Secondly, globalisation can benefit the economy. Globalisation has brought diminishing international borders and the fusing of individual national markets. Many economists would agree that the next big step is to expand business influence all over the globe and utilise whatever benefits the world has to offer, such as cheap labour. With the rise of technology, especially in the telecommunications field, this is very much possible. Multinational Companies (MNCs) possess the ability to inject huge amounts of money on a particular project. To a developing country, the influx of money is very much welcomed. Add this to the fact that these companies could extend their reach globally. The fall of protectionist barriers has stimulated free movements of capital and paved the way for companies to set up several bases around the world. Of course, MNCs would exploit a country with cheap labour. A worker in an MNC factory in a Third-World country may not get as much pay as his counterparts in the West. This is arguably bad in the sense that these people are exploited for money, but the main issue is this: job opportunities are available. When Singapore was a developing country and fresh from its separation from Malaysia, its leaders decided to welcome MNCs. This step brought Singapore up economically, and became well-known all over the world for its commercialist environment in South-East Asia. In another example, comparing countries in Africa, countries that are the most democratic - and with the most freedom - are South Africa, Nigeria and Ghana. Coincidentally, these countries are the most pro-trade and the most integrated in the world economy and the most globalised. Hence, globalisation should not be resisted as it has the ability to benefit the economy.
Globalisation, if integrated with the correct steps, may provide a way for a culture to survive. Many argue that globalisation may well dilute our culture as we are bombarded with many other foreign influences. However, I believe that for a culture to survive globalisation, it should integrate, and not resist. It is true that when we open ourselves to the world, the world in turn opens its diversity and variety to us. In order to withstand the test of globalisation, it should not oppose it, but find a new place in society. I believe ideas to resist globalisation in order to preserve our cultural heritage cannot stand. However, I also believe that it is up to the people to preserve and adapt their culture in a new environment, instead of being sanguine about it. Proper measures have to be initiated, for instance promoting Chinese New Year for the Chinese or Hari Raya Aidiladha for the Muslims. In this sense, globalisation should be given resistance only to buy time for people to prepare their culture to face the onslaught of globalisation.
Furthermore, globalisation may induce democracy where it is practiced. Nations governing democratically have laws that respect the people's rights, opinions and freedom. Globalisation is, in effect a practice of democracy free trade and freedom. Countries led by dictators are the least open and have the least freedom. These countries, like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Cuba and so on, are also the most hostile to globalisation, openness and trade in goods and services. And for good reason - these dictators or those with authoritarian power fear that their power may be undermined as the people begin to realise and long for the freedom of democracy. Openness in trade and communications would ultimately expose these countries to democracy. These iron-grip leaders may utilise illegal means to dispose of their opposition or to keep things tightly under control. Iran, for example, has the Basij, who terrorize people and whose actions are seemingly beyond the law. However, lately Iran faces protests by students - who demand reform and democratic ideas through the Internet and satellite television - demanding for changes that might affect the future of a country. And not just any country, but Iran: one of three of the 'axis of evil'. Consequently, change in Iran may tilt the sides to favour the global anti-terrorism movement. Thus, through this example we see that globalisation and its agents - the Internet, satellite television - are unstoppable. And further on, globalisation may actually help make the world a more peaceful, safer place to live in.
Globalisation should not be resisted because it is a waste of time and effort. Globalisation comes hand-in-glove with advancing technologies. The advancement of telecommunications allows one to reach virtually anywhere around the globe. A country needs to advance in its technology in order to keep up with the rest of the world. Globalisation is happening. To resist it is impractical, as sooner or later we would have to open ourselves to the world. China embraces globalisation with the proper procedures, and it is now a growing power in East Asia. Even North Korea is openning up by having trade agreements with Japan. Many argue that globalisation brings with it negative effects like Americanization and exploitation. However, these would be due to the failure of the State to properly embrace globalisation. If correct and effective steps are taken by creating a stable, fundamental platform at home, then globalisation may bring more benefits than troubles. Thus, globalisation should not be resisted; it should be welcomed after preparations are made.
However, the results of globalisation could have unwanted effects. The freedom of trade and ability to set up bases around the globe could mean that large MNCs may end up more powerful and more influential than democratically-elected governments, placing the importance of clients and shareholders over the interests of local communities. This may lead to a power-struggle concerning only power-wielding giant companies, with countries that depend heavily upon their investments lying at their mercy. Although one may argue that this 'corporate war' may benefit people, like having dirt-cheap products and providing attractive offers and services to woo customers, it all basically boils down to this: companies are set up for the sole purpose of profit. What may be profitable may not be right. Putting our future in the hands of all-too-powerful companies is a gamble too risky to take. Unfortunately, this may be one of the results of globalisation.
Some people worry that as the tide of globalisation surges, the environment will be disregarded in the stampede for mega-profits and marketplace supremacy. As growth of populations and businesses continue, a need for raw materials must definitely arise. Thus, in desperation, forests and wildlife sanctuaries would have to be sacrificed to allocate the ever-growing numbers of people. Space will then be at a premium. However, it will be the large companies and the rich that will benefit as they have the money and model to invest and buy land for their purposes. This then leaves no room for the poor, who would consequently remain so as they cannot compete with those with larger amounts of money. Thus, the abuse of globalisation may benefit only the rich and not the poor.
It is true that globalisation has its negative effects. However, if integrated with care, it may well prove to be a boon instead of a bane. Globalisation can benefit nations politically, economically and culturally. Ideas of resistance would ring a nation nowhere, as globalisation is needed for a nation to compete at the international stage. Globalisation could lead to the triumph of democracy over autocracy. In the end, it is happening now, if not already. The large scope that globalisation encompasses makes it an unevitable process. What is ironic is that while protesters fight against globalistion efforts in the name of Africans and the world's poor, Africans themselves may well want it to go their way. Thus, I strongly believe that globalisation should not be resisted, but should be embraced as its advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
