Marks explains that we have been made to believe that conflict is bad and compromise is good. He describes this as a vision that is too simplistic to be upheld by the nations of the world. Marks says it will be difficult to determine whether conflict is good or bad if we do not understand the people involved in the conflict, the cause and the strategy involved in the conflict.
He said compromise, contrary to general belief, can be harmful if it does not protect the vulnerable and the dis-empowered.
Marks gave an example of a United Nations agency that collaborated with the federal and local governments, television company, and even a multinational soda company in order to address the problem of poor sanitation in schools in India. This arrangement helped the corporation to promote their brands and products. Marks argued that, the United Nations were creating another problem while trying to solve one by promoting a soda company, knowing fully well that a large consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages increases the risk of obesity.
The mistake governments make, according to Marks, when they collaborate with industries is that they conflate the common good with common ground. They sacrifice the interest of the people on the alter of industrial collaboration.
By saying that governments should struggle or engage in conflicts with corporations, Marks means that the corporations always act to promote their commercial interests while government is saddled with the responsibility of promoting the common good, they should not leave this responsibility while trying to go into relationship with the corporations.
I have had cause to go into conflict with a police officer in my state because he demanded a bribe from me despite having all my driving particulars. I shouted at him and promise to report him to the authority if he did not desist from that practice. he became scared and allowed me to go.
Answer:
fifteen
Explanation:
To answer that, let's list the people:
- Person number 1
- Person number 2
- person number 3
- person number 4
- person number 5
- person number 6
Now let's organize them in a relationship order in which each one relates to different people:
- Person number 1, can relate to person number 2, person number 3, person number 4, person number 5 and person number 6. Totaling 5 relationships.
- Person number 2 can relate to person number 3, person number 4, person number 5 and person number 6. Totaling a total of 4 relationships.
- Person number 3 can relate to person number 4, person number 5 and person number 6. Totaling 3 relationships.
- Person number 4 can relate to person number 5 and people number 6. Totaling 2 relationships.
- Person number 5 and 6 can only relate to one another. Totaling 1 relationship.
Now if we add up the relationship totals for each person (5 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 1), we will realize that it is only possible to have 15 relationships between different people within a group of 6 people.
Answer:
Coffee being the one of the most global commodities, connected through practices of trade. It is overwhelmingly popular for consumption in more westernized areas like the United States, Eastern Europe and Africa. The act of drinking coffee become symptomatic of globalization due to an increased movement of cultural goods which is a process of cultural dominance of western culture and colonialism can never be reversed nor payed back, therefore coffee trade will never be truly fair nor ethical.
The Hawaiian Islands
Sandwich Islands was the name given to the Hawaiian Islands by James Cook in 1778. Sandwich Island may also refer to: Manuae (Cook Islands), named Sandwich Island by Cook.
Answer:
For this reason, oases in the Sahara and throughout the world have become important stops along trade routes. Merchants and traders who travel along these routes must stop at oases to replenish food and water supplies. ... Rivers that flow through some deserts provide permanent sources of water for large, elongated oases.
Explanation:
hope this helps
