Amid the Green Revolution of the mid-20th century and the growing voice of global actors, innovations across the agricultural sector gave hope to the idea of ending the international hunger crisis. Of these innovations, genetically modified organisms, commonly known as GMOs, embodied the forefront in groundbreaking technology. A GMO refers to any living organism whose genetic makeup has been artificially manipulated through genetic engineering.[1] GMOs opened a new world of possibilities — genetic engineering now allowed for the existence of genes in organisms that would not occur through traditional crossbreeding methods. From glow-in-the-dark fish to goats that could spin spider webs,[2] genetic modification was touted among the scientific community as limitless in the scope and span of what it could achieve.

In the decades following the inception of genetic engineering, debates over solutions to Africa’s growing hunger crisis increasingly intertwined with that of GMO usage. Amid a now growing 264.2 million people facing undernourishment in Sub-Saharan Africa,[3] genetically modified (GM) crops pose an alluring solution to this challenge. Pest resilience, drought tolerance, increased yield, and longer shelf life were just some of the modifications that GM crops could achieve.[4] Yet despite its seemingly miraculous capabilities, GMOs have been curiously underutilized in Sub-Saharan countries. Out of the 54 countries in Africa, only five of them — Egypt, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Sudan, and Nigeria — allow for GM crops to be commercially grown.[5]

Several nuanced economic and political considerations underlie Africa’s firm stance against GMOs. To further delve into this issue, one must start with the intricate history of capitalism and monopolization within the global agriculture sector. At the same time that genetic engineering continued to advance, agribusinesses utilizing GM technology continued to consolidate. As of 2019, four seed companies control more than 75 percent of plant breeding research, 60 percent of the commercial seed market, and 76 percent of global agrochemical sales.[6] This number is likely to increase in the coming years, with large agribusiness corporations expanding their acquisitions by buying out small firms to accumulate intellectual property rights. Besides causing less variability of crops and higher food prices, this monopolization also engenders less innovation and stricter restrictions over seed usage.[7][8]

The consequences of this consolidation frequently manifest in current practice. In 2018, agribusiness company Bayer absorbed Monsanto following a $63 billion buyout.[9] The company has since gained control of 98 percent of trait markers for herbicide-resistant soybeans and 79 percent of trait markers for herbicide-resistant corn.[10] Such monopolies over a GM crop pose significant ramifications for biodiversity, food security, and democratic ideals. Monopolies decrease market variability, lending itself to price control autonomy and less innovation.[11] Bayer, for instance, holds patents for ‘genetic use restriction technology’ — genetically modified seeds that are sterile which farmers are unable to resow with.[12] Facing backlash that such technology was unethical, Bayer and similar companies instead began forcing  contracts onto farmers stating that they cannot save and replant patented seeds.[13] As a result, farmers must purchase new seeds from the agribusiness each season.

While critics may claim that this is done to protect the intellectual property of the company, full control of the seed creates a dangerous cycle of dependency between buyer and seller, especially in monopolized industries. Besides the publicity large corporations gain when they offer to donate to impoverished countries, these corporations also possess an economic incentive to donate, as the GM seeds donated require additional and expensive inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides that must be bought from these corporations.[14] Other times, the GM seeds themselves may permanently change the soil quality,[15] causing non-GM seeds to not be able to grow in the soil in later seasons. Both these scenarios quickly lend themselves to codependency between farmer and agribusiness, allowing for the seed lenders to increase their prices when no other competition exists in the available market.

Despite this, ​for those that choose to go down this path, do the potential benefits of famine alleviation outweigh the hefty price tag of using GM crops? South Africa provides a relevant case study. The country is the largest producer of GM crops in Africa and the ninth largest worldwide.[16] South Africa began its usage of GM crops in 1996, starting with genetically modified maize and later progressing to cotton and soybean variants in the following years.[17] The country’s staple crop, maize, now has GM variations making up 80 percent of the maize consumed within the country.[18] While the country’s maize production has increased from 8.3 million tons in 1996 to an estimated 16.3 million tons in 2022,[19] famine and malnutrition have yet to be solved. From 1999 to 2008, those at risk of hunger in South Africa rose from 23 percent to 25 percent, amounting to nearly 15 million people.[20] At the same time, food insecurity in the present day still affects 46 percent of South African households, with 27 percent facing stunted growth and 44 percent being deficient of vital nutrients, vitamins, and minerals.[21]

 Thus, though GM crops have allowed for increased yield, millions of South Africans still face hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition. It is not a food shortage, then, but rather a misallocation of resources and economic instability — partly stemming from GMO usage — that contributes to the ongoing hunger epidemic. While countries like South Africa may produce enough food, the increase in prices from GMO agribusinesses causes many farmers to be unable to afford the seeds and associated inputs.[22] Empirical research also shows that trade liberalization and the increased presence of foreign industries in developing countries, like that of agribusiness, induces increased income inequality, slower decline in poverty, and lower consumption growth.[23] GMOs have demonstrated promise as an intrinsically beneficial technology; however, the rampant monopolization of corporations and corruption within governments unwilling to pass antitrust laws make its use inaccessible for both farmers and consumers alike.

While many reasons exist to explain why farmers are unwilling to use GMOs — such as misinformation, reliance on European trade, and uncertainty about long-term effects[24] — allowing for affordability remains the crucial first step that will help the livelihood of Sub-Saharan Africans. Agricultural companies specializing in genetic modification must be held responsible in adhering to fair market prices, environmental regulations, and health standards. The growing monopolization within the agriculture sector must be halted to ensure that farmers are able to adequately participate in the market for their own economic benefit as well as their communities’. This problem is not just endemic to the agriculture sector. To ensure that citizens continue to afford basic necessities like food, local governments and state institutions must protect their people’s place in the market system unburdened by foreign enterprises. In doing so, GMOs may finally achieve what they were envisioned to do over fifty years ago — ending the ongoing food crisis.

Works Cited

[1] Diaz, J. M. and Fridovich-Keil, Judith L., “genetically modified organism,” Encyclopedia Britannica, October 19, 2022, https://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism.

[2] Tanya Lewis, “Genetically Modified Animal Experiments,” Business Insider, October 17, 2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/genetically-modified-animal-experiments-2015-10#glow-in-the-dark-mice-2.

[3] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2021. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all. Rome, FAO, https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en.

[4] Martignago, Damiano, Andrés Rico-Medina, David Blasco-Escámez, Juan B. Fontanet-Manzaneque, and Ana L. Caño-Delgado, “Drought Resistance by Engineering Plant Tissue-Specific Responses,” Frontiers, 2020, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01676/full.

[5] Sarah Eichstadt, “Pros and Cons of GMOs in Africa,” The Borgen Project, 2021, https://borgenproject.org/gmos-in-africa/.

[6] “GMOs & Seeds — Food & Power,” Food & Power, https://www.foodandpower.net/gmos-seeds.

[7] Thomas J. Holmes, David K. Levine, and James A. Schmitz, “Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions,” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4, no. 3 (2012): 1–33, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23249909.

[8] Taimoon Stewart, “The Functioning of Patent Monopoly Rights in Developing Economies: In Whose Interests?,” Social and Economic Studies 49, no. 1 (2000): 1–52, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27865179.

[9] Pharmaceutical Technology Editors. “Bayer Completes Monsanto Acquisition for $63 Billion,” PharmTech, 2018, https://www.pharmtech.com/view/bayer-completes-monsanto-acquisition-63-billion-0.

[10] “GMOs & Seeds — Food & Power”.

[11] Holmes, Thomas J., David K. Levine, and James A. Schmitz.

[12] Luca Lombardo, “Genetic use restriction technologies: a review,” Plant biotechnology journal vol. 12,8 (2014): 995-1005, doi:10.1111/pbi.12242.

[13] La Via Campesina, “Seed laws that criminalise farmers: resistance and fightback,” GRAIN, 2015, https://grain.org/article/entries/5142-seed-laws-that-criminalise-farmers-resistance-and-fightback.

[14] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Division on Earth and Life Studies, Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, (N.p.: National Academies Press, 2016).

[15] Na Liu et al., “Effect on soil chemistry of genetically modified (GM) vs. non-GM maize,” GM crops vol. 1,3 (2010): 157-61, doi:10.4161/gmcr.1.3.12810.

[16] “Lessons from Africa’s largest producer of GMO crops – Route To Food,” Route to Food, 2018, https://routetofood.org/lessons-from-africas-largest-producer-of-gmo-crops/.

[17] Veslemøy Anderson, Genetically Modified and Irradiated Food: Controversial Issues: Facts Versus Perceptions, (London: Academic Press, 2020).

[18] Andrea Teagle, “SA’s genetically modified maize: Here’s what you should know about it,” Daily Maverick, 2015, https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-07-15-sas-genetically-modified-maize-heres-what-you-should-know-about-it/.

[19] “Crop Explorer – World Agricultural Production (WAP) Briefs – Southern Africa,” n.d, International Production Assessment Division (IPAD) – USDA, https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?regionid=safrica&ftype=prodbriefs.

[20] Demetre Labadarios et al., “Food security in South Africa: a review of national surveys,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization vol. 89,12 (2011): 891-9, doi:10.2471/BLT.11.089243.

[21] Demetre Labadarios et al.

[22] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Division on Earth and Life Studies.

[23] Petia Topalova, “Factor Immobility and Regional Impacts of Trade Liberalization: Evidence on Poverty from India,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2, no. 4 (2010): 1–41, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25760231.

[24] Jennifer A. Thomson, “Why is Africa reluctant to use GMO crops?,” The World Economic Forum, 2015, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/why-is-africa-reluctant-to-use-gmo-crops/.

Amid the Green Revolution of the mid-20th century and the growing voice of global actors, innovations across the agricultural sector gave hope to the idea of ending the international  hunger crisis. Of these innovations, GMOs—formally known as genetically modified organisms—led the forefront in groundbreaking technology. Referring to any living organisms whose genetic makeup has been artificially manipulated through genetic engineering [1], GMOs opened up a new world of possibilities. Genetic engineering allowed for the existence of genes in organisms that wouldn’t occur through traditional crossbreeding methods. From glow-in-the-dark fish to goats that could spin spider webs [2], genetic modification was touted among the scientific community as limitless in the scope and span of what it could achieve. 

In the following decades of genetic engineering’s inception, of the world’s many problems, debates over solutions to Africa’s growing hunger crisis had been increasingly intermixed with that of GMO usage. Amidst a now growing 264.2 million people facing undernourishment in Sub-Saharan Africa [3], genetically modified (GM) crops pose an alluring solution to this challenge. Pest resilience, drought tolerance, increased yield, and longer shelf life were just some of the modifications that GM crops could achieve [4]. So, in spite of its seemingly miraculous capabilities, why has GMOs been so underutilized in Sub-Saharan countries both present-day and historically? Out of the 54 countries in Africa, only five of them—Egypt, South Africa, Burkina Faso, Sudan, and Nigeria—allow for GM crops to be commercially grown [5].

The answer to this question is rather nuanced, with several economic and political considerations affecting Africa’s firm stance against GMOs. To further delve into this issue, one must start with the mired history of capitalism and monopolization within the global agriculture sector. At the same time that genetic engineering continued to advance, agribusinesses utilizing GM technology continued to consolidate. In the present day, four seed companies control more than 75% of plant breeding research, 60% of the commercial seed market, and 76% of global agrochemical sales [6]. This number is likely to increase in coming years, with large agribusiness corporations expanding their acquisitions by buying out small firms to accumulate increased intellectual property rights. Besides causing less variability of crops and higher food prices, this monopolization also lends itself to less innovation and stricter restrictions over seed usage [7] [8]. 

We can see this effect in current practice. In 2018, agribusiness company Bayer absorbed Monsanto following a $63 billion buyout [9]. Since then, the company has gained control of 98% of trait markers for herbicide-resistant soybeans and 79% of trait markers for herbicide-resistant corn [10]. Consequently, the ability to control a monopoly over a GM crop poses significant ramifications for biodiversity, food security, and democratic ideals. Monopolies decrease market variability, lending itself to price control autonomy and less innovation [11]. Bayer, for instance, holds patents for ‘genetic use restriction technology—genetically modified seeds that are sterile which farmers are unable to resow with [12]. Amid backlash that such technology was unethical, Bayer and like companies instead now employ contracts onto farmers stating that they cannot save and replant patented seeds [13]. In turn, this means that farmers must purchase new seeds from the agribusiness each season. 

While critics may claim that this is done to protect the intellectual property of the company, full control of the seed creates a dangerous cycle of dependency between buyer and seller, especially in monopolized industries. Beyond the publicity large corporations gain when they offer to donate to impoverished countries, these corporations are also economically incentivized to do so as well. Sometimes, the GM seeds donated require additional and expensive inputs like fertilizers, pesticides, or herbicides that must be bought from these corporations [14]. Other times, the GM seeds themselves may permanently change the soil quality [15], causing non-GM seeds to not be able to grow in the soil in later seasons. Both these scenarios quickly lend themselves to codependency between farmer and agribusiness, allowing for the seed lenders to increase their prices when no other competition exists in the available market.

Despite this, ​for those that choose to go down this path, do the potential benefits of famine alleviation outweigh the hefty price tag of using GM crops? Looking at South Africa as a case study, the country itself is the largest producer of GM crops in Africa and the ninth largest worldwide [16]. South Africa began its usage of GM crops in 1996, starting with genetically modified maize and later progressing to cotton and soybean variants in following years [17]. In turn, the country’s staple crop, maize, now has GM variations making up 80% of the maize consumed within the country [18]. While the country’s maize production has increased from 8.3 million tons in 1996 to an estimated 16.3 million tons in 2022 [19], famine and malnutrition still have yet to be solved. From 1999 to 2008, those at risk of hunger rose from 23% to 25% [20]. At the same time, food insecurity in the present day still affects 46% of South African households with 27% facing stunted growth and 44% being deficient of vital nutrients, vitamins, and minerals [21]. 

So why is it that although GM crops may have allowed for increased yield, millions of South Africans still face hunger, food insecurity, and malnutrition? In turn, it is not a food shortage, but rather a misallocation of resources and economic instability—partly stemming from GMO usage—that contributes to the ongoing hunger epidemic. While countries like South Africa may produce enough food, the increase in prices from GMO agribusinesses drive many farmers to be unable to afford the seeds and associated inputs [22]. At the same time, empirical research shows that trade liberalization and the increased presence of foreign industries in developing countries, like that of agribusiness, have caused increased income inequality, slower decline in poverty, and lower consumption growth [23]. GMOs have shown promise through a multitude of beneficial factors, however the gross monopolization of corporations and corruption within governments unwilling to pass antitrust laws make its use inaccessible for both farmers and consumers alike.

So, while there exist many reasons that farmers are unwilling to use GMOs—misinformation, reliance on European trade, uncertainty about long-term effects, etc. [24]—allowing for affordability may be the first step that will help the livelihood of Sub-Saharan Africans. Agricultural companies specializing in genetic modification must be held responsible in adhering to fair market prices, environmental regulations, and health standards. The growing monopolization within the agriculture sector must be halted to ensure that farmers are able to adequately participate in the market for themselves and their communities. This problem is not just endemic to the agriculture sector. To ensure economic stability so that citizens continue to afford basic necessities like food, local and state governments must ensure that their people continue to have a place in the market system unburdened by foreign enterprises. In doing so, GMOs may finally achieve what it was envisioned to do over fifty years ago—ending the ongoing food crisis.

References

[1] Diaz, J. M. and Fridovich-Keil, . Judith L. 2021. “genetically modified organism.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism.

[2] Lewis, Tanya. 2015. “Genetically Modified Animal Experiments.” Business Insider. October 17, 2015. https://www.businessinsider.com/genetically-modified-animal-experiments-2015-10#glow-in-the-dark-mice-2.

[3] FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO. 2021. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en.

[4] Martignago, Damiano, Andrés Rico-Medina, David Blasco-Escámez, Juan B. Fontanet-Manzaneque, and Ana L. Caño-Delgado. 2020. “Drought Resistance by Engineering Plant Tissue-Specific Responses.” Frontiers. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01676/full.

[5] Eichstadt, Sarah. 2021. “Pros and Cons of GMOs in Africa.” The Borgen Project. https://borgenproject.org/gmos-in-africa.

[6] “GMOs & Seeds — Food & Power.” n.d. Food & Power. https://www.foodandpower.net/gmos-seeds.

[7] Holmes, Thomas J., David K. Levine, and James A. Schmitz. 2012. “Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4, no. 3: 1–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23249909.

[8] Stewart, Taimoon. 2000. “The Functioning of Patent Monopoly Rights in Developing Economies: In Whose Interests?” Social and Economic Studies 49, no. 1: 1–52. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27865179.

[9] Pharmaceutical Technology Editors. 2018. “Bayer Completes Monsanto Acquisition for $63 Billion.” PharmTech. https://www.pharmtech.com/view/bayer-completes-monsanto-acquisition-63-billion-0.

[10] Food and Power.

[11] Thomas J. Holmes, David K. Levine, and James A. Schmitz.

[12] Lombardo, Luca. 2014. “Genetic use restriction technologies: a review.” Plant biotechnology journal vol. 12,8: 995-1005. doi:10.1111/pbi.12242.

[13] La Via Campesina. 2015. “Seed laws that criminalise farmers: resistance and fightback.” GRAIN. https://grain.org/article/entries/5142-seed-laws-that-criminalise-farmers-resistance-and-fightback.

[14] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Division on Earth and Life Studies. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. N.p.: National Academies Press.

[15] Liu, Na et al. 2010. “Effect on soil chemistry of genetically modified (GM) vs. non-GM maize.” GM crops vol. 1,3: 157-61. doi:10.4161/gmcr.1.3.12810.

[16] “Lessons from Africa’s largest producer of GMO crops – Route To Food.” 2018. Route to Food. https://routetofood.org/lessons-from-africas-largest-producer-of-gmo-crops.

[17] Andersen, Veslemøy, ed. 2020. Genetically Modified and Irradiated Food: Controversial Issues: Facts Versus Perceptions. N.p.: Elsevier Science.

[18] Teagle, Andrea. 2015. “SA’s genetically modified maize: Here’s what you should know about it.” Daily Maverick. https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2015-07-15-sas-genetically-modified-maize-heres-what-you-should-know-about-it.

[19] “Crop Explorer – World Agricultural Production (WAP) Briefs – Southern Africa.” n.d. International Production Assessment Division (IPAD) – USDA. https://ipad.fas.usda.gov/cropexplorer/pecad_stories.aspx?regionid=safrica&ftype=prodbriefs.

[20] Labadarios, Demetre et al. 2011. “Food security in South Africa: a review of national surveys.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization vol. 89,12: 891-9. doi:10.2471/BLT.11.089243

[21] Ibid.

[22] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience and Future Prospects, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Division on Earth and Life Studies.

[23] Topalova, Petia. 2010. “Factor Immobility and Regional Impacts of Trade Liberalization: Evidence on Poverty from India.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2, no. 4: 1–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25760231.

[24] Thomson, Jennifer A. 2015. “Why is Africa reluctant to use GMO crops?” The World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/07/why-is-africa-reluctant-to-use-gmo-crops.

This year Yale Model United Nations introduced an essay contest as one of its new educational initiatives. For this contest, delegates were asked to submit a brief piece examining an aspect of globalization and how it has transformed the modern world. From an incredible selective pool the top three essays have been selected for publication online on YRIS. The following is the Third Place essay by Margaret Victory.

Written by Margaret Victory

My daily perusal through Instagram a few nights ago was interrupted by the message “#stoppoaching,” followed by the horrific image of a blindfolded rhinoceros about to be stripped of its horn. Naturally, most teenagers, cocooned by the luxuries of a first-world country, protected from the dark and distant worlds of conflict and crisis, will experience a fervent emotional response to such a picture of the rhinoceros. I started to witness dozens of teens suddenly proclaim their desire to “#stoppoaching,” but I wondered if any of my peers who had developed this newfound ethical morality had known about the multiple previous efforts to control poaching. Due to porous international trade barriers and the seemingly contradictory nature of globalization, the poaching of endangered species has become a global topic for discussion; the question is, how can the international community minimize poaching while also accounting for the positive and negative effects of such actions?

For the purposes of a more specific essay, I will concentrate on the poaching of black and white rhinos in southern African nations, a region with a long history of attempting to create manageable poaching levels thanks to government participation and aid from private organizations. It is important to first consider why people have continuously turned to poaching, and the answer is simple: money. In a global context, the horn of a rhino is valuable especially in Asian nations due to century-old traditions. Traditional Chinese medicine, for example, calls for ground rhino horn to treat multiple ailments including headaches and gout (1). The use of the rhino horn has persisted despite the taboo of poaching due to the fact that the horn is seen as a pharmaceutical necessity. Not only this, but new uses for the horn are developing in nations like Vietnam, whose wealthy citizens buy the horn for its emotional benefits, “as it reaffirms their social status among their peers” (2). Because of this, the demand for the scarce, valuable horn has been consistent and horns can run up to $60,000 (4). Thus, it is obvious why some impoverished citizens in southern African countries are eager to engage in rhino poaching.

The international community first responded to initial increases of poaching levels in the 1970s when CITES, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, was implemented. Within the first Appendix, a ban was placed on all trade involving rhino horn (8). It was hoped that such ban would effectively tackle the poaching crisis however, the convention failed to recognize that where consumer demand exists, supply will be available even in the face of a trade ban. The immediate result of the ban was a drastic increase in the price of rhino horn on the market, which consequently drove up the value in the eyes of consumers. This rise in the price level of rhino horn would provide further incentive for poachers to continue killing the rhinos. The negative effects of the initial ban caused the creators of CITES to encourage more countries to establish a ban on rhino horn trade and “the US government threatened four remaining key consumer countries with trade sanctions unless they passed and enforced strict domestic laws against the use and sale of rhino horn” (6). The effect of this was initially positive, due to the fact that the number of black rhinos began to increase. However, the demand of consumers was still not addressed which is why East Asian interest in purchasing the horn picked up in the early 21st century.

The rise in rhino poaching was met with reactions from private, NGOs, since the legislation of CITES was evidently not enough to control the issue. From the perspective of multiple non-governmental organizations, the problem that needed to be tackled was the maintenance of consumer demand. By working to reduce international consumption of endangered species products, such as rhino horn, as well as enhancing conservation support, these NGOs address the problems that international diplomacy failed to do. For example, WildAid’s slogan is “when the buying stops, the killing can too” (7).

Proponents of demand reduction are met with large criticism, however, since private rhino owners in African nations believe that legal trade in rhino horns may be the most successful method in controlling the killing of rhinos. The contradictory nature of globalization is extremely evident in this method: how could legalizing rhino trade ever control the problem? The answer is that the market price for trade in these products would fall as a result of legalizing in trade; if the product is easier to obtain, then the consumer will pay less. This in turn, minimizes the incentive of poachers since they will make less money on rhino horn than they had before. For example, China has recently decided to loosen its 25- year ban on rhino horn trade, an act that government officials have deemed necessary in order to “manage legal demand” (5). Time will tell what effects this action will have on the market and consumption of rhino horn, and this may ultimately determine further action that may go as far as to legalize the illicit trade all together.

The globalized industry of the lucrative rhino horn trade has clearly inspired international committees, NGOs, and even teens (like my peers) to become aware of the poaching issue and take some sort of action. Over the decades, the industry has evolved into a global market, but also a global problem which has produced several methods of resolution that are still works in progress. Before appropriate maintenance of poaching levels can be attained, people must work to recognize the positive and negative effects that any solution may have since globalization of an industry ties business to multiple aspects of society.

Bibliography

(1) http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/rhinoceros-rhino-horn-use-fact-vs-fiction/1178/

(2) https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino-info/threats/poaching-rhino-horn/

(3) https://www.savetherhino.org/thorny-issues/tackling-the-demand-for-rhino-horn/

(4) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/online-rhino-horn-auction-set-open-south-afric a-170821043921244.html

(5) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/experts-fear-impact-of-china-lift ing-trade-ban-on-tiger-and-rhino-parts

(6) https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/rhino-poaching-what-is-the-solution/

(7) https://wildaid.org/about/

(8) https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2015/E-Appendices-2015-02-05.pdf

This year Yale Model United Nations introduced an essay contest as one of its new educational initiatives. For this contest, delegates were asked to submit a brief piece examining an aspect of globalization and how it has transformed the modern world. From an incredible selective pool the top three essays have been selected for publication online on YRIS. The following is the First Place essay by Dylan Kim.

Written by Dylan Kim

In the past years, an international slide into nationalistic policies has alarmed many spectators. In the United Kingdom, concerns over the national identity catalyzed a referendum that called for the state’s exit from the European Union. In the United States, the 2016 general election brought a campaign’s worth of nationalist rhetoric to fruition. In Brazil, the most recent presidential election empowered a known nationalist/­populist. Around the globe, nationalist policies are taking hold. Even as these nationalist forces seem to be reaching unprecedented levels, the rise and fall of these movements are not out of the ordinary. Time and time again, history has shown that while nationalism is a force to be reckoned with, it functions solely when globalization reaches uncontrollable speeds; nationalist movements are a fundamental part of an increasingly globalized world.

The rise of globalization has simultaneously brought the world closer together than ever and created deep fissures between nations. If globalization is defined as the integration of economic, political, and social systems, then the world is currently in a state of ultra­globalization as political, economic, and social institutions approach homogeneity throughout the world. This homogeneity manifests itself in a multitude of ways that affect daily life, whether it be liberal ­democratic political systems, Apple iPhones, or McDonald’s; it is impossible to escape the mass­produced institutions. Conversely, if nationalism is defined as the effort exerted by a nation to preserve its culture, political standing, and dignity as an independent people, then it should stand that globalization and nationalism are direct contradictions to each other;¹ where globalism breaks down barriers between peoples, nationalism builds and rebuilds those barriers. Political theorist Benjamin Barber calls this clash between seemingly opposed forces “Jihad vs McWorld.” Barber describes two different movements: in the “Lebanonization” of cultures, each nation of people is forced to fight for its values; in a “McWorld” of cultural unity, the globalization of technology and culture has mitigated cultural differences.^2,3 There is no future wherein one of these two movements prevails over the other, as the two opposing forces are the children of globalization and cannot exist one without the other. To draw a parallel to physics, Newton’s third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This logic applies not only to physics but also to geopolitics: globalization cannot occur without nationalist resistance.

Throughout much of modern history, there exists a multitude of case studies in which increased levels of globalization have prompted nationalist reactions. Three particular instances stand out which resulted from the globalization of political systems, economic systems, and social perceptions. The German Revolution of 1848 resulted from the proliferation of liberal and democratic ideals throughout Europe; after seeing the French Revolution of 1848, German nationalists staged a revolution in order to create a unified German national identity. More than ⁴ a century later, the dissolution of the USSR left many states struggling to enter into the global market. Georgia, in particular, developed a strong nationalist reaction to this issue. Georgia’s transition to a free market economy and political integration left the nation divided; it still hasn’t completed its state-­building project, and Georgia faces the threat of further divisions from competing national identities. Most recently, Britain’s exit from the European Union⁵ demonstrated a nationalist response to a combination of political, economic, and social factors. As both a supranational and intergovernmental organization, the European Union is the very incarnation of globalization. However, as the EU increased in size and strength, the United Kingdom decided it no longer wanted to sacrifice its sovereignty. Much of the nationalist fervor that pushed Britain over the edge originated in the population’s concern over immigration. In fact, the migration of peoples into the UK weighed into the decision making process of voters even more than the economic factors. The British worried that the influx of non­-British⁶ immigrants and cultural values would erode at their national identity; this fear even pushed some voters to vote against their own interests in the referendum. In their decision to leave the EU, the⁷ British people demonstrated the theory that an increase of globalist forces will result in a nationalist reaction.

The current state of geopolitics appears to be moving towards nationalist­/populist tendencies at an increasing rate. Gráinne de Búrca describes Britain’s involvement in this movement as resembling “a boat on the global tide of populist anti­-internationalism.” If this ⁸ much is true, where did this tide originate? At what point does the tide cease rising and begin to recede? If history is doomed to repeat itself, then these movements will never truly die out.

Nationalist sentiments are but a small obstacle in the path of globalization, which will continue to adapt and advance to further integrate the world. That said, as globalization augments its reach, so will nationalism. There will never be a world in which globalization exists without nationalism–– and perhaps this is for the better. Statistics often show globalization benefiting developed countries disproportionately more than less developed countries through exploitative economic and political relationships. One needs to look no further than the Chinese involvement in Africa in order to see this exploitation for natural resources at work; in the case of Zambia, Chinese corporations exploit copper mine workers in order to gain the natural resources. In such a case, globalization has worked to the detriment of the Zambian people. Nationalism, although often violent and containing harsh rhetoric, warrants a critical analysis of its causes in order to better understand the many forces—social, political, and economic—that cause such an uprising.⁹

Bibliography

Barber, Benjamin R. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic , March 1992. Accessed November 14, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad­vs­mcworld/303882/.

BBC (London). “Growth of nationalism in Germany, 1815­1850.” Bitesize. Accessed November 15, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zqyrcdm/revision/6.

de Búrca, Gráinne. “4: How British was the Brexit vote?” In Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe , 46­52. Edited by Benjamin Martill and Uta Staiger. N.p.: UCL Press, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20krxf8.10.

Greenfeld, Liah. “The Globalization of Nationalism and the Future of the Nation­State.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 24, no. 1 (March/June 2011): 5­9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41478271.

Sabanadze, Natalie. Globalization and Nationalism: The Cases of Georgia and the Basque Country . Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010. Accessed November 15, 2018. http://books.openedition.org/ceup/570.

Wells, Matt. “You‘ll Be Fired if You Refuse”: Labor Abuses in Zambia‘s Chinese State­owned Copper Mines . Human Rights Watch, 2011. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/11/04/youll­be­fired­if­you­refuse/labor­abuses­zambias­chine se­state­owned­copper­mines.

Endnotes

1 Liah Greenfeld, “The Globalization of Nationalism and the Future of the Nation­State,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 24, no. 1 (March/June 2011), https://www.jstor.org/stable/41478271.

2 Benjamin R. Barber, “Jihad vs. McWorld,” The Atlantic , March 1992, accessed November 14, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad­vs­mcworld/303882/.

3 Barber, “Jihad vs. McWorld.”

4 “Growth of nationalism in Germany, 1815­1850,” BBC (London), Bitesize, accessed November 15, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zqyrcdm/revision/6.

5 Natalie Sabanadze, Globalization and Nationalism: The Cases of Georgia and the Basque Country (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010), accessed November 15, 2018, http://books.openedition.org/ceup/570.

6 Gráinne de Búrca, “4: How British was the Brexit vote?,” in Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe , ed. Benjamin Martill and Uta Staiger (n.p.: UCL Press, 2018), 50­51, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20krxf8.10.

7 de Búrca, “4: How British,” 51.

8 Ibid, 51.

9 Matt Wells, “You’ll Be Fired if You Refuse”: Labor Abuses in Zambia’s Chinese State­owned Copper Mines. (Human Rights Watch, 2011), accessed November 30, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/11/04/youll­be­fired­if­you­refuse/labor­abuses­zambias­chinese­state­owned­cop per­mines. 1

This year Yale Model United Nations introduced an essay contest as one of its new educational initiatives. For this contest, delegates were asked to submit a brief piece examining an aspect of globalization and how it has transformed the modern world. From an incredible selective pool the top three essays have been selected for publication online on YRIS. The following is the Second Place essay by Daniel Alvarez Cavagliano.

Written by Daniel Eduardo Alvarez Cavagliano

Globalization is one of the most influential phenomena of contemporaneity. In this sense, Zygmunt Bauman, the Polish-born sociologist who explored the fluidity of identity in the modern world, globalization, consumerism, and the Holocaust, used to state that globalization strongly attacked cultural traditions (Junge, M., & Kron, T., 2014). Many of these traditions have seen their values and distinctive characteristics diluted, since the new social paradigms dissolve those cultural pillars that for many generations seemed immovable (Bauman, 2003). Furthermore, something that is commonly excluded when talking about the phenomenon of globalization is the fact that one of its secondary effects is the imposition of a culture that follows a kind of pre-established pattern by international standards. This has generated a progressive dissolution of identity, degradation of language, and a detachment from traditions and customs (Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, 2017).

Taking into consideration that physical and political borders no longer represent an impediment to the dissemination of information, culture, and commerce, the progressive establishment of customs and traditions molded by the interconnected international society inevitably adheres to local customs. These new cultures are assumed or assimilated until they become part of local societies. This process is giving rise to a complex form of syncretism, unleashing different processes of acculturation. Above all, culture is understood not only as the features which characterize human groups, but also their lifestyles and coexistence (Spencer-Oatey, H., 2012). In keeping with this, another line of thinkers, such as Ulrich Beck, refer to the term cultural globalization,and with it they seek to highlight the contemporary phenomena in which globalized cultural elements are mixed with local ones to create new manifestations (Robertson, 2003).

To understand this almost imperceptible transformation, especially when taken from an individual point of view, it is necessary to analyze the space-time relationship that is shaped by the consistent technological evolution characteristic of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. It is commonly argued in the context of globalization and in the knowledge society that the adoption of technology and the use of social networks in non-Western cultures contribute to the loss of values and cultural practices. It is difficult to expect all those involved in the effects of globalization to enter the process of acculturation without falling into deculturation (Ribeiro, 1968).

Through media, which is influenced by international and multinational forces, so-called idols and public figures emerge in such unpredictable bursts that in many cases surpass those figures of local cultures. Over time, cultures tend to evolve, but they tend to keep their core intact. However, in recent decades and as a result of the inlay of media like television, radio and, more recently, the Internet, local cultures are gradually merging with internationalized standards, giving rise to the processes of deculturalization and synchronization of cultures.

Bauman points out that information floats free of its carriers; the translation and positioning of bodies in physical space are less necessary than ever for the reordering of information and relationships (Bauman, 1998). This evolution of communications technology has ended a series of barriers that historically represented an obstacle for international society but served as guardians for the intangible cultural patrimonies constituted by those invisible parts that reside in the very spirit of the cultures; thus, adapting local cultures to international standards until they are molded in a monotonous and homogenous way.

A clear example would be the cinema where we can see how American films have a greater global boom than locally. According to the Motion Picture Association of America: 69% of the income produced by American films comes from non-national markets (Arell-Báez, 2013). In the book “Making Cinelandia” (Serna, 2014) by Laura Isabel Serna, it is evident how American cinema heavily influenced Mexican cinematographic culture, indicating a rejection of the European form. The book gives us to understand how Mexican society and culture would have been different from what they are today, had they not been influenced by the United States’ film industry, which inculcated themes and purposes different from those of Europe, in its essence in terms of crime, a popular subject in American films.

It is here that the apogee of the modern syncretism catalyzed by globalization begins and that intrinsically influences the current international society. Cultural syncretism is known as the process of interaction between cultures through which they assimilate the most significant features of each other. These cultures mingle and fuse, giving rise to new cultural manifestations (Espinosa, 2012). This was what happened more than five hundred years ago with the collision between cultures in the colonial era and what is currently happening in most countries where their cultural consumption is cinema, television, literature, music and even fashion.

Essentially, we approach a world, where individuals and collectivities can no longer be defined as isolated entities with autochthonous manifestations eminently detached from global manifestations. The effects of this fact, whether positive or negative, are yet to be seen, but we can project that both the “good” and the “bad” of local cultures have to be extrapolated to “global” ones.

Bibliography

Arell-Báez, A. (2013). Cine: una industria para explotar en América Latina. Forbes.

Bauman, Z. (Junio de 2003). La globalización. Consecuencias humanas. Signos Filosóficos, I(3), 205-207.

Bauman, Z. (1998). La globalización Consecuencias humanas. (D. Zadunaisky, Trad.) Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Byrnes, K. (2007). The sharing of a culture: Global Consumerism. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/pdf/2007/byrnes.pdf

Crane, D., Kawashima, N., & Kawasaki, K. (2002). Global culture: Media, arts, policy, and globalization. New York: Routledge.

Espinosa, María Macarena. (February 25, 2012). Sincretismo Cultural Mestizaje cultural en México y Perú. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.

Globalization 101. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2018, from https://www.globalization101.org/uploads/File/Culture/cultall.pdf

Junge, M., & Kron, T. (2014). Zygmunt Bauman: Soziologie zwischen Postmoderne, Ethik und Gegenwartsdiagnose. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Ribeiro, D. (1968). The Civilizational Process. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Robertson, R. (2003). Glocalización: tiempo-espacio y homogeneidad-heterogeneidad. Cansancio del Leviatán : problemas políticos de la mundialización.

Sheffield, J., Korotayev, A., & Grinin, L. (n.d.). Globalization. Retrieved December 13, 2018, from https://www.hse.ru/data/2013/05/23/1299088719/Globalization.pdf

Serna, Laura Isabel. (2014). Making Cinelandia: American Films and Mexican Film Culture before the Golden Age. Duke University Press.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012) What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts. Available at GlobalPAD Open House Https://Warwick.ac.uk/Fac/Soc/Al/Globalpad/Openhouse/Interculturalskills/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.Pdf

Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. (2017). El efecto de la globalización en la identidad nacional. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 67-92.