Global Integration

A brief history of intellectual property rights… Development economists claim that international properly law is crucial for the individual development of countries, specifically those which are still going through the development process; that a countries economic success is often based around how much creativity it generates and can turn into property rights. In this spirit the World Trade Association in 1994 attempted to implement homogeneous laws in order to defend these rights. This original agreement makes it possible for laws to be suspended during emergencies. This agreement was abandoned two years latter with the realization that developing countries, especially those without a manufacturing sector, are always in a state of emergency. Indeed, the WTO now states that any country that falls under the poorly defined heading of being without “manufacturing capacities” can import generic drugs; 50% of them coming from none other than India itself. (Although in 2005 India began created stricter International Property law)  So the questions is… what is the effect of International Property law  and how must it be revised in order to ensure that human rights are satisfied, without hampering the innovation that allows for the creation of vital drugs. Alas, this is the same dilemma which faces the American health care system but taken to the extreme. Morally, can we let people suffer and die without medication so that money can be put (hopefully) into Research and Development?    Certainly, there should be barriers to keep fairly well of countries to simply make a profit out of distributing generic drugs. Perhaps as an alternative approach aid should go into creating  make shift drug companies within the focus country, while more well off countries are in effect forces to “share the wealth” of the US’s  R&D burden. But alas, if it were that easy it most likely would have already been done, and government corruption still remains a problem. A realization of patent law would be more possible if the US government would spend more on R&D, with the plusses being that international patent law could be relaxed slightly without causing too much harm, and that the United States would begin attracting more jobs (granted the work supply of scientists is developed along with it.) More help also needs to come from developed countries as far as developing infrastructures to allow for the development of international industries, and with distributing immediate help. Bush’s five year plan to combat HIV and aids being one example of this type of aid. Current US foreign policy could also be reshaped from its current position where free trade agreements are based around weather or not a country enforces international patent law. Until, we begin implementing (successfully) more of the things listed above, it IS necessary that countries like India keep manufacturing generic drugs without being fearful of loosing out on trade agreements.

Elmo! When it comes to foreign aid, Elmo is one of America’s most helpful exports, because Sesamie Streat is a proven learning tool that translates well into all cultures, with some changes in charicters. Their are currentlly plans to set up a Sesamie Streat program in Indonesia to add to the twenty different versions of the show that exist around the world in 120 different countries.The show is changed enough to reflect culural values, but the basic learning principles remain the same. we start at the begginig to form (partlly through US foreign aid) the type of educated electorate wich is neaded to sproat democracy. This only workes if the people are well off enough to hav tellivision access, but as hopefully as technology spreads, so will Sesamie Streat and other teacher facilitating programs. Below is a URL to an article…

 http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2006/Apr/05-346904.html

One of the things that the Ambassador said was how America inspires nationalism worldwide; a very worrying idea. What separates us more than nationalism? Was this not the catalyst that set off WW1?  Indeed the same forcefulness in which we put forth in Iraq in an order to democratize the Middle East, and the same passion in which we bring to our supposed ‘War on Terror’, is what is bringing forth a sense of nationalism based on American hatred which has become the breading ground for terrorism and animosity. Possibly, it has become the ‘anti- globalizer.’ If countries continually fear loosing legitimacy based on the whims of the United States, how will trust ever form? If trust can not form, than how will free trade develop? I don’t pretend to be an expert on foreign policy, but I think an important question in globalization is how much American foreign policy (not just American money) influences how the world views western democracy and our ideals (democracy, free market), and to what extent it helps to put fuel to the fire of animosity that exist between different racial groups, and between the west and the east. Friedman makes the point that poor people don’t mind being poor as long as they have opportunities. I would make the point that poor/ weak countries do care if they feel they do not have autonomy, and that this fear, as the ambassador points out, leads to unintended consequences, especially when it comes to working together. For instance, Pakistan’s views of the United States as a threat to the region only hampers inter-country relations. It is this form of animosity that will lead to sanctions which very certainly hamper free trade. It might be more conductive to the US relations with Cuba if it removed such sanctions; Hamburgers, not hate.