Globalisation can also be regarded as liberalization which is breaking down barriers between countries so that there is an “open” world economy.
Thirdly, globalization can be seen as universalisation which is the spread of technology, knowledge, people and so forth around the world; Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1995) “the world becoming a global shopping mall in which ideas and products are available everywhere at the same time.”
Finally, globalization can be described as westernization which is the imposture of western cultures and beliefs around the world. Martin Khor (1995) “globalization is what we in the third world have for several centuries called colonisation.”
In sum the basic idea of globalisation is to “make the world a single place” in which ideas, beliefs, economies and cultures are all the same.
In my personal opinion, I agree with those who argue that globalization is westernisation, and Martin Khor’s argument. To me globalisation is to impose western culture around the globe however, I do not believe that it is done so as to ensure everyone in the world becomes equal. I believe that globalization is spread in order to suit the interests of the western leaders and economies. Globalization is spread so that western countries become more powerful and have a stronger influence on the poorer countries of the world, and exploit them further. Therefore, I believe that instead of having a world in which everyone is equal we would have a world in which the most powerful states of the world would dominate all the poorer states.
International order is finding the middle ground of relationships and organizations, which unite people from different countries.
According to Hedley Bull “international order is a pattern that leads to a particular result, an arrangement of social life that promotes certain goals or values.” Therefore, what Bull means is that the notion of international order is to certify that promises made in the international arena are kept and to promote stability.
An argument put forward by Stanley Hoffman is that “order in international relations consists of formal or informal rules that allow for the moderation of disputes and for a measure of security and stability.”
David Armstrong argues that “order denotes stability and regularity in the pattern of assumptions, rules and practices that are accepted as legitimate among the members of a given society and that concern the mechanisms of and the limits to the process of change within that society.”
Having read the arguments of the scholars above I have come to the conclusion that the basic concept of international order is to bring about stability and security in international relations.
Bearing in mind that one of the major implications of globalisation is that it promotes inequality among states I believe that it is not wrong to assume that one of the implications of globalisation for international order is that it causes instability.
The concept of globalization today is to turn the world into a “global communication” agency that covers most of the global issues. In other words to make all the countries of the world integrated so that one country’s problem would be every other country’s problem therefore pressure them to provide help. However, “global interdependence” is today related to a large amount of “inequality and injustice” that makes many people in the world suffer.
I believe that the globalization concept was put forward by the West because it suits them to trade with the rest of the world as their capital would increase but what they prefer not to realize is “that excessive richness is not possible without hurting others, that extreme suffering causes bitterness and holds the seeds of the unrest.”
Considering that one of the major aims of international order is to bring about stability globalization seems to have a negative influence on making stability available due to the fact that so many people especially those of the third world are living in poverty due to globalization and that in not providing stability but widening the gap between the rich and the poor therefore making the world unbalanced.
Another issue that one should take into account is that theories of globalization were put forward in the 1980’s and 1990’s around the time that interdependence and international trade once again became huge concepts as it was believed that all the states “were in the same boat and trade was vital for everybody” as it would expand all of the economies around the globe and all the states would become a lot richer and stable, due to the reliance on foreign trade, however that was not the case, what really happened was that instead of moving forward the poorer countries moved backwards and became the “net capital exporters subsidizing the rich North.”
That therefore leads me to the assumption that globalization is not all that good for international order as I believe that the term `globalization` and its definitions are a contradiction in terms put forward by western scholars so that an amazingly great picture would be painted advertising a united world in which everyone is equal and stable yet that today is proven not to be the case. I believe that the whole concept of globalization is an incongruity as it is true that there is North to South trading and interdependence however the North seems to get richer by it and the South poorer, how is that possible when trading and interdependence is supposed to be beneficial to both parties involved? How is that making the “world a single place”?
I believe that globalization would have a positive impact on international order if the way globalization is defined today was the reality of the world today. If it would actually be possible to have a united world in which everyone was equal and in which everyone interacted and got on very well.
However, I do not believe that that is possible having into account that human beings are greedy and only do things that suit their interests. The North is not willing to spread its wealth and help the south unless it convenes them and they get something in return. Therefore globalization is not as colourful as it’s made out to be.
On the whole I believe that the implications of globalization for international order are partially negative. When first writing this essay I though that I would find a middle ground and have a two sided argument providing a balanced essay however the more I read about globalization the more I came to a biased conclusion that globalisation brings about inequality and that some get advantaged by it and others get severely disadvantaged by it and end up worse that they started off. I perfect example of this is Indonesia. The world bank helped Indonesia by giving them a great sum of money that was supposed to “help” the country develop however the money given to them benefited world capitalism and the richer countries became richer by that loan as the people in Indonesia had to work very hard to pay off the loan and the huge taxes that came with it, the level of production of the country decreased, people couldn’t afford to eat as well as they used to and therefore got exhausted very quickly and became incapable of working as hard as they used to. As a result of this the country became poorer than it was before it got the loan as Indonesia is poor and on top of that has a huge loan with high rate of interest to pay.
Furthermore, considering that globalization has all of the consequences stated above I have come to the conclusion that in a globalizing world international order is very hard to enforce.
Bibliography
John Baylis and Steve Smith,
The Globalization of world politics,
Oxford 2001, Second Edition,
Pages: 1 - 30
Hedley Bull,
The anarchical society,
Third edition,
Palgrave 2002,
Pages: 1 - 21
Peter Golding and Phil Harris,
Beyond Cultural Imperialism, Globalization, Communication and the new international order,
Sage 1997, page 147 – 162
Jan Tinbergen
Reshaping the international order
Hutchinson & Co LTD, 1977
Pages: 4 – 33
Colin Hay and David Marsh
Demystifying globalization
Palgrave, 2000
Pages: 21 - 49
Stephen Gill
Globalization, Democratization and Multilateralism
MacMillan press LTD, 1997
Pages: 1 – 77
James N. Rosenau and Ernest Otto Czempiel
Governance without government
Order and change in world politics
Cambridge university press, 1992
Pages: 1 – 30
Joseph S. Nye and John D. Donahue
Governance in a globalizing world
Booking institution press 2000
Pages: 1 – 37
Order and Justice lecture notes, 7th October 2003
John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of world politics, Oxford 2001, Second Edition, page 15
John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of world politics, Oxford 2001, Second Edition, page 15
John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of world politics, Oxford 2001, Second Edition, page 15
John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of world politics, Oxford 2001, Second Edition, page 15
Hedley Bull, The anarchical society, third edition, Palgrave 2002, pages: 3,4
Order and Justice lecture notes, 7th October 2003
Order and Justice lecture notes, 7th October 2003
Peter Golding and Phil Harris, Beyond Cultural Imperialism, Globalization, Communication and the new international order, Sage 1997, page 150
Peter Golding and Phil Harris, Beyond Cultural Imperialism, Globalization, Communication and the new international order, Sage 1997, page 151
Peter Golding and Phil Harris, Beyond Cultural Imperialism, Globalization, Communication and the new international order, Sage 1997, page 153
