We are working on this section. Use the top menu for now.
Ready sections:
SomaliNet Forum Archive | SomaliNet News Archive | Modern Somalia History and more!!!
.
.
SomaliNet Library
SomaliNet Forums Archives: Before May 2001
Yes, thanks to SomaliNet Communuity, Somalis took advantage of the internet at its infancy!
     | Monday, February 12, 2001 - 04:09 am One must think that the radicals are right in this debate. The level and scope of world trade is higher than ever before, as are finance and capital flows, and, geared as it is to electronic money, the current world economy has no parallels with earlier times. It is a mistake,though, to see the phenomenon in purely economic terms, ignoring its cultural and political aspects. Globalisation is a complex set of processes creating pressures for local autonomy and reviving local cultural identities as it weakens the hold of national institutions. It engenders new economic and cultural zones within and across nations, for example the Hong Kong region or Silicon Valley in California. Transnational relationships have affected the way nation-states interact, and institutions need to be be reconstructed if they are to fit the global age. What do you think? To begin the debate I invite your contributions on the following questions, Globalisation has been criticised for creating a world of winners and losers with the majority condemned to a life of misery and despair. Statistics show the poorest fifth's share of world income dropped from 2.3 per cent to 1.4 per cent between 1989 and 1998. The proportion taken by the richest fifth has risen. Along with ecological risk, expanding inequality is the most serious problem facing world society. How should we address these issues when globalisation is increasingly decentred and not under the control of any group of nations? The development of globalisation is uneven and to many outside Europe it can look like Westernisation, or Americanisation. Most multinational companies are based in the US or the richer countries. A pessimistic view of globalisation would see it as an affair of the industrial North in which the developing societies of the south play little active part. It would see it as destroying local cultures, widening world inequalities, and worsening the lot of the impoverished. Do you agree? Is globalisation a force promoting the general good? Free trade is not an unalloyed benefit, it can undermine a local subsistence economy and introduce vulnerability to world market fluctuations. Trade always needs a framework of institutions and the extent to which a given economy is exposed to the world market-place depends on certain criteria. Protectionism may be necessary at some times, but more permanent forms of protectionism will not help the development of poorer countries and would lead to warring trade blocs among the rich. To what extent should we protect our markets or expose them to the world market-place? Nation-states remain powerful and political leaders have a large role to play in the world. Yet the nation-state is being reshaped. Globalising forces mean that national economic policy can't be as effective as it once was and nations have to rethink their identities now the older forms of geopolitics are becoming obsolete. How can our national and political institutions adapt to this change? Although this is a contentious point I would say that following the dissolving of the Cold War most nations no longer have enemies. Who are the enemies of Britain, or France, or Brazil? The war in Kosovo didn't pit nation against nation. It was a conflict between old-style territorial nationalism and a new, ethnically driven interventionism. Nations today face risks and dangers rather than enemies, a massive shift in their very nature. What do you think the 'enemies' of the global age are? Institutions appear the same as they used to from the outside and they carry the same names. We continue to talk of the nation, the family, work, tradition, nature, as if they were the same as in the past. The outer shell remains, but inside they have changed - and this is happening across the world. They are what I call 'shell institutions'. They are institutions that have become inadequate for the tasks they perform. How should these institutions adapt to the new global order?
|
| | Monday, February 12, 2001 - 07:57 am Complaining about globalization is like complaining about gravity. I personally think gravity sucks because it makes planes crash - which is was has caused my fear of flying. But there ain't much we can do about it. The world is anarchic. There are no effective world governing bodies and there aren't likely to be in the near future. So bitching about global interaction, when there's really nothign can be done to limit it, is a collosal waste of time.
|
| | Monday, February 12, 2001 - 08:56 am As we stand at the beginning of the twenty first century " milaadi wise" I suggest to you that rather than a world of high organisation and predictability tightly within our control it seems to be an rambling, dislocated world. When you look into the origins of this runaway world of uncertain possible futures there's one great set of changes which lies behind these transformations, and that is the impact of the phenomenon of globalisation. Globalisation is a single term for a lot of paradoxical and contradictory changes. Rather than just talking about greater global integration we should discuss basic shifts in the way our world is and what it is like. These shifts do not just include changes in the structures of the world, but changes in our own inner consciousness and identity. For example, Somalis in western world whose are extremely successful will experience some form of identity crisis. They may have the name Ali or Abdi, but their state of ideas will come from the places they were educated. It seems as though western ideology towards economics has developed to be the primary social and economical methodology of the twenty first Century. Question that may arise that is where is the Islamic economic system? Our role as Muslims should be the guardian of the social science, and we need to need to be balance with the need to lead social science debates in new intellectual areas of a globalise post-modern society. We live in a world of sensational change. A lot of believe the social change going on are as abstruse as those which brought into modern industrial society in the late eighteenth century. It is a vital as Muslims and specially Somalis not to be mesmerised by this colossal mutation. There should me and must be an alternative way to this venturesome change that is occurring before us. What sort of option do we have to challenge this greatly moving phenomenon? This is a question that needs to be answered quickly and steadily by Muslim economists. I not economist by profession but having listened and also read the literature of 1999's the Reith Lectures by the leading Social Scientist Dr Anthony Giddens; it became apparent to me how dangerous this issue is. Muslims must have a pivotal role in this particular issue, I am not quite certain as to how they would considering the state we are in now politically and economically, but I must not abandon optimism that there is still some hope. MAD Mad: I am not surprised at all to what you have said, I would expect something like that from a any American Capitalist. Drwho London, England.
|
| | Monday, February 12, 2001 - 10:41 am DRWHo I didn't know you dwell into the deep murkies socio-politics. What you wrote is excellent, thumps up. I have met Dickens myself at LSE where i am student, he seems to be very erudite and articulate person, but calling him a leeding is a kind of mistake.
|
| | Monday, February 12, 2001 - 12:41 pm In reality, Globalization as a pure play would have been far more beneficial than anyone's dream, where goods, services, and ideas can be exchanged freely and fairly around the globe. However, there are two aspects that need to be analyzed before we say yes or no to globalization. First aspect, who gains from globalization? It may be the feeling that both developed nations and developing nations perceive the subject of Glabalization as a lurking evil. As we all recall the Seattle, DC, and Prague anti-globalization demonstrations were more rowdier than anywhere else in the third world. So every nation including the most advanced ones are skeptical about the issue. Evidently the gains from Glob. for developing nations gaurantee a sure path to better productivity, and thus to higher living standards brought by opening local markets to international trade, investments, and new ideas from the most advanced nations who are constantly seeking newer markets for their products and services. Surely, it may appear to someone that developing nations are just turning to dump grounds for excessive products from the west. But the developing nations to be consuming markets, the west has to invest in these countries to generate enough incomes. The second factor, who's the loser from Globalization? It seems in the long run nobody is, but admitedly in the short run (1-5 years)before the World Trade Organization sets a mechanism to regulate worldwide trade practices, every nation is a loser in some sort. However, what counts in economic development is the longer term productivity increase realized through the free flow of trade among nations. Otherwise, the end result will be protectionism where specialization theories appear to fail and world chaos to reign. Sagittarius
|
| | Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 02:39 am Sagittarius, Th issue is not who is going to be economically well of or who is not. As the Doc has stated it is change that will effect the whole social infastructure, whethere you reside in western countries or the so called developing countries. Changin can be well and good, but this change as I susbect will be influanced by the westrens whose who will impose their way of thinking and conducting one another.
|
| | Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 03:45 pm Does anybody Like Pop Corns? loool
|
| | Tuesday, February 13, 2001 - 10:53 pm Read about the source of this Globalisation debate http://www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/reith_99/week1/week1.htm It is very interesting reading. P.
|
| | Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 04:43 am Sagatarius You can't say no to globalization. World economic trade, including the form it has taken now, is inevitable. Countries that barely participate on the fringes, like North Korea, become economic backwaters, their citizens mired in poverty. Countries that embrace free trade (the more you protect, the more others protect against you) are, as a general rule, wealthier than those that don't. As soon as you say yes to global trade, you say yes to everything that goes with it, whether you want to or not. That's what the Chinese government is learning the hard way. You can't control ideas, you can't really control trade, once the genie is out of the bottle. If you won't trade with me I can always find someone else who will. That's what it all comes down to.
|
| | Wednesday, February 14, 2001 - 03:33 pm MAD-MAC, I agree with you that there's no longer a negative response to globalization, the world is far more interdependant than ever to negatively respond to global free trade issue. However, the last round of WTO talks, some developing nations were making their case to be heard from their future sufferings more than any other nation from the concocted global trade agreements, and its one of the reasons that WTO has not yet taken the form of enforcer and legislator as we would have expected it to take the same form of the United Nations, there are still some mechanisms missing to be adopted. Today, some countries such as China just lack another alternative to globalization(agreed set of laws for worldwide commercial exchange)Furthermore, China is one of the true beneficiaries of this globalization, since it has been lately an export oriented economy. But let's not forget the other alternative to globalization of trading blocks that can ultimately negotiate on a fairer basis with global economic giants such as the US, Japan, and Europe. Trading blocks have been springing up lately everywhere out of the necessity to diminish the sufferings of individual countries against the backlash of economic giants. Therefore, there's always the possibility of a negative response to the issue of globalization in the case of adopting strong adhesive trading blocks. Sophist, I didn't quite well get your point, but I assume you meant to say that globalization will affect social values around the globe. Eventhough, that could be true in some sense, but the answer doesn't lie in countering with protectionism that may further deteriorate the global outlook. Additonally, this has been the claim of lesser countries of no moral integrity to suspect that their social and belief systems are in danger in the wider context of global exposure to newer ideas. However, the fear of the west from the spread of fanaticism, fundamentalism, and the proliferation of eastern mystical influence (Budhism) should have warranted their rejection to globalization. But, fortunately that's not been the case, it's only pure economics that is taken into consideration when arguing the subject of the matter. Sagi,
|
| | Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 01:05 am Sagitarius Which brings me back to my point about the Horn of Africa Trade Agreement (HAFTA). A trade network between Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Yemen. These states all have plenty in common, are geographically linked, and have growing economies which need an element of protection right now to get started (I'm not a fan of protectionism but sometimes it's neccessary to get an economy rolling).
|
| | Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 01:47 pm MAC, That was a great suggestion, the Horn of Africa nations creating their own economic bloc. I don't know if Yemen which is also partly participant of the Gulf Economic Cooperation would happily join in its neighbours down south. However, there are many trading blocs existing today, and mostly for the sole purpose of having a weighty negotiating powers vis a vis their strong trading partners in the other parts of the world. Thus, for some time, trading blocs were the only alternative to globalization and the need for a global fair play came into existence when these blocs sprung up everywhere and the smart mighty economic powers retaliated with the idea of global free trade since they could foresee a tit for tat challenges from much smaller countries with the shield of their greater trading partners to stand against the slightest trade disparity with these giants, and that was the way to go for quite sometime and it's still viable today.. Besides, these Eastern African countries are way too much suspicious of each other than to join in an economic co-operation for their general well being. It is sad how each country is ruled by an ego-maniac who's just short visioned (MYOPIAC) to see short term gains rather than broader global trends. Let's hope a better tomorrow.... Sagi
|
| | Thursday, February 15, 2001 - 06:14 pm Sorry, I just overlooked the element where you mentioned the need for protectionism. Indeed protectionism has always been theoritically an element of redistributive effect for growing economies for a long time. However, sound economic theories suggest otherwise. For instance; a country such as Singapore didn't get its grip to produce a magnificent world economic model by merely mimicking and knocking of products and services it had no comparative advantage. therefore, in the suggestion of protectionism has only meant for some countries to indulge in producing for what they have no longer advantage at all in producing at the first place. Additionally, protectionism has been the plea of weaker capitalists to seek the help of a government whose ticket they held for election or re-election to protect unyielding zero-productive industries which they had long time ago lost competitive advantage to newer, highly energetic, automation oriented capitalists somewhere else in the world. Also protectionism is synonymous to inefficiency, where someone would try to protect an industry that's no longer protecting itself in a free market place. I wouldn't be surprised to have witnessed such acts if always undertaken by western countries whose majority of its industries are overtaken by competition from abroad and thus lost their competitive edge and end result for them was to close out or to hire a high wired lobbyist who could in turn incite in a political demagogue to voice the failed competitiveness of local industrialists as a national threat for all people in that nation........and later that becomes politics to be debated on. Sagi,
|
| | Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 04:42 am Sagatarrius The ego maniacs will either get on board or be dead. In the words of Harvey Keitel "I'm here to help, if my help's not appreciated, lots of luck gentlemen." Somalia is going to become a nation-state again if I have to kill every leader there to do it. I know that sounds harsh but, while I'm a patient man, my patients is wearing thin. And I have a sneaking suspicion there's about 6 million Somalis who share my perspective. It is time for Somalis leadership to lead, follow or get out of the way. As for the other nations in the horn, what this means is no tarrifs in trading from one HAFTA state to the other. These states will have to adopt a limited amount of protectionism outeside of HAFTA in order to let their economies mature. FYI if you're interested in a good book on globalization try The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Milton Friedman. It's pretty well written.
|
| | Saturday, February 17, 2001 - 02:32 pm MAC, You got a good point there, about the ego-maniacs who hijack the whole society, and I wish the solution was that easy now. BTW I read every Friedman book including the one he co-authored with his wife, he's somewhat wonderful guy!
|
| | Sunday, February 18, 2001 - 11:23 pm Well he's interesting. I was reading an oped peice in USA Today today and found myself annoyed with this recurring notion that "people are being left behind" by globalization and capitilism. No kidding. Name an economic system which is all inclusive, there are no poor, and everyone is happy and I'm all for it. But I think the Marxist theories have deomnnstrated that they can take a society where some folks are poor and make everyone that way. So I'll opt for what's behind curtain number one and take my chances. Saggitarius, where are you from in Somalia? You planning on going back? If so when?
|
| | Friday, February 23, 2001 - 12:18 pm At least we share a common despise for marxism, as I have lived for sometime in a communist country, and to say the least, I was disgusted with the static regressive situation of the system. Globalization is equally a blessing and a curse for both least developed and developed nations. And that being said it's up to developing nations to find their niche in the global arena rather than groping blindly in the dark, after all there's none they can do about this phenomenon even if they combine their efforts to do so. Given the current economic progress trends in the eastern hemisphere, it seems the world is now ready for fair trading consensus regardless of who gains or loses in the short run. As for going back to Africa, I all the time travel there, and recently was in Senegal and Mali, but surely would one day settle there either Somalia or any other country in Africa. As for where I am from Somalia, I would rather be anonymous in these forums. However, as I was reading some of your postings that you live in Germany, I frequently visit there Frankfurt am main(Offenbach Ost) So hopefully I will see you there if you drop me an e-mail adress.
|
| | Monday, February 26, 2001 - 10:02 pm Sagitarius My E-Mail address is: iikorpsg2of@hq.c5.army.mil I've been to Offenbach a few times. There are quite a few Somalis living there. I used to live in a little town near Darmstadt called Pfungstadt which also has a lot of Somalis. I used to hang out with them quite often. I work in Ulm right now, which is about 2 1/2 hours from Frankfurt.
|
| | Wednesday, February 28, 2001 - 01:34 pm Mad Mac, I tried to e-mail you by the above address, but all the time I get a return mail for undelivery status. Anyway, I leave you my e-mail below; kalphie@hotmail.com
|