Is globalisation a neutral process?
Revision as of 21:42, 26 November 2009 by Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Created page with '*Do you think the process of globalisation becomes naturally neutral or are we ought to interfere in this process? *If so, how far can we acutally interfere? *Would you consider …')
- Do you think the process of globalisation becomes naturally neutral or are we ought to interfere in this process?
- If so, how far can we acutally interfere?
- Would you consider colonialism as a form of early globalisation?
- Do you think globalisation is the only reason for terror?
- Is there a possiblity to minimise the risk of terror or avoid it at all although some countries are or will be excluded from the globalisation process?
- Do you think there is a winwin strategy or do we just need to aim for one to make the best of a bad job?
- How can emerging countries use globalization to overcome the big developing differences to industrial countries?
- From your perspective and experience: Does globalization have the potential to improve a conflict not related to this phenomenon for example the Israel-Palestine-conflict or even to make it worse? (We are hiding terms like globalization of information, news, culture, weapons and so on…)
- What is the view of the population in Kuweit on globalisation regarding a win-win-strategy? Do they seek a win-win-situation for everybody?
- Is it already impossible to create fair prices worldwide? Or are the institutions just not willing to change the status quo? If so, is the EU parliament willing and planning to engage? Do you have examples from your work in the EU parliament?
- Are there some examples you can share with us in relation to unfairly world trade system and terror in particular?