Globalization and Realist School of Thought - Essay Example

Globalization and Realist School of Thought I.D. of the Globalization and Realist School of Thought Introduction Globalization has many aspects and dimensions. That is why any implication regarding the extent and effects of globalization must be based on different perspectives. Now if a question is raised about the theoretical grounding of globalization as a process in the realm of international relations (IR), then realism might be regarded as one of the most important IR theories that can be used to analyze this process. Globalization involves several countries at a time. When amoral self seeking tendencies are given topmost priority while forging or suspending international relations and diplomacies between the various countries, globalization itself might appear to be enigmatic for a while. In this paper, globalization will be investigated as an IR topic with reference to the implications of realism. The main body of this paper begins with a conceptual description of both realism and globalization. Next is the section of discussion. In this section, four dimensions are considered for analyzing globalization as a pervasive IR process. In conclusion, it is reiterated that globalization is indeed a confirmation of realism since the core values of this international process are based on maximizing the national benefits in the long run in a cooperative way. Essay question Is globalization a challenge to or a confirmation of realism? In what ways? Realism and Globalization Realism is a school of political philosophy and thought that establishes the concept of self seeking behavior where a number of international actors are involved. According to realists, a country always attempts to maximize the benefits it can draw when it comes to the matters like power struggle and conflict of interests (Yilmaz 2010). This is basically an amoral approach to international relations (IR) where ground realities around power politics are more important that the lofty ideals of ethical behavior (Russell 2000). While realism is a theoretical outlook on IR and world politics, globalization has emerged as a major worldwide process that is dynamic and evolving with the lapse of time. Lechner (2001, paragraph 1) has defined globalization in the following words: “Globalization broadly refers to the expansion of global linkages, the organization of social life on a global scale, and the growth of a global consciousness, hence to the consolidation of world society.” Of late, scholars like Morgan (2013) have attempted to find correlations between realism and globalization with the help of triangulated research meaning that the need of conducting both quantitative and qualitative studies is to be emphasized. Furthermore, the basic core of the process of globalization is based on global finances and economic integration that are giving rise to both advantages and issues (Derber 2002; Lechner 2001). Discussion Globalization is actually confirming the realist school of thought. Globalization can be defined as a cohort of global policies and economic and political methods that will eventually unify the global economic order of this world. Now most of the world’s developed countries have realized that their collective financial power and economic resolve can help in creating a more organized world order. In turn, this anticipated world economic order would increase the cumulative benefits extracted by the investors and ensure growth. Political justification The best political justification for a realist explanation of globalization is rendered by the recent reemergence of statism. According to Scholte (2004, p. 3), “In statist circumstances, all formulation, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of societal rules occurs directly or indirectly through the state and inter-state relations.” Contextually, analysts like Leef (2011) believe that statism is resurging in countries like America as a consequence to the government’s increasingly interventionist approach. This can be regarded as a cyclic effect between realism and globalization. National interests led to liberalization of international business, which in turn has triggered off renewed need of having more regulatory controls. Globalization is indeed advancing on a realist approach since it has set an agenda of maximizing benefits. It should be kept in mind that benefits may not be always forged with the help of amoral or immoralist approach. So if globalization brings benefit to a number of countries in a simultaneous manner, then its effects cannot be thought of as contradicting the basic realist tenets like statism (Morgan 2013; Scholte 2004). For example, increasing levels of pollutants like carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, etc. in the atmosphere have given rise to greenhouse effect and global warming. Consequently, governments around the world and supranational organizations such as the EU are now engaging in a global environmental discourse with the help of a visionary scheme of global environmental governance (Vogler 2005). However, manifestation of political globalization remains an area of both strategic and financial security since concepts like “competition state” have complicated the global political scenario significantly (Cerny 1997, p. 251). Nations in today’s world are so desperate to maximize their benefits that they do not think about their traditional hostilities when it comes to political dialog for economic, environmental, or some other kind of reasons. Military justification Global anarchism can be identified as the most recent evolution in the global military framework. Although there is a mechanism of communication between the different international militaries, military actions are becoming more assertive with the maturation of globalization. Even during the Cold War era, obtaining UN approval for military actions used to be an important subject in international political discourse. But today, powerful countries are time and again acting independently. For example, US led NATO actions in Lybia or Russian war on Georgia reflect a state of anarchy in the international system, where international approval is not an important issue anymore. (Willetts 2013; Adu-Otu 2011) The United States of America and its Western partners have been the most prominent proponents of globalization. Interestingly, American diplomatic policymakers like George F. Kennan have predominantly preferred to have a realist approach for deciding on the intricacies of foreign relations (Russell 2000). This American tradition along with Western dominance over global economy has given rise to objectification of strategic interests throughout the world. Consequently, the contemporary military powers are preparing to tackle military conflicts even in the most remote parts of the world with a view of maintaining a worldwide strategic status quo. For example, border disputes between Russia, Canada, Norway and USA are taking a serious turn but no country is pressing ahead to seek a military solution of the problem (Young 2011). Interestingly though, a UN intervention is also not being sought in these circumstances. The US is playing a most important role in this sphere. After the fall of arch rival USSR, it was being expected that the world would be now a safer and calmer place. But after the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks, American defense policies went through almost a holistic paradigmatic shift. Now the US started to increase its military spending at an increased rate. It also waged several wars in different parts of the world. The War on Terror reached a global scale. (Duiker and Spielvogel 2011) From this level of alertness, doubt, and self assertion, the US could decide to preemptively strike any potential or declared enemy of theirs. Consequently, America’s national defense policy has now emerged as “a national strategy of global development” (Brigety and Dewan 2009, pp. 1-11). This perspective is further completed by more and more assertive military actions that do not care about the role of the UN as an international authority. Most of the major security stakeholders of the world like Russia, India, UK, etc. have cooperated with the US on a global basis but all these countries are functioning independently on the major military issues. So such a situation can be called a situation of anarchy vis-à-vis ideals of a worldwide liberal institutionalism itself. Economic justification Economic justification of the proposition that globalization confirms realist school of thought is based on practicalities. Globalization started during the late 1980s and with the fall of reclusive USSR, the process took up tremendous pace (Morgan 2013; Derber 2002). The process of global economic integration that followed with the help of World Trade Organization or WTO created the roadmap for a global economic security. This global economy possesses at least two most important aspects. Firstly, the perceived global economy should be empowered by strong financial regulations. In this context, the WTO is working hard to formulate all agreeable global fiscal conventions, rules, and systems (Kalemi-Ozcan et al 2010). Secondly, global financial activities are being synchronized. An important note here is that the developed countries are always having an upper hand in deciding the course of financial globalization (Isaak 2005). Most of the developing and underdeveloped countries of the world have incurred lots of debt from the developed countries, many of whom have been their formal colonial rulers. Now when the outstanding debts have accumulated, the developing and underdeveloped countries are having an increasingly precarious fiscal situation which is being exploited by the synchronized efforts of the developed countries (Isaak 2005). Apparently, the developed countries are working together without paying much attention toward their contrasting economic interests in many cases. However, this behavior actually explains a tendency of collective action on the part of the developed countries for maximizing their economic benefits vis-à-vis the plight of their financially weak counterparts (Morgan 2013; Isaak 2005). So the apparent deviation from realism is an illusion. Most of the developed countries are working together without much regard for rivalries and contradictions because they all want to maximize their economic benefits in the long run. Hence realism can be utilized to explain the success of globalization from an economic point of view. Environmental implications Temperature irregularities and comparative increase in the average yearly temperatures can be understood to have started a manifestation through the spectre of global warming. This environmental hazard arrived during the mid twentieth century with the emergence of numerous large corporations coupled with increasing industrial pollution. These trends are particularly discernable in the developed countries who are economically well off and who can also tackle most of the environmental issues in their respective geographical regions (Cowie 2007). But this is not the situation in the developing and underdeveloped countries. Most of these countries are suffering from the increasing harm of global warming and related climatic changes. Consequentially with the striking modifications in climatic conditions, the environmental balance of this world is being hampered. Various national governments (including those of the developed countries) and international policymakers are now promoting global enforcement of stringent environmental rules and regulations through the global environmental governance (Tietenberg 2006). This is a constructive side of realist confirmation by globalization, where global players are not really interested to confine the process of globalization itself within the territories of political, military, and/or economic activities. This is the reason why experts like De Sombre (2006) have cautioned against a possible compromise among the developed and developing countries. Such a compromise would aim at saving some money by allowing some detriments to the environment to continue to happen. But whatever might be the upshot of these political processes, it should be acknowledged that the pursuit of an overt or covert consensus is based on realism. Nations around the world are attempting either to control the environmental damage already done or to create a diplomatic safety valve by convincing the emerging economies to endure the burden of pollution control one-sidedly. Both ways, alternatives with maximum benefits will be adopted (Elliot 2004). Practical needs will take precedence over ethics. Conclusion Realism can be held as an amoral thesis of maximizing the national benefits when it comes to international relationships including partnerships, neutralities, and hostilities. A realist thinker must neither be influenced by traditions nor give way to sentimental resentments in the view of historic events. Over emphasis on moralist thought may lead to self-defeating behavior on the part of the polity in question (Russell 2000). So now when globalization has been initiated all over the world with special emphasis on global economic integrations, each and every nation must attempt to reflect on the potential benefits of the process. This is the basic realist IR paradigm which encourages one for honestly securing diplomatic and strategic advantages of one’s country. The developed nations must concentrate on maintaining their contemporary dominant position in the world economy even though globalization may help in instituting economic redistribution through organizations like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the WTO. Globalization has shown that even if realist principles are applied, there is no direct possibility of conflicts. Even the most assertive and independently acting nations today might come together all by themselves and join the process of global diplomacy and governance to draw maximum possible mutual benefits in the long run. References Adu-Otu, Y.A. (2011). NATO in Libya. Center for Research on Globalization. Retrieved on 13th May 2014 from http://www.globalresearch.ca/nato-in-libya-un-and-icc-risk-becoming-irrelevant-to-africans/27577 Brigety, E. and Dewan, S. (2009). A National Strategy of Global Development. Washington D.C.: Center for American Progress. Cerny, P. G. (1997). Paradoxes of the competition state: the dynamics of political globalization. Government and Opposition, 32, 251-274. Cowie, J. (2007). Climate Change: Biological and Human Aspects. New York: Barnes and Noble De Sombre, E. (2006). The Global Environment and World Politics. New York: Bloomsbury Derber, C. (2002). People before Profit. New York: St. Martin’s Press Duiker, W.J. and Spielvogel, J.J. (2011). World History. Scarborough: Cengage Learning. Elliott, L. (2004). The Global Politics of the Environment. New York: New York University Press. Isaak, R. (2005). The Globalization Gap. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Kalemi-Ozcan, S., Papaioannou, E. and Peydro, J.-L. (2010). Financial regulation, financial globalization, and the synchronization of economic activity. The Journal of Finance, 68, 1179-1228 Lechner, F. (2001). What is globalization, Globalization Issues. Atlanta: Emory University. Retrieved on 3rd May 2014 from http://sociology.emory.edu/faculty/globalization/contact.html Leef, G.C. (2011). BOOK REVIEW: Back on the Road to Serfdom: The Resurgence of Statism. Foundation for Economic Education. Retrieved on 23rd May 2014 from http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/back-on-the-road-to-serfdom-the-resurgence-of-statism Morgan, A. (2013). The imbalance of trade in the global marketplace. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Undergraduate Research 2012 (pp. 1437-1443). Ogden: Weber State University Russell, R. (2000). American diplomatic realism: A tradition practised and preached by George F. Kennan. Diplomacy and Statecraft, 11, 159-183. Scholte, J.A. (2004). Globalization and Governance: From Staism to Polycentrism. CSGR Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 130/04 Tietenberg, T.H. (2006). Emissions Trading: Principles and Practice. RFF Press Vogler, J. (2005). The European contribution to global environmental governance. International Affairs, 81 (4) Willetts, P. (2013). The Voice of Which People? Transnational Advocacy Networks and Governance Networks at the United Nations (Report No. CUTP010). London: Department of International Politics, City University London. Yilmaz, S. (2010). State, power, and hegemony. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 1, 192-205. Young, O. (2011). The future of the Arctic. International Affairs, 87, 185-193 Read More