Has Globalisation Done More Harm Or Good For the Promotion Of Human Rights?
Initially, globalisation could potentially be seen as a peacemaker of some sort as it encourages different countries and organisations and businesses to support a cause with the same interests in sight. Although, globalisation may come across as a tile piece for creating a euphoric atmosphere, there is always a downside to a solution that may bring about peace. Globalisation can be a source of progress, however it also has the power to make vulnerable groups more fragile. Thus leading to increasing inequality, child labour, the right to food and health services, for this - first world countries must be held accountable for their impact on human rights. It is possible to manufacture products as well as conduct trade whilst protecting the rights of those that are underprivileged and the most vulnerable. So, to answer the question on if globalisation has done more good or harm for the promotion of human rights, I have no doubt that globalisation has harmed human rights more than it has to glorify human rights.
Globalisation is ultimately just a tool in which two or more parties share a mutual interest. Although this may come across as simple and good, one of the pros and cons of this is that it has a major effect on cultures (what I mean by this is that globalisation does not strive to preserve cultures but rather to take a bunch of cultures and make brand new ones, which are pointless) however globalisation has the potential to strengthen cultures by promoting various nationalities to come together. Now see this, a couple years ago in they discovered a the Jururei Indian tribe people in amazon of Brazil. The Jururei Indians have never been in contact with civilisations as they have remained completely isolated for however many years it is that they have lived in the amazon. It is a common thought that if the international community works together that they can bring civilisation to this ‘lost’ tribe through globalisation to allow them to preserve their culture by spreading it all over the world. I think that this is a completely false as well as a terrible idea as introducing their culture to what we perceive to be civilisation will do no good for them, as they will have to try to fit in with other cultures to be able to live, and as people worldwide try to experiment with the culture of the Jururei Indians they begin to create their own cultures and it’s just a vicious cycle of pain and no gain. For example, this happened with the Native Americans, as soon as they had their country seized by the explorers, they took everything from them and forced them to change their entire way of living. Currently, they’ve only been given a small expanse of land in which they have been forced to live upon; civilisation was brought upon them by globalisation and it has done absolutely nothing in favour of preserving their culture. There are numerous of tribes that haven’t had contact with civilisation, it’s not that they haven’t heard about it or haven’t come in contact with other tribes, the simple truth is that they made the smart decision to isolate themselves from the rest of the world, which allows them to preserve their culture. I am not saying that it is bad for cultures to be shared around the world, I just feel that globalisation has created a lot of conflict as cultures and religions clash. However, it could be argued that the clashes between religion and culture would be on a much larger scale.
If there happened to be a utopian society, in another world much different from ours, and globalisation was intruded, initially it may seem like a good idea to join multiple parties together, however, soon enough that utopian society would end up a replica of how our society is today. Minors are taught about human rights in school, for example in local schools in India the girls are taught specifically about their human rights regarding marriage at extremely young ages. They are taught that it’s a violation of human rights to be forced into marriage against their will. However, in the end it is still the parents that make the decisions for their children. Yes, the children are able to tell the parents it’s a violation of human rights, but who is going to listen to them? The law says that as long as the children are younger than 18, all decisions are made by the parents as long as it’s for the good interest of their child. However it isn’t. But who’s going to tell the parents that what their doing is wrong, especially when this is how those around them have lived for centuries. Globalisation has done nothing to promote human rights, as an international community we come together and say that we need to make a change and ensure that no one is being deprived of their natural human rights, but how is that possible when all the countries and nations that are much more developed than others simply step on the countries that are underdeveloped. Look at Africa, more specifically at South Africa, the country has developed from globalisation because they were able to come together and trade with developed countries to become developed. Globalisation has corrupted African Nations by taking advantage of the continent. Although, Africa is steadily improving as it has realised to stop globalisation and seek smarter trade. Unfortunately, not all of the nation in Africa have realised the corruption and struggle tat comes along with globalisation. This is evident with the IMF as that organisation was created from globalisation which is corrupting various countries; I say this because the IMF is created simply from all the money that has been contributed from the more developed African nations, which allows for the IMF to completely ignore the underdeveloped African nations.
Has globalisation done anything for the preservation of cultures or for the promotion of human rights? No. It simply corrupts.
