Has Globalisation Made the World More or Less Secure - Essay Example

?Has globalisation made the world more or less secure? Discuss with specific reference to the rise of non actors Introduction The role and the forms of politics, as tools for developing strategies related to various needs of states worldwide are not standardized. Rather, they are likely to change continuously in order to meet the requirements of the existing social and economic environment, which are volatile to external influences. This fact has been made clear in the case of security. The specific framework, which incorporates a wide range of social needs, has been differentiated under the influence of global political and economic pressures. An indicative example is the cold war period, during which the term security was related to state and security as integrated units. In the after-cold war period, which was characterized by the gradual development of globalisation, the term security refers mostly to environmental and health problems; internal conflicts are also issues related to security in the era of globalisation. Current paper focuses on the issue whether globalisation has made the world more or less secure. Reference is also made to the non-state actors, which have been given increased powers regarding the internal issues of states. This phenomenon has been related to globalisation, which has increased its involvement in the activities of states and individuals worldwide. It is proved that the role of globalisation in security worldwide has been negative; however, the specific problem could be effectively resolved with the cooperation of states. In order for any such effort to be successful, it is required that measures are developed in advance for controlling the expansion of non-state actors, as factors influencing the political and social framework of countries worldwide. 2. Globalisation and security in the international community. The role of non-State actors 2.1 Globalisation and security In the context of globalisation it has been made quite difficult for security worldwide to be appropriately promoted. The reason is that globalisation supports practices and ideas, which are often in opposition with the national culture and rules. In this context, the conflict between the ‘non-state actors and the intra state practices’ (Al-Rodhan 2006, p.162) is increased. The above fact has a negative influence on the efforts of international bodies to promote the world peace and health. Indeed, many of the plans developed by the UN for securing the health and safety of people in countries worldwide are led to a failure. The role of globalisation in the limitation of the security of states is analysed in the study of Till et al. (2009). In accordance with the above researchers, globalisation has led states ‘to cede a number of their security functions to non-state factors’ (Till et al. 2009, p.47). The above target has been achieved through the following method: under the fear of globalisation certain states avoid their participation in critical commercial activities worldwide; however, in this way, their economic power is reduced, a fact that leads, also, to the worsening of their position, as members of the international community. Under these terms, states become weak towards military threats; in case of such threats they would need the support of non-state factors. In this way, the limitation of sovereignty, a fear that initially led the country to its economic exclusion, becomes a clear threat. The power of globalisation to promote instability is not limited to the external environment, referring to the relationship between a state and the other countries of the international community. It can also refer to the state’s internal environment, where the promotion of ‘economic disparities’ (Till et al. 2009, p.47) can lead to severe conflicts. Trying to explain the increased power of globalisation over national issues, including security, Fagan et al. (2009) referred to the weakness of the ‘old-fashioned instrumental politics’ (Fagan et al. 2009, p.181) to resolve critical state problems. It is noted that politics in their traditional forms were involved in negotiations between states with clearly defined borders, a characteristic that was not necessarily negative for these states. However, the failures of the methods used by traditional politics to resolve important state problems resulted, gradually, in the involvement of the non-state actors in the relevant processes. The above phenomenon was extremely promoted through globalisation at such level that the dependency of security on non-state actors could be characterized as a result of the expansion of globalisation. The involvement of non-state factors on the security of states can be made clear by referring to the general framework of these factors, meaning their common forms and their role as elements of globalisation. In the same context, Abrahamsen et al. (2010) noted that the involvement of globalisation in security was worldwide has been developed gradually. At a first level, globalisation had influenced the views on territory and sovereignty (Abrahamsen et al. 2010, p.217); then, the security, as a framework including various social, political and economic issues was targeted by globalisation. Indeed, globalisation has managed to influence security in states by using a variety of non-state actors, as presented in the next section. It is through these actors that globalisation managed to change the norms of security worldwide. It should be noted that traditionally, the concept of security has been related to ‘military threats posed by enemies’ (Devetak et al. 2008, p.17). Under the influence of globalisation the context of security has been changed. Today, security is a concept incorporating issues like ‘terrorism, people movement, transnational crime and the environment’ (Devetak eta l. 2008, p.17). Towards the same direction, Aydinli et al. (2006) noted that globalisation has contributed in the transformation of ‘five-security areas: military, political, societal, environment and economic’ (Aydinli et al. 2006, p.32). In accordance with the above researchers, the influence of globalisation on these security-areas has not been necessarily negative. The implications of the above relationship are analytically explained in the next section. 2.2 Non-state factors, forms and involvement in the security of nations The role of the non-state factors in the alteration of the concept of security in nations worldwide has been critical. In order to understand this role, it would be necessary to refer to the forms of these actors, as acting in states of different political and social characteristics. The key reason for the increased power of these actors in influencing the security of states internationally can be identified in the following fact: these actors are beyond the control of states, in other words they cannot be controlled by measures developed by governments as they are not related to the territory of a particular state, as for instance in the case of environmental problems. These actors are analytically presented below; explanations are given for the relation of each of these factors to the security of states in the international community. The environmental problems are among the non-state factors, which can influence security. Because of their nature, the environmental problems can be resolved only through measures undertaken by states worldwide; in other words, these problems cannot be resolved only through initiatives developed by one or more states. An additional characteristic of the environmental problems is that these problems can appear in many countries, simultaneously, a case that makes their confrontation much more difficult. Indicative examples of global environmental problems are the following ones: the increase of CO2 emissions, earthquakes that causes damages in one or more countries, the increase of the level of the sea, the limitation of fish stock worldwide, the limitation of the water reserves and so on. The above problems cannot be faced by measures and policies developed by one state; rather, they require the cooperation of all countries in the international community – mostly because of the fact they are human activities in all countries which have led to the appearance and the expansion of environmental problems worldwide. However, not all states show the same willingness to participate in such initiatives, or to follow the measures suggested. From this point of view, it can be stated that globalisation has not increased security in states around the world. The fact that cooperation for facing these problems is promoted through globalisation is not sufficient for the problems to be resolved. This fact has been made clear in the refusal of certain of the countries participated in the discussion over the Kyoto Protocol to ratify the above Protocol (UNFCCC, 2011). In addition to environmental problems, the social problems can be also considered as actors influencing the security worldwide. The social problems, which can influence security in countries worldwide, can be the following ones: poverty and diseases; the first of the above problems is often related to the second; people of extremely low income cannot have access to health institutions; they cannot also afford the treatment required for their health problem. Also, by not being informed on the risks of their health problem they are likely to contribute, without being conscious of that, in the expansion of the problem, i.e. for example, the case of the example of diseases in countries suffered from poverty. In the case of the social problems, the role of globalisation in guaranteeing the security of states has been contradictory. More specifically, in certain cases, rules and practices based on globalisation have been proved valuable in order to prevent the expansion of severe diseases – referring especially to AIDS, the effects of which have been more appropriately addressed since the introduction of common policies by countries worldwide. AIDS has highlighted the relationship between poverty and health (as mentioned above); in fact, in a relevant report of the US Global Health Policy (2010) it is noted that about 97% of those suffering from AIDS ‘reside in low and middle-income countries’ (US Global Health Policy 2010, p.1). On the other hand, it is noted that the rate of the expansion of the disease has been decreased (US Global Health Policy 2010, p.1), a fact that is closely related to the development of cooperation among states for facing the particular problem. At the same time, an increase in the number of people infected by AIDS has been achieved in 2009 – again, a result of the measures developed jointly by countries worldwide, i.e. a benefit of globalisation (US Global Health Policy 2010, p.1). The expansion of AIDS globally has led to the following assumption: certain social problems cannot be effectively addressed without the cooperation among states in the international community. Furthermore, it has been made clear that the effectively control of the problem, meaning its limitation as possible and its potential elimination in the future, is depended on the willingness of states to adopt measures which are decided by all states worldwide, i.e. the willingness to follow rules and practices that have been effectively introduced in other countries. Such practice would not threaten the national sovereignty, as could be possibly noted by those opposing such initiatives. The need for common practices in the effective control of the problem is made clear through the following facts: the specific disease has been significantly expanded in countries worldwide; in fact, its expansion continues today but the rate of development is decreasing (US Global Health Policy, p.1); also, similar patterns have been identified in the methods of the infection by the disease; for instance in areas where military conflicts are in progress, ‘the rate of infection by the disease is increased up to 50%’ (US Global Health Policy, p.1). Through these facts it is made clear that AIDS is a social problem for all countries worldwide. In practice, globalisation has made the control of the problem easier, as explained above, a fact that proves the potential value of globalisation in facing certain social problems. From another point of view, globalisation can lead to the worsening of social problems in states internationally; such perspective exists for example in the case of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Even if the above organization is aware of the social problems related to poverty, still supports practices that enhance poverty, ignoring the needs of local populations (Feyter et al. 2005, p.148). The failure of the above organization to meet the rules of the international bodies regarding to poverty is partially a result of the lack of an effective approach for the limitation of the above social problem – reference is made specifically to the ‘UN Committee on ESC rights’ (Feyter et al. 2005, p.148). On the other hand, the impact of globalisation on the transformation of war cannot be ignored. Indeed, globalisation has been used as a basis for the promotion of peace initiatives across the international communities. These efforts have been enforced by the establishment of international bodies focusing on the promotion of peace – most important, the United Nations. However, in practice, globalisation has not led in the limitation of war. Rather it has caused the change of the forms of war. In accordance with Geeraerts et al. (2006) the efforts for global peace, as a result of globalisation, have been followed by the ‘globalisation of military’ (Geeraerts et al. 2006, p.77), in the context of which weapons are cheaper and thus easier to be acquired (Geeraerts et al. 2006, p.77). Countries with no stable political and social environment – usually those countries where the chances for profit is high because of their natural resources – are more volatile to globalisation, as a military threat. From another point of view, Aydinli et al. (2006) have noted that globalisation had both positive and negative impact on military. It is explained that because of globalisation, major military conflicts between states have been reduced (Aydinli et al. 2006, p.32); moreover, in the context of globalisation, mechanisms are available for the peaceful resolution of conflicts between states – at least, such mechanisms are most likely to be used when such conflicts appear (Aydinli et al. 2006, p.33). On the other hand, globalisation has also contributed to the development of global enterprises like the global drug industry and terrorism (Aydinli et al. 2006, p.33). These enterprises have led to the increase of violence worldwide; in fact, the level of violence globally can be considered as higher compared to the past, but it may seems as of lower level due to the lack of major military conflicts, as in the past. The role of globalisation in the expansion of non-traditional forms of war is also highlighted in the study of Kennett (2008). The above researcher explains that the expansion of violence, as a result of globalisation is closely related to the activities of NGOs; these organizations identify the political weaknesses of states internationally; they also identify the potential sources of economic development – referring to the sources of national wealth, such as oil reserves or water reserves – in many cases the control of water has been the reason for the development of strong conflicts between states. At the next level, the information provided by these NGOs is used for the creation of economic profiles of states globally. Such profile, where available, can be a reason for the development of violence – aiming to take the control of these sources (Kennett 2008, p.211). The above aspect of globalisation can be considered as related to another one of its aspects: the freedom of information. Through the increase of the variety and the volume of information exchanged globally, people can get access to valuable data which may used, under certain terms, for the development of violence against individuals or states in the context described above. Of course, it cannot be supported that the improvement of the terms under which information is accessed, as a result of globalisation, is necessarily a negative aspect of globalisation. However, the expansion of violence, in the form of military conflicts or in the form of transnational crimes (for example: human trafficking, illegal organ trading, assassination), can be closely related to globalisation – the lack of effective control on the information exchanged internationally has highly supported the above activities, as consequences of globalisation. Moreover, the dependency on mechanisms for the rapid exchange of information globally, referring especially to the World Wide Web, is so high that the control of the volume and quality of information transmitted globally has become quite difficult. This means that the limitation of behaviours that threaten the security of individual (loss of important personal data, economic damages due to systems’ failures, threaten of life because of the access of personal data by criminals) and states (as described above) may be a challenging task. In accordance with the issues described above, globalisation may promote the effective control of certain social and economic problems. However, it seems that its role in regard to the human rights globally is not positive. The above view is based on the following facts: globalisation is mostly related to specific social and economic interests. However, human rights are not part of a country’s social or economic framework; rather, these rights can be characterized as political and civil rights. From this point of view, globalisation does not promote human rights (McGrew et al. 2007, p.182). On the other hand, political and civil rights are more important than economic and social rights (McGrew et al. 2007, p.182). This means that instead of using strategies that promote the globalisation the political powers of states worldwide should rather support initiatives that guarantee the respect of human rights. It should be made clear though that social and economic interests can be incorporated in human rights (McGrew et al. 2007, p.182). From this point of view, it is often noted that globalisation contributes in the protection of human rights, a proposition that cannot be fully acceptable but can be justified only in the context described above. 3. Conclusion The intervention of non-state actors in the security of states has many different forms. Moreover, it has been proved that the increase of power of these actors within countries worldwide has been strongly supported by globalisation. Under these terms, the concept of security has been changed. Security, in its current form, incorporates a wide range of activities, being a critical factor for stability in states of different political, economic and social characteristics. Through the literature reviewed for this study it has been made clear that globalisation has made the world less secure – in every aspect of the term security. However, this impact of globalisation is not clear, at least not fully, mostly because of the high complexity of the aspects of globalisation as a political, economic and social trend. The above fact cannot lead to the assumption that the expansion of globalisation is not controllable; on the contrary, there are many prospects for the specific trend to be effectively controlled but such effort would primarily require the control over the non-state actors that highly enforce globalisation, in the context explained above. References Abrahamsen, R., Williams, M. 2010. Security Beyond the State: Private Security in International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Aydinli, E., Rosenau, J. 2006. Globalization, Security, And the Nation State: Paradigms in Transition. New York: SUNY Press Al-Rodhan, N. 2006. Policy briefs on the transcultural aspects of security and stability. Zurich: LIT Verlag Munster Devetak, R., Hughes, C. 2008. The globalization of political violence: globalization's shadow. Oxon: Taylor & Francis Fagan, H., Munck, R. 2009. Globalization and Security: Social and cultural aspects. California: ABC-CLIO Feyter, K., Gomez, F. 2005. Privatisation and human rights in the age of globalisation. Oxford: Intersentia Geeraerts, G., Pauwels, N. 2006. Dimensions of peace and security: a reader. Brussels: Peter Lang Gobbicchi, A. 2004. Globalization, armed conflicts and security. Roma: Rubbettino Editore Human Development Report. 1994. Capturing the peace dividend. Available from < http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_1994_en_chap3.pdf> Kennett, P. 2008. Governance, globalization and public policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing McGrew, A., Poku, N. 2007. Globalization, development and human security. Cambridge: Polity Till, G., Chew, E., Ho, J. 2009. Globalization and defense in the Asia-Pacific. Oxon: Taylor & Francis UN FCCC. 2011. The Kyoto Protocol. Available from < http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php> U.S. Global Health Policy. December 2010. The Global HIV/ AIDS Epidemic. Available from Read More