties and economic deprivation became so serious that British troops were sent there in 1969 to restore and maintain order. The situation in Northern Ireland was soon to deteriorate into serious intercommunal violence, and was to prove an intractable problem for successive British governments (see Northern Ireland). Heath's Conservative government, 1970-74 Like Harold Wilson, the new Conservative prime minister Edward Heath saw institutional change as one way of achieving industrial reform and created two new central departments (Trade and Industry, Environment) and a think tank to advise the government on long-term strategy, the Central Policy Review Staff. He also attempted to change the climate of industrial relations through a long and complicated Industrial Relations Bill. He saw entry into the European Community (EC, as the EEC had now become) as the `cold shower of competition´ that industry needed, and membership was negotiated in 1972. In the early 1970s British politics were dominated, as before, by serious inflation, now accompanied by rising unemployment (which reached the million mark in 1972), industrial unrest, and a series of commodity crises, notably in oil. The situation in Northern Ireland deteriorated steadily, and violence spread to the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The Rhodesian problem remained insoluble, despite various efforts to reach a settlement and the testing of Rhodesian opinion by the Pearce Commission. The promise of the government to sell arms to South Africa in defiance of a UN resolution threatened the unity of the Commonwealth. In 1972 Conservative policies produced strikes in the mining industry and by railway workers, the beginning of a dispute about fishing limits, the `cod war´, with Iceland (which was concluded in Iceland's favour in 1976), and constant confrontations between workers and the National Industrial Relations Court. The year 1973 began auspiciously with the entry of Britain into the European Community, which was generally acclaimed as a triumph for Edward Heath. Reactions to this event were varied, but in a referendum held in 1974 by the newly elected Labour government Britain voted to stay in the Community. Heath's `counter-revolution´, as he saw it, was frustrated by the trade unions, and the sharp rise in oil prices following the 1973 Arab-Israeli War forced a U-turn in economic policy. Instead of abandoning `lame ducks´ to their fate, he found it necessary to take ailing industrial companies, such as Rolls-Royce, into public ownership. The situation was exacerbated by both miners' and railway workers' strikes, precipitated by the introduction of a statutory incomes policy. A state of emergency was proclaimed in November 1973 with restrictions on the use of power and blackouts throughout the country. A huge trade deficit was announced and at the beginning of 1974 the country was working a three-day week. In February 1974 the Heath government fell at a general election at which the major issue was, inevitably, the confrontation with the trade unions and, after a brief period during which Heath tried to form a coalition with the Liberal Party (Labour did not have an overall majority), Wilson returned to power. Wilson's second premiership, 1974-76 The minority Labour government relied heavily on the Liberals and on the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, all of whom had greatly increased their vote in the election. However, a second general election in November 1974 gave Labour an overall, if small, majority. Wilson had taken over a damaged economy and a nation puzzled and divided by the events of the previous years. He turned to Labour's natural ally and founder, the trade-union movement, for support and jointly they agreed on a `social contract´: the government pledged itself to redress the imbalance between management and unions created by the Heath industrial-relations legislation, and the unions promised to cooperate in a voluntary industrial and incomes policy. The fight against inflation continued, through voluntary wage restrictions and, in 1975, wage restraint, which limited increases to £ 6 per week for everyone. The economic situation began to look slightly brighter when the first of the North Sea oil came into production and some check was given to rising prices. In Northern Ireland the political solution worked out at Sunningdale in 1973 produced the new Ulster Executive in January 1974, but this fell within the year as a result of a massive Protestant workers' strike against it. Irish politics continued to have their effect in Britain with sporadic bombings and shootings. On a more positive note Labour legislation included the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts (both major achievements for the women's movement), the reorganization of local government outside Greater London, and the reorganization of the National Health Service. The programme of changing over to a system of comprehensive schools was advanced. Wilson met criticism from a growing left-wing movement within his own party, impatient for radical change, and in March 1976, apparently tired and disillusioned, he took the nation by surprise by retiring in midterm. Callaghan's Labour government, 1976-79 Wilson was succeeded by the political veteran James Callaghan. In the other two parties, Heath had unexpectedly been ousted in 1975 by Margaret Thatcher, and the Liberal Party leader, Jeremy Thorpe, had resigned after a personal scandal and been succeeded by the young Scottish MP David Steel. Callaghan was now leading a divided party and a government with a dwindling parliamentary majority. Later in 1976 an unexpected financial crisis arose from a drop in confidence in the overseas exchange markets, a rapidly falling pound, and a drain on the country's foreign reserves. After considerable debate within the cabinet, both before and afterwards, it was decided to seek help from the International Monetary Fund and submit to its stringent economic policies. Within weeks the crisis was over and within months the economy was showing clear signs of improvement. In 1977, to shore up his slender parliamentary majority, Callaghan entered into an agreement with the new leader of the Liberal Party, David Steel. Under the `Lib-Lab Pact´ Labour pursued moderate, nonconfrontational policies in consultation with the Liberals, who, in turn, voted with the government, and the economy improved dramatically. The Lib-Lab Pact had effectively finished by the autumn of 1978, and soon the social contract with the unions began to disintegrate. Widespread and damaging strikes in the public sector badly affected essential services during what became known as the `winter of discontent´. At the end of March 1979, following the rejection of devolution proposals by referendums in Scotland and Wales, Callaghan lost a vote of confidence in the House of Commons and was forced into a general election. Conservatives come to power under Thatcher The Conservatives returned to power under the UK's first woman prime minister, Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher rejected the `concensus politics´ that had dominated Britain since 1945, and introduced her own more right-wing ideology (` Thatcherism´), combining belief in market forces, monetarism, anti- collectivism, strong government, and nationalism. Thatcher inherited a number of inflationary public-sector pay awards that, together with a budget that doubled the rate of value-added tax (VAT), resulted in a sharp rise in prices and interest rates. The Conservatives were pledged to reduce inflation and did so by mainly monetarist policies, which caused the number of unemployed to rise from 1.3 million to 2 million in the first year. Thatcher had experience in only one government department, and it was nearly two years before she made any major changes to the cabinet she inherited from Heath. In foreign affairs Zimbabwe became independent 1980 after many years, and without the bloodshed many had feared. The creation of the SDP Meanwhile, changes were taking place in the other parties. Callaghan resigned the leadership of the Labour Party in 1980 and was replaced by the left-winger Michael Foot, and early in 1981 three Labour shadow- cabinet members, David Owen, Shirley Williams, and William Rodgers, with the former deputy leader Roy Jenkins (collectively dubbed the `Gang of Four´), broke away to form a new centrist group, the Social Democratic Party (SDP). The new party made an early impression, winning a series of by- elections within months of its creation. From 1983 to 1988 the Liberals and the SDP were linked in an electoral pact, the Alliance. They advocated the introduction of a system of proportional representation , which would ensure a fairer parity between votes gained and seats won. The Falklands factor Unemployment continued to rise, passing the 3-million mark in January 1982, and the Conservatives and their leader received low ratings in the public-opinion polls. An unforeseen event rescued them: the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina in April 1982. Thatcher's decision to send a task force to recover the islands paid off (see Falklands War). The general election in 1983 was fought with the euphoria of the Falklands victory still in the air, and the Labour Party, under its new leader, divided and unconvincing. The Conservatives won a landslide victory, winning more Commons seats than any party since 1945, although with less than half the popular vote. Thatcher was able to establish her position firmly, replacing most of her original cabinet, among whom had been many `one-nation´ Conservatives. Domestic problems The next three years were marked by rising unemployment and growing dissent: a dispute at the government's main intelligence-gathering station, GCHQ; a bitter and protracted miners' strike; increasing violence in Northern Ireland; an attempted assassination of leading members of the Conservative Party during their annual conference; and riots in inner- city areas of London, Bristol, and Liverpool. The government was further embarrassed by its own prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act and the resignations of two prominent cabinet ministers. With the short-term profits from North Sea oil and an ambitious privatization programme, the inflation rate continued to fall and by the winter of 1986-87 the economy was buoyant enough to allow the chancellor of the Exchequer to arrange a pre-election spending and credit boom. Party leadership changes Leadership changes took place by 1987 in two of the other parties. Michael Foot was replaced by his Welsh protégé Neil Kinnock; Roy Jenkins was replaced by David Owen as SDP leader, to be succeeded in turn by Robert MacLennan in September 1987, when the SDP and Liberal parties voted to initiate talks towards a merger. The merger of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties was an acrimonious affair, with the SDP, led by David Owen, refusing to join the merged party and operating as a rival group. Paddy Ashdown emerged as the leader of the new party. Thatcher's last years Despite high unemployment and Thatcher's increasingly authoritarian style of government, the Conservatives were reelected comfortably in June 1987, with a slightly reduced majority. In a cabinet reshuffle in July 1989, Geoffrey Howe was replaced as foreign secretary by John Major. In October 1989 the chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, resigned because of disagreements with the prime minister, and Major replaced him. Douglas Hurd took over the foreign office. The government was widely criticized for its decisions forcibly to repatriate Vietnamese `boat people´ and to give right of abode in the UK to the families of 50,000 `key´ Hong Kong citizens after the transfer of the colony to China in 1997. David Owen announced that the SDP would no longer be able to fight in all national constituencies and would only operate as a `guerrilla force´. The Green Party polled 2 million votes in the European elections. Thatcher challenged In September 1990 the House of Commons was recalled for an emergency debate that endorsed the government's military activities in the Persian Gulf, and UK forces played an important role in the Gulf War launched the following January. In October 1990 the government announced that it was joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM). In November the deputy prime minister, Geoffrey Howe, gave a dramatic resignation speech, strongly critical of Thatcher. Michael Heseltine then announced his candidacy for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Having failed to gain a clear victory in the first ballot of the leadership election, Thatcher was persuaded by her colleagues to withdraw from the contest. In the subsequent second ballot Michael Heseltine (131 votes) and Douglas Hurd (56) conceded that John Major (185) had won. He consequently became party leader and prime minister. Major's leadership Major was initially popular for his consensual style of leadership, but dissatisfaction with the poll tax continued and was seen as the main cause of a 25% swing away from the Conservatives in a March 1991 by- election. A hastily constructed replacement of the poll tax did little to repair the damage done to the Conservative Party, which sustained heavy losses in the May 1991 local elections. The deterioration of the National Health Service was also an issue. Despite the apparent waning popularity of the Conservative government and almost two years of economic recession, the party won its fourth consecutive victory in the April 1992 general election, with a reduced majority. Neil Kinnock announced his resignation as leader of the Labour Party and Roy Hattersley resigned as deputy. John Smith was elected as the new Labour leader in July 1992. The recession deepens With a deepening recession and international pressure on the pound, the government was forced to devalue in September 1992 and leave the ERM. Further criticism in October forced it to review its economic strategy and, in the same month, Trade and Industry Secretary Michael Heseltine announced a drastic pit-closure programme, involving the closure of 32 collieries and the loss of 30,000 miners' jobs. The announcement initially met with massive public opposition, but the closure programme eventually went ahead. The Conservatives lose ground In November 1992, the government won a narrow majority (3) in a ` paving debate´ on ratification of the Maastricht Treaty on closer European economic and political union. The vote went in favour of the government motion because of the support of the Liberal Democrats. In May 1993 the Conservatives lost a key seat to the Liberal Democrats in a by-election. Norman Lamont, who was largely blamed for the 1992 ERM fiasco, was subsequently replaced as chancellor of the Exchequer by home secretary Kenneth Clarke, but this failed to prevent a second Conservative by- election defeat in July. In the same month the Maastricht Treaty was finally ratified by parliament. In December 1993 Prime Minister John Major and Irish premier Albert Reynolds issued a joint peace proposal on Northern Ireland, the Downing Street Declaration, which offered all-party constitutional talks in return for a cessation of violence. The sleaze factor During 1994 the Conservative Party was plagued by a series of personal scandals, further eroding public confidence and undermining the party's Back to Basics campaign for a return to traditional family values. Revelations of British arms sales to Iraq prior to the 1991 Gulf War and the alleged complicity of senior Conservative figures, including John Major, further embarrassed the government, as did reports that certain Conservative MPs, including junior ministers, had been paid by clients to ask helpful parliamentary questions. Responding to public concern, Major announced the setting up of a committee, under Lord Justice Nolan, `to oversee standards in public life´. The European dimension In March 1994 the government's failure to retain the full extent of the UK's blocking vote in negotiations held on wider European union enraged Conservative `Euro-sceptics ´, leading to calls for Major to resign or call a general election. New Labour leader The Liberal Democrats made substantial gains in the May 1994 local elections. In the same month Labour leader John Smith died suddenly. Tony Blair, young and articulate, with a clear view of the direction he wished the party to follow, emerged as the new leader after the first fully democratic elections for the post in July. The impact of Blair's election was instantaneous, and his party's popularity rating immediately soared. Meanwhile, the Conservatives were recovering from further losses in the June European elections. The Anglo-Irish peace process In August 1994 Major, in a dual initiative with Irish premier Albert Reynolds, secured a ceasefire by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) in Northern Ireland, as an initial step towards a negotiated peace process. Differences subsequently arose between the UK and Irish governments over the interpretation and implementation of a report on decommissioning of weapons in Northern Ireland, which was published in January 1996, and the peace process was disrupted when the IRA renewed its bombing campaign in London in February 1996. The Major government responded by sending more troops to Northern Ireland. Major's reelection bid In Scottish local elections in April 1995 the Conservatives failed to win a single seat, and in June 1995, faced with a right-wing rebellion over his policies on Europe, Major dramatically resigned the Conservative Party leadership. He was reelected the following month, his sole challenger, John Redwood, a prominent `Euro-sceptic´, having resigned as Welsh secretary in order to challenge him. Major carried out an immediate cabinet reshuffle and, in an unexpected move, promoted president of the Board of Trade Michael Heseltine to the post of deputy prime minister. Following publication of the Nolan Committee's initial report on standards in public life in November 1995, MPs voted to require members to declare all outside earnings resulting from their positions in parliament and to ban all paid lobbying. The government's diminishing majority In March 1996 the government announced that Creutzfeld-Jakob disease in humans could be passed from BSE-infected beef to humans, precipitating a collapse in beef sales and a Europe-wide ban on the import of UK beef. In April 1996 the Conservative Party's House of Commons majority was reduced to one seat after Labour won the Staffordshire South East by- election. In January 1997 the death of a Conservative MP reduced the government's House of Commons majority to one, and in February 1997 the Wirral South seat was won by Labour from the Conservatives in a by-election, driving the Conservatives again into a Commons minority and bolstering Labour's hopes of an outright majority in the general election in May. At the elections for representation at the Northern Ireland all-party talks held in May 1996, the Official Ulster Unionist Party (OUP) won 30 seats, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) 24 seats, the Social Democratic Labour Party (SDLP) 21 seats, and Sinn Fein 17. In February 1997 there were reports of a rift between SLDP leader, John Hume, and Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams. Labour's landslide victory After an unusually long election campaign, the country went to the polls on 1 May 1997. The opinion polls, which had predicted a clear win for Labour, proved to be accurate, and the election resulted in a landslide victory for Tony Blair and his party, with a House of Commons majority of 179. The Conservative Party had its lowest share of the vote since 1832 and the smallest number of seats since the 1906 general election. A number of cabinet ministers lost their seats and Major immediately conceded and announced his resignation as Conservative Party leader. He was succeeded by William Hague, aged only 36. The new government took office determined to `hit the ground running´ , and announced a number of policy initiatives, derived from its election manifesto, and a significant change in its attitude towards Europe. As expected, the key appointments were John Prescott as deputy prime minister, Gordon Brown as chancellor of the Exchequer, and Robin Cook as foreign secretary. Resignation and reshuffling In July 1998 Prime Minister Blair made a major reshuffle of his cabinet. In the following months, however, three senior cabinet members would resign their posts. In October the Secretary of State for Wales, Ron Davies, resigned from the cabinet following an incident in London. Alun Michael, who had previously been Minister of State at the Home Office, replaced him, but was resigned in February 2000 just before a vote of no confidence, and later stepped down as Labour leader in Wales. Davies also withdrew his candidacy for the post of First Minister in the Welsh assembly, which was due to be elected in May 1999. Prime Minister Blair was forced to endorse Rhodri Morgan as First Secretary of the Welsh Assembly in February 2000; Blair had previously blocked his appointment to this position in favour of Michael. In December 1998 the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Peter Mandelson, and the Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson, both resigned following revelations that Robinson, a millionaire, had in October 1996 made a loan to Mandelson of £373,000 to assist him in buying a house. Mandelson's post was filled by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Stephen Byers, who was succeeded by Alan Milburn, and Robinson's post was filled by Dawn Primarolo. In June 1999 former cabinet minister, Jonathan Aitken, was given an 18-month prison sentence for perjury. Devolution In September 1997 Scottish voters backed the idea of a Scottish Parliament by 75% of votes, and of its tax-varying powers by 63% (the total turnout was 61.4%). This marked the beginning of the way towards devolution. The results of a referendum held in Wales, also in September 1997, gave approval to devolution proposals by a much narrower vote (50.3%). Elections for the new Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were held in May 1999. The Scottish Parliament opened on 1 July. Labour was the largest party in both chambers but did not achieve an overall majority. Moves towards peace in Northern Ireland The UK and Ireland took the significant step in late August 1997 of signing an international agreement on arms decommissioning in preparation for Anglo-Irish political talks in September. The British government then confirmed that six weeks of IRA ceasefire had qualified Sinn Fein for a place at the talks table. The development was historic in that it represented the first time a British government had invited the republican movement to take part in round-table talks. Northern Ireland multiparty talks (known as Stormont talks) resumed in January 1998. All parties involved - including Sinn Fein - agreed on a document jointly proposed by the British and Irish governments as a basis for negotiation. Despite political difficulties and incidents of violence, the negotiations continued, culminating in the release of the Northern Ireland Political Talks Document on 10 April. The `Good Friday´ agreement, heralded as a historic breakthrough, granted a range of executive and legislative powers to a Northern Ireland Assembly; proposed the establishment of a North-South Ministerial Council and a British-Irish Council; and was concerned with human rights, policing service, decommissioning of illegal weapons, and the release of political prisoners. Voters in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland gave their overwhelming support to the agreement in a referendum held on 22 May. In the June 1998 elections to the new Northern Ireland assembly the Ulster Unionists and the SDLP polled strongly and the UUP leader, David Trimble, became first minister. In August 1998 a dissident IRA group, calling themselves the `Real IRA´, exploded a large bomb in the shopping centre of Omagh, Northern Ireland, killing 28 civilians. New security measures were passed by Parliament, which was specially recalled. However, the `Real IRA´ announced a permanent ceasefire in September 1998. In October 1998 David Trimble and the SDLP leader, John Hume, were jointly awarded the Nobel peace prize. In June 1999 Prime Minister Blair, in an effort to make progress in implementing the Good Friday Peace Agreement, publicly stated that he did not consider it necessary for the IRA to begin disarming before Sinn Fein could join the proposed Northern Ireland executive so long as the intention to do so was made clear. The same month Patrick Magee who was given eight life sentences in 1986 for terrorist offences - including the planting of a bomb at the Grand Hotel, Brighton, in 1984 - was released from the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. His release angered Unionist politicians and threatened the peace process. Devolution of power in Northern Ireland The Northern Ireland peace negotiations resumed in July 1999. Although talks foundered on the issues of decommissioning of arms and prisoner release, the IRA agreed to begin decommissioning discussions, and consequently a coalition government was able to be established, and powers were devolved to the province by the British government in December. Elections to the European Parliament Widespread voter apathy in the elections to the European Parliament in June 1999 resulted in the lowest ever turnout in any national poll in the UK - just 23% of the electorate in England and Wales voted. The Conservatives made sweeping gains in the elections. The Tories won 36 seats in the European Parliament, Labour 29, the UK Independence Party 3, and the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, and the Greens 2 each. The UK restored full diplomatic relations with Libya, broken off after a British policewoman was shot outside the Libyan embassy in London in 1984. The move came after Libya accepted `general responsibility´ for the murder of Yvonne Fletcher and offered to pay compensation to her family. Beef crisis The three-year-old worldwide ban on the export of British beef was formally lifted in July 1999, allowing meat exporters to start the difficult task of rebuilding their foreign markets form 1 August. The resumption of worldwide sales applied only to de-boned meat and meat products from animals born after 1 August 1996 - the date the ban on feeding meat and bonemeal to animals in the UK became fully effective. The crisis had cost British exporters more than £1 billion and taxpayers an estimated further £3 billion. Relations between Britain and France soured in October 1999 as the French government refused to lift a ban on imports of British beef. British supermarkets responded with bans on French food after an EU report revealed that sewage had been used to make animal feed in France. However, Prime Minister Blair refused to ban French meat, saying scientific advice did not justify on health grounds. Angry French farmers respond to Britain's consumer boycotting by blockading the Channel Tunnel. An EU panel of scientists decided that France had produced no new evidence to justify keeping its ban on imports of British beef. The ban stayed nonetheless. France's government said early November it would face legal action through the European Commission rather than lift its ban on imports of British beef. Britain offered a compromise, possibly involving more tests of its beef and a voluntary labelling scheme for British beef which could lead to France lifting its ban and allay consumer fears in Germany. Britain and France engaged in a last-ditch round of talks over beef mid- November, with the European Commission warning that legal action against Paris would start later in the month if the ban on UK exports remained in place. Cabinet reshuffle In a wide-ranging Cabinet reshuffle in October 1999 Tony Blair appointed Peter Mandelson secretary of state for Northern Ireland. Mo Mowlam, who left the Northern Ireland Office, took over as minister for the cabinet office and chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Alan Milburn moved up from the Treasury to the post of secretary of state for health, and Geoffrey Hoon was appointed secretary of state for Defence. The defence secretary, George Robertson, left the cabinet to become NATO secretary-general, and Frank Dobson resigned his post as health secretary to become the government's favoured candidate for the Labour Party nomination for the first elections for the post of mayor of London. This post was filled in 2000 by Ken Livingstone, who stood as an independent candidate. The hereditary peers who would retain their ancient rights to sit and vote in the House of Lords into the next millennium were announced in November 1999. In a historic ballot, 75 peers were elected by their fellow hereditaries under the so-called Weatherhill compromise that allowed them to stay until stage two of House of Lords reform. More than 600 other hereditaries lost their rights as members of the House of Lords when the House of Lords Bill became law in November. Crises in Africa 2000 The biggest British task force since the Falklands War was dispatched to Sierra Leone to oversee the evacuation of foreigners from Freetown, as rebels moved towards the capital and a UN peacekeeping mission came under attack. The British government insisted that their troops would not become embroiled in the civil war, although it was expected that British troops would remain in the region until the UN could assemble a bigger task force. In Zimbabwe, Britain was criticized by South African political leaders including those of South Africa, Mozambique, and Namibia, who claimed that Britain and other Western countries had sparked the crisis over land which was leading to widespread and government-backed violence, by failing to honour promises made in 1998 to fund a land redistribution programme. When Zimbabwean ministers arrived in London, England, in April, Britain offered to fund land reform over the next two years, under the proviso that the money go to the poorest sector of society and not personal allies of government ministers, and that fair law be reinstated in the country; the Zimbabwean ministers refused to agree to the conditions, saying that they went back on the 1998 agreement and that they represented British colonialism.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
