The real essence of freedom, which the United States seeks to protect in its war on terror, is the ability to be able to do anything within the confines of one’s own jurisdiction, respecting the spheres of freedom that other countries have as well. The only exception to the non-interventionist principle embodied in the essence of freedom is when it is seen that foreign aid will help hasten or improve the process. Military Aid, which is an oxymoron because there is really no aid that is provided, is not the type of aid or foreign intervention that is envisioned here.
To uphold the principles of justice, freedom and human dignity, a different type of aid is required; a different type of intervention that encourages and does not suppress. The infrastructure of democracy is built on the foundation of freedom and respect. Freedom to do whatever one desires to do while at the same time respecting the fact that others have that same right. The United States Government would do well to realize that real freedom is not something that a foreign power can give to the oppressed but it is something that the oppressed have to want for themselves.
The boundaries, as mentioned earlier, that have been put in place to separate people and countries, have been placed there for a reason. These people have deemed it necessary to ensure their own freedom. While they may be seemingly oppressed by their own people, no other country can justify coming to their aid unless it is requested, not even to response to an attack on their people because to do so would go against everything that America stands for, justice, peace, democracy and freedom.
The world is becoming smaller as more and more technological devices are introduced that make communication with other parts of the world faster. This growing interconnectivity of people, resources, ideas and cultures has also meant that events which transpire in one part of the world are now more likely to affect another part of the world.
The growing interdependence of foreign markets to each other makes the likelihood of the emergence of a single world market even greater but at the same time poses the same risk that the world market can crumble just as easily because of political instability or unrest in one of the local economies. The main theme that the videos embody is the growing realization that while every nation is struggling to adapt to the ever changing world and its growing interdependence there are pitfalls and dangers that face them.
Globalization is a boon for many but at the same time presents a burden for others as well. The question that every country faces now is whether or not to embrace this new phenomenon or to shun it. While it is arguable that more benefits can be derived from being part of the world economy and being part of globalization, it is plain to see that there are many countries that are not prepared to take on the challenge and implement the necessary political and economic adjustments that are required.
Countries that have had a long history of being isolated and self-dependent find it more difficult to cope with the liberalism and market driven growth of the world economy and often find their own economies shattered by such. Yet as the world continues to progress and boundaries are brought down, countries that are trying to take part in globalization must first assess their state and determine whether or not a progressive economy is worth the risk of losing cultural and political identity.