It’s not a foreign topic, no pun intended; while denouncing the cultural transgressions recently embraced by Western states, the global citizen is directly impacted by largely Capitalist business schema, such that even opponents of such an economy can’t deny the positive exposure to previously limited or non-existent international investors. We’re also aware of the exploitation of this new opportunity to work against the West not only with regard to outsourcing of labour, but also the infiltration of ideologies the Framers of the U.S. Constitution would have considered poisonous to financial autonomy and healthy competition. Can it be argued that Western companies do not impose western culture on host nations; rather, that the developing host nations tacitly invite private enterprise, encourage venture capitalism, and secure their economic progression by forging both subtle and fantastical political alliances? Nay-sayers definitely a political agenda, and not a socio-economic one. While a nation’s economic agenda and the benefits may be argued as unholy for the host nation, ultimately the country stands to gain more financially than the western company does.
The French-based company Airbus is currently preparing an order of fifty-eight A380, or Super-jumbo, passenger jets en route to the UAE, the vast majority of which will be delivered April 1, 2009. There’s much western speculation, particularly from Germany, that the United Arab Emirates may not actually have the funds for the aggressive Airbus campaign, but such concerns are short-sighted in referencing the actual economic growth of countries in the Middle East, for example (Schreck, 2009, p.1). While the benefits to the French company seem obvious, the benefits to the UAE of such enthusiastic business transactions show its stability, and further show that there really are no super-powers anymore (Friedman, 1995, p. 493). Both Airbus and Emirates hope to continue deliveries into 2010, drafting plans for future sales, and even hope to fortify Western presence “…on routes where there is a greater demand from [our] customers.” Emirates further plans to increase its offered international flights by 14% between fiscal years 2008 – 2009, and some flight cuts to China. Spokeswoman Hania Tabet of Airbus, Dubai, asserted there will be eighteen new Airbuses available by the end of 2009 (Schreck, 2009, p. 2).
This bold new economic climate humbles the current U.S. economy, and holds the promise of a new potential global economic super-power. Of all the west’s Asian economic interests such as Taiwan, Singapore, or Thailand, the best global markets remain in the most potentially fundamentalist and violent regions of the Middle East, which are surprisingly friendly toward private investment and provide the highest export platforms for technology (Friedman, 1995, p.500). If this is bad for the host nation, let me remind you of an example that a recent ban was lifted on importing produce, particularly avocados, from Mexico, destroying California’s farmers, causing a drop in California crop sales of over 20% (Savage, 2005, p. 87). It’s actually foreign produce dumped into the American market that destroys economy, while big western business bolsters international investment, commerce, and travel abroad.
Additionally, the problem is reversed from the prompt’s question with specific regard to America. We’ve signed free trade agreements with many developing nations exporting to the United States and providing little market opportunity to us. To top this, George W. Bush lowered the wages of the poorest legal worker with the Guest-Worker programme in January 2004, further eroding economic security (Savage, 2005, p. 90). However, the technology export ratio of the Middle East allows for use on a more dramatic scale. Take, for example, Israel. The size of Orange County, CA, this tiny war-torn Middle Eastern former wasteland now enjoys living at Western European living standards, and, no; this is not at the expense of the Palestinians. No one was interested in Israel when European Jews began colonizing it at the turn of the 20th century; it wasn’t until the Israelis introduced irrigation and produce that the international community was lured in to business contracts with the new Israeli market, and the Arab world began growing unsettled (no pun intended.). In 1984, the Israelis earned only 50% of what Canadians earned. But by 1994, Israelis were earning 10% more. That’s a decade of exponential growth. After Egypt and Israel made a superfluous peace ( between Arafat and Rabin) global investment funds went scouting for state-owned companies privatized by start-up companies looking for venture capital along the Gaza Strip and Israel (Friedman, 1995, p. 551).
So how does this reflect on Western culture? Western culture is not bad economically; economically, western culture is sanitary; western culture saves lives and is merciful. If the proposed argument against such globalization posits a deterioration in traditional values and the social mores of the developing world, then, yes, it is a bad thing. But since there was no mention of the imposition of western popular culture, I assume the prompt refers only to economic status or the standard of living. That is a western cultural quality that most developing nations are happy to receive.
Historical proof of this can be found in another war-torn fundamentalist waste land in the Middle East: Syria. Previously, direct investment capital wasn’t very fluid along international borders. Now, however, so long as the country’s economy shows promise, it attracts major foreign investment capital. Syria used to exploit the situations of the Cold War to acquire resources and financial subsidies from the Western and Eastern Blocks in the forms of direct aid or trade agreements where Eastern Europeans agreed to purchase defunct Syrian exports unsellable on the global market. But as political scientist, Thomas L. Friedman quoted (Friedman, 1995), the entire “…architecture of global power has changed (p.552).” There really are no superpowers today that can compete over shoddy Syrian exports. Big markets, such as the Tokyo, Frankfurt, and Wall Street Bond Markets, play against each other to determine who yields the best return on capital. Ultimately, the global markets reward good and penalize poor economic performance. The bottom line is that the international investment houses and the western corporations seeking the benefits of a fast-developing economy care more about its economic stability rather than its geopolitical stability.
Dubai, Syria, and Israel - among developing nations benefitting from Western companies - are actually improving their economies and their standards of living for the people by exploiting western technologies and exploiting them to benefit their own commercial interests - and that’s okay. They’re improving their airports, which actually makes us safer as international travelers, and international travel encouraged means a greater understanding of cultures and ideas and values are exchanged through business and leisure travel. They have better legal and financial systems in place to regulate these new western enterprises, an improved work force, and better roadways, because this attracts private global capital.
References
Friedman, T. L. (1995). From Beirut to Jerusalem. New York: Random House.
Savage, M. (2005). Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder. Nashville: Nelson Current.
Schreck, A. (2009). Emirates airline still believes in Super-Jumbo. Townhall, 2. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://townhall.com/news/world/2009/03/15/emirates_airline_still_believe...
