Globalization Implementation and the Maintenance of Sovereignty of States in the 21st Century - Coursework Example

Globalization Implementation and the Maintenance of Sovereignty of States in the 21st Century Name Course title Instructor’s name Date Introduction Academic discourses use the word globalization to indicate the economic changes in trade and internationalization of production (Davis, 2004). Globalization may also be used to indicate the increased mobility of capital across international borders and the credence in interdependence between economic regions. Globalization is manifested in the restructuring of the penetration of identical goods that come with the proliferation of new markets (Hall, 2000). Changes that come with globalization include the trade and investment liberalization, deregulation and privatization and the adoption of political democracy in the business and economic realm (Cohn, 2003). This document will emphasize on the importance of globalization as a tool to underline the importance of states in the 21st century. It will disperse fears that have been identified by anti-globalization agents that with globalization there will be the loss of sovereignty of states. It seeks to dispute the claim that globalization is leading to the demise of states by dissolution of their identity. This will be done by provision of concrete evidences such as United Nation reports that supports the identity of states in a globalised economy. Secondly, the essay will depend on a collective agreement by heads of state that indicate the limits of globalization. There is a general trend of low tolerance to difference as is the case for most aspects of globalization. The fear of new or different trends is what enhances the perception that globalization leads to transcendence of states. Many theories on globalization have based their arguments on the perspective that with globalization the sovereignty of states is being eroded. Hall (2000), notes that over 200 states have begun geo-politicizing their economic, environmental and social issues. This has advanced globalization from a transnational relationship to an interstate relationship. It should be noted that globalization does not blend the identities of states; it in essence manages through the differences that exists between states. In this respect globalization is portrayed not as a singular approach to international relationship, it is a multifaceted approach that deals with different countries in different ways with respect to their identity and sovereignty (Ben-Rafael and Sternberg, 2001). Globalization is tantamount to escalation of economic and political relations across nations. This means it surpasses the geographical extension of phenomena. States are becoming more aware of these intensifications and are not being disguised by the global connectedness. The variance of type and intensity of globalization has however hampered attempts to stop the effect of globalization. Because of the variance it is common to have frequent use of the term globalization without the users providing consistent definitions. To understand globalization it is important to relate its operands to the concepts of imperialism that existed in historical times. It is these atrocious historical acts that cause dread and fear in many who view globalization as the modernization of imperialism. This means that when states undergo or take part in globalization they would be entrapped in a loss of identity and independence of governance (Ben-Rafael and Sternberg 2001). This implies that the economically disadvantaged states would be killed or absorbed and would lose the ability to independently rule or govern. It may be arguably true to say that there is similarity between globalization and imperialism, similarity that may cause globalization to be considered as modern imperialism (Chomsky, 2005). However, Chomsky (2005) clarifies that this modern imperialism is not interested in gaining governance of states. It majorly focuses on economic perspective of the states. There is no political imperialism or loss of governance to form empirical states. When states are globalised, there is unification of the diversity that exists in independent states. The proponent to the debate that globalization possibly will lead to the demise of statism are such as Manuel Castell (1998) who argues that globalization has resulted in a significant shift in politics and economics. He hypothesizes that it is impossible for the social, democratic and communistic nature of societies to survive the globalization wave without harm. According to Castell, a state is a country that has maintained its socialism. Socialism in this case is pegged around the appropriation of the economy by the elite. Socialism therefore casts a huge shadow over globalization and hinders any attempt at social transition. Benefits of globalization to states It is not a new thing to states that their interests are more elaborate and achievable if they implement a unifying system of economic regulation. Rules have been designed to maintain rights of the citizen and describe duties. The precision of rights and obligation depends on a complex interrelationship of political, economic cultural and technological factors. Friedman (2000) notes that globalization has had significant effect on the establishment of legislation that determines how nations interact in political and economic sectors. It influences the governance of commerce and environmental protection. A statement by Kofi Annan indicates that there is a great need for nations to govern together and to govern better (Jayantha, 2001). Working together would mean every nation perfects governing at the national level and sharing in provision to global problems. Globalization is not to be seen as a new concept that disguises colonization. It is a dimension of international relations that replaces interdependence of states (Anderson 2002). Globalization since its conception has been majorly considered to the economic context. It was used in reference to the commercial process that involved rapid exchange of goods and services internationally. The parties involved were mainly multinational corporations who have networks of vertically integrated subsidiaries. The increased trade had the benefits of higher profits, increased labor force, higher economies of scale and an increase in goods supply (Bauman, 1999). Anderson (2002) notes that globalization is therefore been behind the increased desirability to do business internationally. Held and McGrew (2002) have even concluded that increased international trade would be the way to achieve world peace. States would be less aggressive to start wars with states they have economic relation with. It is true that the interdependence offers not only benefits but also poses great challenges to nation states. According to David & Art (2001), the increased wealth generation capacity did not guarantee equity in wealth distribution. Consequently there is evidence of widening disparity between the rich and the poor in many nations involved in the globalization. Bauman (1999), reports that rich nations have become richer while poor nations become poorer, this scenario replicates on the economic situation of the citizen of the individual states. Globalization has also entailed the exchange of negative trends such as arms marketing, narcotics and transfer of industrial wastes (Bauman, 1999). It is therefore necessary to have unification of states in tackling the 21st century challenges that have arisen because of globalization. Bauman (1999) further indicates that the concept of globalization has advanced from mere economic exchange to the higher levels in which it affects the culture. The advent of a global communication network has resulted in transfer of information that has shaped world views. This has however not been extensive enough to be called globalization. The former UN secretary general, Kofi Annan acknowledges the existence of a digital divide in which only a small proportion of the world has access to the fastest communication systems (United Nation Development Program (UNDP) 2000). A large percentage of the communication is also done in a single language locking out most of the people who are not conversant with the language. The economic benefits of globalization have been inequitable distributed according to a UN survey; A large percentage of people are found to live below the $ 2 a day poverty index (UNDP) 2000). Statism at risk Sentiments put forward by the anti-globalization campaign are intended to forecast on the loss of state sovereignty with the spread of globalization. They purport that a globalised world would mean the loss of the states identity and governing structure (Bello, 2004). Sovereignty goes back to the 17th century when most states were taking form. It refers to the established order within a territory occupied. Globalization is seen to put this sovereignty at risk as countries liberate their essential elements to the point that there is very little difference as to who governs what (Held & McGrew, 2002). When countries enter into treaties they are therefore limiting their sovereignty and limiting its manifestation. This happens despite the fact that exercising the right to enter into the treaty is an act of sovereignty. States strive to maintain sovereignty by using elements such as taxation, domestic laws and having foreign policy. In the spread of globalization has maintained these aspects as it strives to unify different states while each maintains its sovereign identity. The most sensitive aspect of globalization is the fate of the nation state in the event that the whole world develops in to a global village. This would therefore not imply that the administrative structure called state is dissolved into the newly formed level of governance. This problem has been tackled in the case of the European Union by developing habits of cooperation in non sensitive area with the hope that the spirit of cooperation would transfer to the sensitive areas. Habits whether personal or of national trend are powerful determinants of behavior and are very difficult to break. According to Samuel Johnson, habits are not noticed until it is impossible to break them. It is the already existing habits that make the states persist despite the beneficial nature of globalization. The aspect of globalization that seemingly is dissolving statism exists in the now apparent transformation of politics from what was primarily national scale to international scale. Bello (2004), argues that globalization of state politics is not about the states as independent entities, they have become about the de-nationalization of national spaces. The foundation of states is therefore collapsing. Trans-border allegiances are a great challenge to nationalism as states are forced to submit to the powers brokering the allegiances. Regionalism is becoming more and more common (Albert, 2000), with groups such as NAFTA and the EU coming up to try and make up for the substantial deficits that states are faced with. There is also an increase in trans-world governance structures such as the United Nations. Lake (1997), Indicates that these are attempts to prevent states from independent activities relating to economics and social policies. Neoliberal economists are of the opinion that globalization has been inevitable as technological advancement accelerate its spread (Held & McGrew, 2002). It is also believed that the liberalization of economies makes economies stronger and encourages democracy. Through globalization there is an upsurge in democracy and economic freedom. This is a major advantage that conceals the truth that the ideology behind globalization is itself lacking in democracy. There is a general deficiency in accountability in the forces that push for globalization. The only cases of accountability are of unelected economies which are only regulated by the rules of economics (Friedman, 2005). This therefore leads to the conclusion that the only states that are strong enough to sustain the engulfing effect of globalization will maintain sovereignty. The above anti-globalization arguments are countered by the fact that the most effective unit to pursue the common global goals is the state despite the continuing globalization. In a statement by heads of state, the heads of states reaffirmed their commitment to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their states (Global Policy Forum, 2000). They vowed not to interfere with the internal affairs of the states that they transact with. With this affirmation of the representatives of the governing systems of the states it is impossible to assume that the state is dissolving because of globalization. There is a collective agreement that the efforts of pursuing a globalised economy is for the good of humanity and seeks to uphold human dignity, equity and equality. The declaration is supported by more than the consensus behind it; it is a redefinition of the ends and means that outlays the plan of the whole millennium (Global Policy Forum, 2000). It is the individual states that are used in pursuing the ends and are therefore not to be threatened by the implementation of the globalization agenda. The document offers state a plan to follow to achieve the millennium goals of a common good for all humanity. In conclusion, this essay has highlighted the necessity of keen application of the rhetoric of globalization. It is apparent that states and their governing systems are facing transformation by the forces of globalization and are not being replaced. The concept of globalization is in this context not a threat to sovereignty of states. It is clear that globalization surpasses mere increase in interaction and unification of world economic systems. It extends to the development of a global governing system aimed at regulating international activity. This however does not mean that the sovereignty of the independents states is at risk. According to Ben-Rafael and Sternberg (2001), globalization seeks to manage the diversity of independence and create a culture of interdependence of states. This will involve increased interaction of governments and not dissolution of governments to form a single government. According to the former secretary general of the United Nations, each country must still manage its own economic and political affairs as independent states. Globalization occurs in varying forms. Its proliferation has international effects as it is extensive even onto restricted geographic scope. The spread causes several challenges; first is that globalization causes us to produce new political and economic policies. States have to come up with new regulations that govern collective markets and trade practices. Secondly, it is important to ostracize the poor states by developing a new international economic regime aimed at fostering economic development. If this is not done the continuing trend of disparity between the rich and the poor will intensify and broaden the economic inequity that exists. References Albert, M. (2000) ‘A Q & A on the WTO, IMF, World Bank, and Activism’ (www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/jan2000albert.htm,) Anderson, P. (2002) ‘Internationalism: A Breviary’, New Left Review, 14 5–25 Bauman, Z. (1999), Globalization: The Human Consequences, Cambridge: Polity Ben-Rafael E. and Sternberg Y. (2001), Identity, Culture and Globalization, Boston: Brill Bello, W. (2004) Deglobalization: Ideas for a New World Economy London: Zed Castells, M. (1998) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture – End of Millennium Oxford: Blackwell. Chomsky, N. (2005) Imperial Ambitions: Conversations With Noam Chomsky on the Post 9/11 World, London: Hamish Hamilton Cohn, T. H. (2003) Global Political Economy: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn New York: Longman David D. & Art K. (2001) “Trade, Growth, and Poverty”, World Bank Development Research Group. Davis, M. (2004) ‘Planet of Slums’, New Left Review, 26 5–34 Friedman L. T. (2000) The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Friedman, T. (2005) ‘It’s a Flat World, After All’, The New York Times, 3 April 2005. Global Policy Forum (2000) ‘Average GDP Per Capita in 20 High Income Countries and 20 Low Income Countries’ (wwwglobalpolicy.org/socecon/tables/gdpdeftab.htm) Hall, J. (2000) ‘Globalization and Nationalism’, Thesis Eleven, 63 , 63–79 Held, D. and McGrew, A. (2002) Globalization/Anti-Globalization Cambridge: Polity Jayantha D. (2001) Globalization and the nation state Under-secretary-general for disarmament affairs, boulder, Colorado. Lake, D. A. (1997). “The New Regionalism in Security Affairs” Lake and Morgan, 3–19. United Nation Development Program UNDP (2000), Overcoming human poverty 2000, UNDP Read More