Nowadays one of the most commonly used terms is globalization. But what does
globalization mean? Does it mean dissappearing borders, a common trade unit, no
tax in trade abroad, political awareness across the world, or, in extremes, even
interfering with other countries' domestic affairs? In some ways globalization
may be useful in creating a common sense of "world citizenship", but
useful to what extent? What are the possibilities, advantages and risks of such
"world citizenship"? Are the United Nations and the European Union,
stepping stones to globalization? Disappearing borders, in the economic meaning
of the term can most clearly be seen today in Europe. The European Union
restricts taxes on trade between members. Taking a step further the EU have
decided on a common currency, the "Euro" , which became available at
the beginning of 1999. This currency may economically be more functional but
what aboutnational pride? All trade units display a country's well known heros
or great personalities of them that the citizens respect for. How are the
citizens going to respond to this kind of change time will show but nobody can
say European countries are not nationalistic. There is a strong evidence on the
contrary. One example is world war II, which started in the middle of Europe-
-considered then the most civilized part of the world- because of Germany's
belief in its national superiority. This unfortunate development took place just
half a century ago.These European nation-states may seem to be getting along
well for the time being because of fairly smilar economic levels but what will
happen if one country's economic level drops or gets much better than the rest?
Would the better ones pull up the worst to keep up with them or would those
countries-having the best economy- want to carry the rest on their shoulders?
Besides its economic ups and downs globalization has a tremendous effect on
cultural values. World has a cultural diversity in itself. Every nation every
country has its own traditions values practices of cultural activities. These
create a diversity which every part of the world can be pointed out by their own
characteristics. By the beginning 20th century with the effects of
industrialization and common usage of communication devices and transpotation
becoming faster and more comfortable economy started to play the most important
role in a state's political policies. Trade became one of the main incomes of
the countries and trade required close interaction between countries and
decisions were started to be taken to ease traders by governments. This attitude
of governments have led economic affairs to shape up cultural practices of
states. As the cultures were revised by economy, stronger economies emposed
their cultural practices to the weak ones. This if not stopped will continue
until cultural erosion destroys cultural diversity over the world. "The
export of Western commodities, values, priorities, ways of life. In a process of
unequal cultural encounter, 'foreign' populations have been compelled to be the
subjects and subalterns of Western empire, while, no less significantly, the
West has come to face with the 'alien' and exotic culture of its 'Other'.
Globalization, as it dissolves the barriers of distance, makes the encounter of
colonial center and colonized periphery immediate and intense"
(1995:108)." "The current century has seen a magnitude of rise and
fall of political power and economical, political, social and structural
changes, which without doubt have influenced any society's culture that was
touched. From the imperial ages early this century, Europe in particular has
seen the decline of the colonial power, the democratization and communization,
the rise and fall of totalitarian, nationalistic and socialist regimes, and
their decline. Europe has also experienced the fall from economic and political
superpower, in a century that was for a long time been best characterized as the
USSR-USA century. Equally Asia has been struck by fundamental changes: from the
imperial China to the communist China, the rise of the Tiger Economies, the
Vietnam war, the Korean war, the independence of India, the Iran Iraq war, the
Gulf war,... to name just a few." Since economy plays the most important
role or is the main criteria in a country's prestige and power; economically
strong states started to have more power on international affairs. Such strength
of some countries have led them to interpret the term globalization as their
right to interfere with weaker states' domestic affairs. The most recent event
we could observe about this issue was the attack of the US to Iraq on Ramadan
-the religiously important month of Muslims. The reason and aim of the bombing
were explained by the US Foreign Affairs Minister, Ms. Albright, exactly as
"We -as the US- will do what is needed for Iraqi people to get what they
deserve as better life standarts." This statement could be interpreted in
two different ways that are very far away in meaning from each other. It could
either be viewed optimistically as US really cares about the future of Iraqi
people and want to do something good for them. Or a pessimistic approach could
be such that: US sees itself as the judge of the world and decide what is good
or bad for everyone. The second approach is not the majority believe its right
but this is still a failure of interpretation of globalization, travelling
overseas to bomb. "During the time this Commission has been at work, we
have witnessed the currencies of Europe held hostage by forces of speculation
themselves out of control. Powerful economies confronted each other on the
threshold of trade wars, while marginal ones collapsed. There was ethnic
cleansing in the Balkans, a 'failed state' in Somalia, and genocide in Rwanda.
Nuclear weapons lay unsecured in the former Soviet Union, and neo- Fascism
surfaced in the West." Caring about the whole world and not just the
territory one lives in is the starting point of the idea: "World
Citizenship". If we are living in the world we have to be aware of what's
going on around us and if possible do something for the better of the world.
This may include environmental issues as well as political ones. However, world
citizenship must not be understood as forgetting national and cultural values of
one's own and only care about the whole. If interpreted like this the idea of
world citizenship also becomes a threat to cultural diversity. "Formally
the equivalence can be so stated: nationalism has as a central political demand
the establishment of a state on a territory, exclusive of other states on that
territory, populated by a group formed by involuntary membership of an inclusive
category, usually "descendants of past inhabitants of the territory".
Normative globalism seeks a state with planetary territory, and a monopoly of
that territory, paralleling the monopoly claim of nationalism itself. [5] All
humans would belong to that state (as citizens) by reason of being human and/or
inhabiting the planet, without any choice in the matter. In its central claim
normative globalism is equivalent to nationalism: it is semantically correct to
describe it as a form of nationalism." As a result globalization may be
useful in economic affairs but the limits shoul be drawn concisely that it does
not threaten cultural diversity and nationalism. Governments shoul take special
care against cultural erosion and stop resmbling of cultures with the effects of
ecomonics.

BibliographyCommunications and Culture Transformation Cultural Diversity, Globalization
and Cultural Convergence Project presented to the European University, Barcelona
June 1998 http://www.stephweb.com/capstone/3.htm Political and socio-economical
changes CNN Special Report-Press Meeting on the issue of Bombing Iraq Our Global
Neighbourhood The Report of the Commission on Global Governance Chapter Seven --
A Call to Action The Next Steps http://www.cgg.ch/ch7.htm#Summary of Commission
Proposals World-nationalism: normative globalism as pan-nationalism http://www.diagonal.demon.nl/world.nation.html