Politics of Globalisation in the US - Essay Example

Politics of globalisation In a world, that could be argued to be no longer defined by U.S’ Hegemony and supremacy what would become of globalisation and the open international economic system that the United States established after World War II and expanded after the Cold War Ended? According to Bryane (5), globalisation refers to the international expansion of the world economy through foreign influences such as economic, social, political, and related information, across borders. However, the stability of the international economy requires the dominance of one nation over others. As stated by Mark (25), the dominance of one state over others in terms of economic and socio-political power is known as hegemony. Since the end of Cold World War, the United States has played a significant role in globalisation as a hegemon. U.S’ hegemony was able to impose its rules on the international system, provide goods to the system such as an international economic, financial and commercial order as well as global security and political order (Higgott 148). In short, the United States was able to open up national borders to foreign influences like political, cultural, and economic; thus, promoting globalisation. For this reason, in a world no longer defined by U.S’ hegemony, globalisation would not sustain. Higgott (156) claims that hegemony is crucial in creating international institutions that supply public goods, to the international system. Such institutions include World Trade Organisation, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and United Nations, among others. However, Mark (33) argues that the role played by these international institutions is not responsible for stability of the international economy. This is because once they start; they do not need any further controlling since they can survive on their own and other nations come to value and preserve them. However, the United States hegemony does not only set rules for other nations, but also creates international institutions that supply public goods (Bryane 21). According to Robinson (36), such public goods would not be provided unless there was a nation in the international system willing to pay the disproportionate cost to supply them. In the current international system, the United State is the only nation able to absorb the disproportionate cost and supply the public goods to the international community; thus, creating a stable international economy which has less conflicts and more open. However, even if the U.S’ disproportionately bears the costs alone, it stands to gain due to its dominant position in the international system. Cox (256) claims that, US hegemony has contributed largely to global security through its military force. Nevertheless, many nations claim that the U.S’ has caused a reduction in international security; hence, they view America as a threat and doubt its intentions. This has led to destabilisation of the international cooperation. However, according to Cox (261), US military hegemony does not weaken global security, but rather promotes international democracy and liberty leading to political stability. For instance, the American military has helped to protect Saudi Arabia from attacks in order to ensure free flow of oil to other nations. Moreover, the stability of U.S’ hegemony has helped to prevent countries such as Germany from developing their own nuclear weapons; thus, protecting Asia and other European nations from destructive security competition and arms races (Harry 43). Therefore, if United States withdraws from its dominant role in the world, globalisation would deteriorate drastically due to lack of international security. However, without protection of Middle East by the U.S’ military hegemony, the free flow of oil is likely to be interrupted by war, which would result in increased oil prices and affect the global economy. Thus, increased oil prices would force nations to use coal that can cause environmental catastrophes such as global warming, pollution of water in the sea, rivers, among others. For this reason, resources would become scarce, and the nations would be forced to engage in wars in order to gain or protect their natural resources (Harry 46). As a result, global economy and other political arrangements would destabilize and lead to deglobanization (Hettne 33). Without U.S’ hegemon, de globalization would also result due to less international investment by other countries. Greater local and regional nations would emerge that are self-reliant for production of goods and services Robinson (48). However, the high prices of oil would cause an increase in the cost of transportation of public services and goods; thus, leading to reduction of international trade. Efforts to solve the problem of environmental catastrophes like carbon emissions would result in regulation of long distance transport via ship or air; hence, promote local and regional production and consumption of goods and services, which affect international trade. U.S’ hegemony promotes free trade, which is essential, in promoting international growth politically and economically. Free trade means that there are no trade barriers such as tariffs, which helps to protect local manufactures and promote revenue increase. According to Gady (18), free trade promotes peace across the nations based on three assumptions. One, free trade helps to increase contact and communication between nations (Milner 73). As stated by Gady (24), contacts prevent competitive behaviour and loyalty among nations is displaced; thus, creating a more stable global environment. Two, free trade prevents nations from engaging in wars and unnecessary conflicts in order to acquire resources. This would result in economic growth. Three, free trade can help a state achieve a negotiated compromise in war through human interaction, which results from international trade and commerce (Milner 105). However, (Robert 219), states that decline of U.S’ hegemony may reduce economic activity and trade relations among nations. He claims that if another hegemon that only follows the rules of trade written on paper would emerge, will likely do away with free trade and result in loss of U.S’ influence on the international economic system. Therefore, U.S’ hegemony promotes free trade in order create economic stability in the international system. According to Kennedy (432), without U.S’ hegemony, there would be a problem in international finance; thus a problem in the International Political Economy (IPE). This includes foreign the international and local institutions and their related political structures, exchange systems, analysis of exchange rates, international capital movements, particularly portfolio and debt flows. Robert (13) claims that the values of international currencies are fixed in terms of the U.S’ dollar; therefore, the United States is responsible for managing the international monetary system. For this reason, withdrawal of U.S’ as a hegemon would affect the economic stability in the world. U.S’ hegemony promotes globalisation through communication. Thus, if the US declines or withdraws as the world hegemon, global communication and consequently global economy would be affected in various ways. First it would affect international linguistic standardisation (Vincent 17). As stated by McGrew (6) English is the language used by the US hegemon; hence, it is the de facto language used for international business. It is also an international language used in many nations for communication. For this reason, withdrawal of US hegemony would require the standardisation of another international language, which would affect the global economy integration. The US hegemony is also a main sponsor of a number of cultural exchange programs aimed at promoting global communication e.g. the international strategy for cyberspace, which helps to keep the global internet open, free, and interconnected (Alexander 392). Moreover, according to Bryane (16) the U.S’ economy produces over 30 percent of the total world product, and almost 70 of all Nobel laureates in economics, medicine, and sciences conduct their research projects in the United States. This is because it is the most developed nation in the fields of biotechnology, information technology and nontechnology among others. In fact about 50 percent of all the internet traffic in the world comes from America. For this reasons, U.S’ hegemony plays a particularly significant role in supporting the international system through economic, political and sociocultural influences. Conclusion According to Higgott (154), hegemon stability theory states that international institutions and global governance systems rely on a hegemon power, to promote and control them. For this reason, U.S’ hegemony is indispensable in both creating these institutions and ensuring that they are running effectively. Thus, decline in U.S’ hegemony will have a negative influence on international institutions such as World Bank, United Nations, among others. Hence, political and economic stability will be affected since creating new institutions would not difficult. Moreover, Vincent (22) states that if the United States withdraws as the hegemon, it would neither be able to dictate the development of new institutions or even take the lead in instituting fundamental changes required in the international system, nor would any other country in the world. Thus, the international trade and cooperation will decrease, and the international economic system will suffer. As stated by Kennedy (459), without the U.S’ power, the world will not be able to deal with the increasing environmental crisis such as food shortages, lack clean water, and drought mainly caused by global warming as a result of climate change. However, Harry (44) urges that the United States would have a comparative advantage if it withdraws as a hegemon. As a hegemon, the U.S’ is likely to face attacks from its enemies; therefore, its military power will be least significant. In the hegemon stability theory, Alexander (420), claims that when a hegemon breaks, the international system falls into conflict and disorder; thus, lead to decrease, in peace and prosperity. He argues that while the hegemon bears all the burdens of organizing the international system by supplying public goods and ensuring the free flow of oil across all the industrial nations, the others nations prosper; hence, it becomes difficult for it to bear the expenses to maintain the international system and results to its decline. Therefore, a world that would be no longer defined by U.S’ hegemony would lead to de globalization, which would be influenced by factors such as high cost of transportation and production technology, division of labour, decline in national security, as well as the general standards of living, among others. These factors would lead to an unstable international economic system; hence affect globalisation. Works Cited Alexander, W., “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Politics 1992. 391–425. Print. Bryane, M. Theorizing the Politics of Globalizations, “Transformationalism Journal of Economic and Social Research. 1999. 3-17 Cox, M. Empire by denial? Debating US power Security dialogue, London: sage publishers 2004. 35: 254-257.Print. Gady, F. S. Should the United States continue as a champion of trade? Washington DC. 2010. Print Harry, L. “Questioning the Resort to U.S. Hegemonic Military Force" In Scholarship and Professional Work, 2009. Print Hettne, D. Development, Security and World Order; A Regionalist Approach, Globalization, competitiveness, and human security.1997. Print. Higgott, R. US Foreign Policy and the Securitization of Economic Globalization International Politics, 2004. Volume 41. 147-175. Print. Kennedy, P. “The Greatest Superpower Ever,” New Perspectives Quarterly, Berkeley: University of California. 2002. Print. Mark, S. GCSP Policy Brief No. 15: US Hegemony and Globalization, geneva.2006. Print Milner, H. "International Political Economy: Beyond Hegemonic Stability," Foreign Policy, No. 110, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print. McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D. & Perraton, J. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture.1999. Print. Robert, O. K. After hegemony: cooperation and discord in the world political economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005 Robert G: Global Political Economy, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001 Robinson, W. Promoting polyarchy: Globalization, US intervention, and hegemony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. Print. Vincent, C. “The Diminished Nation-State: A Study in the Loss of Economic Power,” in What Future for the State? John Wiley and Sons, 1995. 24. Read More