Three Examples of Globalization in Uganda: 

1) The UK and Uganda trade with each other. The United Kingdom, according to Uganda High Commission London, is in the top ten of Uganda imports, providing Uganda with cars, medicine, and more. In addition, it seems that many in the UK have invested in Uganda-then, Uganda gets the capital it needs and the UK receives the benefits of any of the economy that is successful. Uganda also exports goods to the UK; however, when compared with the value of goods being imported, it is only about a third of the imports (UK to Uganda). Obvious benefits to this trade partnership is the exchange of goods-each country gets what they need (products or money). However, one site shows what they call as "trade imbalance" (Uganda High Commission London). This isn't good for the Ugandan economy. Even so, the site also notes that technology-related imports are better for their economy and many of the imports that are coming into Uganda are along those lines. So, both countries get what they seek and it seems that the benefits are high and the drawbacks, minimal.  

Uganda High Commission London. (n.d.). Trade and investment in uganda. Retrieved from http://www.ugandahighcommission.co.uk/MenuSections/TradeAndInvestment3.aspx.

Uganda High Commission London. (n.d.). Trade and investment in uganda. Retrieved from http://www.ugandahighcommission.co.uk/MenuSections/TradeAndInvestment2.aspx

2) The interdependence with Sudan-Uganda and Sudan have had a successful interdependent, economic relationship according to David Muwanga of the East African Business Week (2012). Uganda has recently exported $328 million worth of goods in a year. Although the scale that Sudan exports goods to Uganda is not nearly as large, they export large amounts of wood (Muwanga). Even though Uganda exports more, both countries benefit as South Sudan receives goods to a market (though small) while Uganda has a large market for its goods in Sudan. Muwanga highlights one major benefit and drawback for Uganda’s interdependent economic relationship with Sudan. The most recent benefit that he explains is that the relationship with Sudan helped (in a way) to shield Uganda from the effects of the “global financial crisis" (Muwanga, 2012). On the other hand, however, the relationship has also had a large, negative influence on Uganda’s local economy. Because they are exporting so much to Sudan, Uganda’s goods at home tend to have higher prices and sometimes their aren’t enough goods available (Muwanga, 2012). So, there are definite ups and downs in this interdependent relationship. However, the drawbacks are probably worth the benefits. 

Muwanga, D. (2012, March 12). South sudan now uganda's biggest trading partner. East African Business Week, Retrieved from http://www.busiweek.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2520:south-sudan-now-ugandas-biggest-trading-partner&catid=104:uganda&Itemid=1364 

3) There appears to be an instance of economic interdependence between U.S. and Ugandan businesses through the American Chamber of Commerce and the Embassy of the U.S. in Kampala, Uganda. The Embassy of the U.S. in Uganda site seems to show that U.S. and Ugandan businesses provide mutual support in different ways. For example, U.S. businesses can put money into Uganda, Ugandan businesses can seek to do business with the U.S., and can also seek help from the U.S. in things such as loans (Embassy of the U.S. Kampala Uganda). Any of these examples can be mutually beneficial-Ugandan businesses get the money they need, or the markets they seek and the U.S. can get a return on the money they loan, etc. U.S. and Ugandan businesses working together is hopefully beneficial although there is always danger of people being taking advantage of, etc. Even so, hopefully, the partnership furthers both sides' interests. 

Embassy of the United States Kampala Uganda. (n.d.). About us:business and trade. Retrieved from http://kampala.usembassy.gov/business.html

Just for clarification, I was late in posting this to my blog although I did the work on CourseAssign by the due date. Thank you. :) 

Cultural diversity is a hot topic around the world today. Should anything be done to prevent it? What are the impacts? During this time, a brief look will be taken at cultural diversity by exploring the link between the decline in cultural diversity to biodiversity, and also if the government should be involved in stopping the decline in cultural diversity. After noting basic answers to each, they will be expounded upon and then we will consider other options and the reasons not to take those alternative routes. 

    Biodiversity and cultural diversity have many relationships linking them together. One similarity is that, according to many, both areas of diversity (biological and cultural) are on the decline. Environmental problems (pollution, etc.) and an emphasis on Western ideas have eaten away at these areas of diversity. How are they linked? In my opinion, I belive that one way they're linked is in the main driving force behind both of the declines. What is one of the main driving forces? Modernization and globalization. Another important question that can come up when exploring the issue of decline in cultural diversity is whether or not the government should be involved in promoting cultural diversity. Personally, I believe that while the government could be helpful, the efforts (on the government's part) to preserve cultures should be minimal. It may be asked, what are the reasons behind these answers-why would you think that way? This will be explored next. 

   As stated in the previous paragraph, in my opinion, one of the major links between biodiversity and cultural diversity is modernization & globalization. I think that an ever-developing world has bred many environmental problems (not by any means the only contributor) such as pollution, deforestation, etc. These problems have largely sprung from the products of development and modernization: the increasing number of cars used, factory plants built, and more. Not only has the modernization of much of the developed world led to environmental problems, but it has also led to an attitude that all the world needs to look like the developed countries do. As Wade Davis made clear, this doesn't mean that distinct cultures can't modernize (drive cars, use electricity) or participate in the globalization without changing, but it seems that there is an emphasis on these cultures not only using modern gagdets, but also adapting to many other aspects of Western culture (such as laguage) as a contingency for taking part in the globalization movement. While I'm not saying that this is ALL OVER or even widespread, I do think that this has been a part of globalization. Partly (but not wholly) as a result of modernization, I think that cultural diversity isn't valued by everyone. As a result, uniformity in culture is accepted and even encouraged. The second question that was addressed in the previous paragraph was governmental involvement, and as I stated, my opinion was that there should be minimal governmental involvement. I believe that the government's role should basically be to make sure that justice is upheld and that the people's rights are protected (which entails many actions).  Although the government has expanded, making this minimal of involvement almost impossible, I think that the area of promoting cultural diversity should be taken up by organizations or individuals unless it issues of cultural diversity fall into the government's role. In other words, I think that governments should be involved in the cultural diversity decline issue only when people are being persecuted/discriminated against, when it involves citizenship, etc. That being said, I think that the government could encourage cultural diversity and organizations' active involvement in protecting diversity. Now that these points have been expounded upon, we will proceed to briefly look at arguments against them. 

    We will now look at two arguments against my answers explained above. First, instead of believing that biodiversity and cultural diversity are related through one of their main causes (modernization and globalization), one could point to the similarities in how they have declined (patterns, timing, etc.). Even though there may be similiarities here, I believe that it is better to examine and discover the causes rather than the effects because without those causes, there would be no effects. In the area of governmental involvement with cultural diversity, the obvious argument is that the government does need to be involved in stopping the decline in cultural diversity. While I understand the benefits of governmental involvement and see what a good job it seems that the Australian government is doing in promoting their cultural diversity, I think that the drawbacks outweigh the benefits. The more the government extends its influence, the more powers it receives. This power can continue growing to be more and more involved in the details of its citizens lives. Because of this, I don't think that the government should extend its influence more, even in a small way. However, organizations and individuals could step up in their place.

    Some questions surrounding cultural diversity have been examined by first looking at the answers, proceeding to the reasons, and rounding off with arugments against the answers and counter-arguments. Biodiversity and cultural diversity are linked in what at least two main forces that causes them: modernization and globalization. It affects both areas. Governments should try to limit their involvement in cultural diversity; however, organizations and citizens can step up in their actions and attitudes to promote it. Cultural diversity will most likely continue to hold people's attention in debate, but the true question that truly remains is: How will it change? Will it continue to decline? This is an answer that only  the sovereign God of the universe knows, and I trust Him with the results!