Ethical Globalization And The African Course

The controversies over ethics and morality in the global setting are beset by complications of what is the subject of the discussion and what influences globalization has on the features of societies in an international system. However, there are some international truth that must unfold before everything controversial in international politics and the ideal mystery of the Big Five can be settled within themselves without rubbing other nations of their mal-Unity. Are there many reasonable moral views, some of which stand in contradiction, in the world? Are there universal moral norms which no state or person may disregard without being blameworthy from the moral point of view? Is a “my citizens first” ethic compatible with right behavior? Who, if anyone, answers morally for the destruction of lives and ways of life in foreign countries through the consumption of richer countries? And how does all this apply to international law? If these questions and numerous others cannot be answered, then i m afraid that the Unity and life span of UN is limited to grand zero actualization, despite past height in international peace reconciliators. The bridge that binds nations together under the ties of the UN will be broken forever, and the result will be constant political unrest, International evils in economy, technology and discovery, Terrorism and Wars, usurpation of National Sovereignty, disloyalty to international constitution as it reflects the UN, national ego-ideal focus, bilateral and trade exploitation, increase in embargo due to fear of the unknown apart from terroristic attacks, decease and death.

Well, in terms of its beneficial inter-relatedness, numerous coefficients serve to warm up African Consciousness, which has started to take effect. In the areas of Global Mutiny and economic considerations, Africa which they term as developing has arrived at the isles to be self peopled conscious, and to my opinion, this is advancement taking place…So Globalization can be taken from either sense as classed economy or the United Nation’s perception of power tussles. So what i will like to know also is the random ideas which the Big Five has in post economic exploitation of the more sensitized and conscientized African Communities that claims to be moving towards development. On one hand, you cannot begin to persecute their involvement with these African nations, and thereby unjustifying their wishes and aspiration. The Big five is just certainly the problem of the world, and the UN knows this. They are still the actors of colonization, and during these age of technology, they have adopted advance techniques and warfare to push their devices into sorting for higher egoistic good in Africa, and somehow in the Middle east; as an African Political philosopher Professor Ayodele Adebayo put the terms, “there is only one war to be fought, and this is simply for economy reasons, and man’s utmost agitation to alienate his fellow man” Therefore, it is wise that Nations through the UN ties should come together and reason out ways of settling the cold war tussle between the Big Five. Because they are the only ones that can help in structuring out facets for international relationships through globalizations, Trades, investment and social and international securities. They must collectively fight a just course and call the middle east to globalized dialogue, instead of the threat given to them through sanctions – they must carrying them along in every advance and agenda morality, this is inclusive of the ethical justification for all as reasons by member nations who are themselves not among the Big, which includes USA, Russia, China, Britain and Japan. In one word, this cannot work as it is a reflection of bias and annihilation of the less developed nations. Meanwhile there are some other areas that the executive councils of the UN can formulate to bring to book those articulate policies that leads to Strategic progress and a back off of African Land. This is not just done to Africans alone, the middle east are also affected. No wonder the increase in terrorism and wars. The purpose of UN was to bring about bilateral relationship among nations, and for them to help each member states in reconstructing the war dilapidated areas of the world war two and poorer nations.

During that decade, many countries, often those born of decolonization amidst colonization, revealed themselves to be no more than pseudostates, without solid institutions, internal cohesion, or national consciousness. The end of communist coercion in the former Soviet Union and in the former Yugoslavia also revealed long-hidden ethnic tensions. Minorities that were or considered themselves oppressed demanded independence. In Iraq, Sudan and Afghanistan rulers waged open warfare against their subjects. These wars increased the importance of humanitarian interventions, which came at the expense of the hallowed principles of national sovereignty and nonintervention. Thus the dominant tension of the decade was the clash between the fragmentation of states (and the state system) and the progress of economic, cultural, and political integration — in other words, globalization.

Everybody has understood the events of September 11 as the beginning of a new era. But what does this break mean? In the conventional approach to international relations, war took place among states. But in September, poorly armed individuals suddenly challenged, surprised, and wounded the world’s dominant superpower. The attacks also showed that, for all its accomplishments, globalization makes an awful form of violence easily accessible to hopeless fanatics. Although this is what the world see them to be, but in my humble Opinion, they are just bunch of depressed souls wondering and contemplating the level of torture they have received from the Big Five. And this was only possible through their involvement with the UN, hence UN only served as a citadel of post economic colonial Masters. Terrorism is the bloody link between interstate relations and global society. As countless individuals and groups are becoming global actors along with states, insecurity and vulnerability are rising. To assess today’s bleak state of affairs, therefore, several questions are necessary. What concepts help explain the new global order? What is the condition of the interstate part of international relations? And what does the emerging global civil society contribute to world order? These and many more are the necessary contingent questions that must be answered by the Big Five, in technical terms they are the Global policy. In theory they monitor the political excesses of nations why they pressed for the reserves of self consciousness and own national benefits. In Becomes imperative that the Big Five became threat to the developing and less advance nations in terms of Global warfares of all kinds, raging from the accumulations of nuclear weapons and economic arrest through sanctions.

Two models made a great deal of noise in the 1990s. The first one — Francis Fukuyama’s “End of History” thesis — was not vindicated by events. To be sure, his argument predicted the end of ideological conflicts, not history itself, and the triumph of political and economic liberalism. That point is correct in a narrow sense: the “secular religions” that fought each other so bloodily in the last century are now dead. But Fukuyama failed to note that nationalism remains very much alive. Moreover, he ignored the explosive potential of religious wars that has extended to a large part of the Islamic world. That even the less religious tolerated nations now embark on religious Mutiny and rivalry, it is now being fashioned as perpetuated by political insensitive of Politicians in most African countries.

Fukuyama’s academic mentor, the political scientist Samuel Huntington, provided a few years later a gloomier account that saw a very different world. Huntington predicted that violence resulting from international anarchy and the absence of common values and institutions would erupt among civiliza

tions rather than among states or ideologies. But Huntington’s conception of what constitutes a civilization was hazy. He failed to take into account sufficiently conflicts within each so-called civilization, and he overestimated the importance of religion in the behavior of non-Western elites, who are often secularized and Westernized. Hence he could not clearly define the link between a civilization and the foreign policies of its member states. Meanwhile he was able to fashion a model for lasting economic solutions through the realization of the elite poorer nations. There was an institution that was built to conscientize citizens and the national polity in terms of national allegiance of which they owe a mechanical solidarity.