Anti-Globalisation
(Note - This article presents an argument opposing globalisation. While its material is factually accurate from information presented elsewhere in this site, it may, at times, exaggerate the truth of certain issues and neglect to mention others. Its purpose is merely to give you an example of how a opponent of globalisation approaches the argument.)
Each nation is entitled to its own sovereignty, its own identity, and its own way of life. Yet globalisation only hinders rather than helps this basic necessity. By considering nations equal in terms of their ability to compete, globalisation unfairly discriminates against those nations which do not have the resources or infrastructure that others do in the global environment.
The solution is not to eliminate global commerce in its entirety; such a prospect would be unnecessary and systematically impossible. However, trade blocks that restrict certain transactions to only a few regions make difficult an already unfavorable situation for developing countries. These areas best understand the meaning of exclusion from economic opportunities --- the exploitation of their workforce or resources was what contributed to their initial demise. Any further attempts to maximise capital for but a few would most certainly be detrimental to these nations’ futures and aspirations.
While international groups work commendably to mitigate potential destruction, their efforts are futile in the face of zealous attempts to spread globalisation. This is a leading reason why globalisation must be stopped at the source: there is no way to control it otherwise. The wheels of commerce that promote profit over social consciousness are unforgiving to those nations which cannot provide a certain service and are tormenting to those others that quarrel among one another in order to win bids for what become unfairly low-priced work contracts. It is therefore not uncommon to see protests before such groups as the World Bank, the WTO, or the IMF as many believe that the political tensions favoring capitalism are inadvertently inflicting harm to at least half of the world’s six billion people.
Yet even within countries favored by globalisation, the long-range effect for the country’s people can be profound. As economically disadvantaged regions receive low-cost labor contracts, jobs are displaced domestically forcing many to search for lower paying positions, or still worse, face general unemployment. Because an unemployed workforce reduces consumer sentiment, fewer purchases occur, money changes hands less often, and the economy overall enters recession. Thus what began as an effort to promote economic wellbeing instead becomes a severe mishap for all parties involved.
Clearly, there is no winning through the model of globalisation. Not only does it harm those nations without the capacity to compete as well as others, but it also adversely affects the countries that use its mechanisms. We must use caution when considering globalisation because what it stands to harm in the coming years is more than anyone could fathom.