Political Science

By its very nature, the European Union (EU) is an amalgamation of different independent countries that came together initially for economic reasons. Later they realized they could cooperate on foreign policy and even militarily activities.  What this has resulted in is a very strong economic block, but other spheres of the Unions activities are yet to mature as the economic sphere has.

Discussion
When the original 6 countries gathered with an aim to ensure that the frequent conflicts, which had resulted in World War II, did not reoccur, they did not envisage a day when they would be organizing most of their activities centrally.  With the current membership of 27 countries and the population of 495 million people, it is the economic component that has grown to be the strongest one over time (Europa, 2009).

On the other hand, its political outlook is still divisive.  Though there is the European parliament, each country still has its own local government, which decides its individual foreign policy and military issues. It is only recently that the Union has finally started to elect a political president and a minister of foreign affairs, which is an evidence that the political aspect of the union seems to be moving towards a unity.  This has been made possible by the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by all of the members (BBC, 2009).

The non-ratification of the treaty stalled the political integration of the union for a long time.  It now gives the block the clear directional guidelines towards increased efficiency, democracy, transparency and consistency with the rest of the world.  Militarily, though there is cooperation, before the political dynamics can be nailed properly, there will always be disagreements on the way forward.

Conclusion
It is true that the European Union is an economic giant. Its aim is to achieve stability in Europe, given the current economic meltdown. It is a political dwarf, but it will not remain it for long.  With the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, this is bound to change. It will remain a military worm until the political aspect is mastered.  Then and only then will it be able to finally tackle the military dimension.

Hegemony is the ability to make others agree with ones viewpoints or the way of doing things.  This ability to manipulate others in accordance with ones way is the result of having much control power that the others would like to have as well.  It could take the form of dogma, intellectual or financial influence (Hegemony, 2009).

Discussion
In any society, in order for success or progress to be actualized, there needs to be a person, who acts as the driving force.  For a long time, one was either a communist (on the Russian side) or a capitalist (on the American).  With the collapse of the communist protagonist, capitalism has been the leading ideology in the world.  This has happened as a result of the economic and military power of America. On the other hand, the Chinese and other countries practicing a hybrid system of communism have been offering a differing opinion.
In the recent past, as a result of the increasing economic power, resulting from a rise in oil prices, many countries have broken from the lead by America and are offering divergent views.  China is an emerging leader taking over from Russia (Lipschutz, 2009).  Other examples of such countries are Venezuela, Libya and Iran.  While China has the strength of numbers (a population of 1.6 billion), Venezuela has rich oil resources, and Iran, in addition to oil resources, has never been on the US side.  The economic power makes it possible for dissenting voices to become increasingly vocal.

Conclusion
In their economic development many countries seem to be following the American way of solving problems and making changes to suit their unique circumstances.  Hegemons have had their positive impact in the civilization of the world.  Americas influence, though a bit watered down, remains the foundation, from which all others grow their systems.  The US will continue to dominate the world psyche for a long time to come and there will be an increasing number of other countries, who want to rise. And the chance to challenge America is not too high, unfortunately.

When one uses cooperation and negotiations at the expense of the threat of force and temptation of reward to achieve a desired result, they are said to wield soft power (Nye, 2009).  It is generally agreed that Nelson Mandela, President of Brazil Lula and President of the USA Obama are a good example of individuals, who have soft power and increasingly exercise it.

Discussion
For the past eight years America has been engaged in one war or the other in the name of fighting terrorism.  At the beginning of it all, many people in and outside America were on board with the war against terror band wagon.  Especially after the attack on September 11, 2001, which destroyed the world trade center, the majority of people were easily convinced of the need to tackle the global terrorism once and for all.
Unfortunately, even with all the might of the western powers in Afghanistan, and the fact that increasingly, people are realizing even the Iraq war was waged on false pretence (ONeill, 2009), support for this war on terrorism is fast fading.  The disproportionate use of force and the increasingly number of civilian casualties are responsible for the waning support.

Another factor is the amount of information available for ordinary people.  With the access news reporters have and with an increasingly strong opinioned blog community, it is not possible for the west to have the public getting only their view.  The fact that people are prone to side with the underdog is making for serious negative opinion on the war.

Conclusion
It must be understood that it is not that the public is siding with the terrorists. Its just that they can not see the military applying carefully premeditated tactics.  The disproportionate use of military power is also responsible for the loss of support  America is increasingly seen as having responded with a hammer to a mosquito bite.

In the world we live in, some companies have operations involving more than one country, region or even continent.  Multinational Corporation is a simple term used to describe this kind of organizations.  Some of them are known to have operation budgets running to hundreds million dollars.

Discussion
Any investment in a country achieves two things, first, it ensures the country can get taxes from investors and secondly, the citizens get employment in the organization.  In a world where corporations are looking to minimize their production costs, increasingly, big corporations are locating their manufacturing divisions near the source of raw material.

Multinational corporations are known to have the capability to impact life both positively and negatively in communities, in which they operate.  When looking to invest in areas where the infrastructure is poor, governments are known to negotiate concerning concessions with the corporations providing these (infrastructure) to the locals.  Increasingly, nations are raising considerably large sums of money for the rights to use raw materials, unique in certain states.  This money has been used to improve the lives of the citizens of the country.  Botswana and the Gulf States are a good example of high revenue from multinationals used wisely for the good of all (Diamonds, 2007).

Unfortunately, in some cases, multinationals are known to support repressive regimes in order to guarantee the continued exploitation of the resources of a country.  They are known to turn a blind eye as a clique of a few individuals, use the wealth intended for a nation to enrich themselves.  In some cases, they are known to even bribe leaders of a country in order to get concessions on minerals. In other countries, these multinational companies have been known to pollute the area they work in extensively, so that the environment becomes inhabitable for ages to come.

Even when the United Nations has intervened in order to guarantee a fair use of resources for the good of a nation, it can only rely on the goodwill of the leaders (Thibodeaux, 2006).

Conclusion
Multinationals, which in some instances have budgets enough to fund the entire expenditure of the nation they operate in, can intimidate the leaders of the state.  There is, however, assistance for those nations willing to ask for it.  They are good partners in development (MNCs) when their money is used for the good of the people.  They constitute, however, the worst problem to the nation, when they allow the money they bring into the country to be used against the very citizens of the country.