The Impact of Globalization on the International Political Agenda - Essay Example

The Impact of Globalization on the international Political Agenda Globalizations, and its many facets, have long been under debate and some of the most renowned researchers in the world have presented their varied opinion on the effect that this phenomena has had on the working of the political systems around the world. According to Skolnikoff (2001), “Advances in science and technology and their application have led to an unprecedented degree of interaction and mutual dependence among nations in their economies, social structures and security relationships”. According to the author, this has served to move nations closer and has created a level of interdependence between these nations, where the economies, social structures and security relationships of these countries have been connected in an interwoven web of an intricate delicacy.(Skolnikoff,2001). There are still those who suggest that the world has “gone beyond interdependence”, to the point that there has become “a tightly woven fabric of international agreements, organizations, and institutions that shape relations with each other and penetrate deeply into their internal economics and politics.” (Chayes &Chayes, 1995). Due to this, many people argue that the phenomenon of globalization has created a sense of demarcation of boundaries and territories and has threatened the age old concept of the Nation-state. Linklater (1998) comments that globalization has created a sense of pressure on the political systems of the world and "it has become essential to question the assumption that citizenship has no meaning apart from the sovereign nation-state”. This idea that the world has been interconnected to the point that there has arisen a lack of national identities has had far reaching impacts around the world and has not only effected social and economical factors of countries around the world but also the international political ideals and agendas. He says that “globalization and fragmentation erode traditional conceptions of the community and reduce the moral significance of national boundaries. Putzel (2004) is of the opinion that “patterns of globalization and liberalization need to be examined in light of their political consequences, especially in the context of situations of state collapse and violent conflict”. , a fact which has had a transformational effect on the terrain of politics and the political agendas of countries around the world. The author suggests that this movement of globalization which has weakened the concept of Nation-State and has instated a sort of semi-democracy in most countries around the world. The people who argue that globalization is the major cause of the weakening national consciousness also claim that this ‘afterthought’ of the phenomenon has had dire effects on the lesser developed countries. This implies that the international political agenda has changed for the worse for most of these countries. Jameson (2000) notes that “culture has become decidedly economic, and this particular economics clearly sets a political agenda, dictating policy”. He notes that globally the way that nations set their political priorities and agendas have changed in the sense that they have now become decidedly ‘culturally imperialistic’. To a lay man, the world ‘globalization’ carries a positive significant undertone and most people associate it with productive expansion and economic growth of countries around the world, but Milanovic (2003), was the one who analyzed the history of the phenomena and presented a case which pointed out that while globalization presented a benign face, it had, in fact its roots in maliciousness. Milanovic points out that “globalization was colonialism” and was spread at the point of a gun, during the last few centuries. He gives the examples of the labor flow that was employed to work in the plantations of Southeast Asia and Latin America, and points out that greedy corporations the like of the Dutch East Indies Company were the original perpetrators of the ‘bringing together of the world’, which they achieved by using unlawful and unfair political activities in the countries where they operated (Milanovic, 2003). According to the people, who believe that globalization has been a major cause of the weakening of the political systems around the world, this phenomenon has only changed the international political thought for the worse. The fact that democracy has now been reduced to an empty shell of sorts has lead to the introduction of a new concept of a cosmopolitan democracy, something which belies the true identity of democracy itself. What this implies is that now, the “narrowly nationalistic” policies of governments have changed to the point that their political agendas which give way to “global economic open-ness” (Ikenberry, 2000). All these negative opinions about the globalization phenomenon leads one to believe that it is the biggest reason behind the current political crises around the world and that the bringing closer of the world has in fact left the national governments weakened because of their inability to control all aspects of the economic, social and political decisions that they make for their country. Even though the idea that globalization has indeed effected the national political systems of smaller nations cannot be overlooked, the fact remains that larger, more established nations in the world have reaped huge benefits from it. The ‘transnational’ organization has been the biggest reason for the astronomical growth in the GDP of countries like the United States of America and the United Kingdom, the smaller poorer countries who provide these organizations with the cheap labor resources that they desire usually get the rougher end of the deal. Although these countries receive the benefit of having jobs being created for their workforce, these organizations and their countries of origin manage to retain a lot of control in the political decision-making processes of these smaller nations, hence the fact remains that for the developing country, there is left very limited or non-existent control over the construction of their political agenda, as there are so many more powerful forces who have decision-making powers over these matters. However, as I pointed out before, globalization has been a terrible ordeal for some political systems and their agendas and at the same time it has been the best possible thing to have happened to some nations. Hence it would do much more to view this phenomenon as a something which has different impacts on different political systems. It would be more appropriate to say that larger, more developed countries and those countries that have a richer portfolio of resources that can be offered to larger countries are he ones who stand most benefited by globalization. There are still others who say that the issue being raised by people saying that globalization is weakening the concept of the Nation-state - and hence effecting the developing nations control over their political systems- are over reacting and making assumptions about something which has very little chance of occurring. Skolnikoff (2003) states that even through all of the proclaimed impacts of globalization, and the astonishing changes in weapons, in economies, communications, trade, energy, health and in the environment, “we still are a part of a system that retains the basic structures of independent states”. He points out that all states in the world are to a varying degree “jealous of its independence, each seeing itself in competition with others, each attempting to maintain as much freedom of action as it can and each committed to maximizing national welfare”.(Skolnikoff,2003). This point just about sums up my conclusion roundly. I maintain that even though Globalization has an immense impact on the political systems and on the international political thought, this impact has had been different for different regions of the world. I agree that to a certain extent, globalization has affected the national political integrity of some of the weaker countries in the world; it has only managed to strengthen the economic and political capacities of other larger more advanced countries. Although I believe that the concept of the Nation-state is something that will probably never quite diminish, globalization on a certain level has weakened the poorer countries in the sense that they have lost a lot political hold over the economical and sometimes social decision-making and the political systems of these countries are at times dependent on the opinions of their larger, more advanced partners for making strategic economic and social decisions for them. According to Ikenberry (2000), “New opportunities exist to expand trade between developed and developing countries, and new political incentives emerge to insure that the regime changes are consolidated”. This statement shows perfectly how globalization has had an impact on the political agenda of the nations around the world. In my opinion, the phenomena of globalization has had a great impact on the international political agenda and with the changing times, we may still see some even more astonishing proofs of the fact. References Branko Milanovic, ‘The Two Faces of Globalization: Against Globalization as We Know It’, World Development. 31:4 (2003), pp.667–683. Chayes, A. & Antonia Handler Chayes, (1995) The New Sovereignty: Compliance With International Regulatory Agreements, Harvard Law Review, Vol 114, No.3, January 2001, p. 684. Ikenberry, G. J. (2000). Globalization and Political Order: The Sources and Consequences of Global Economic Integration. Universidad Torcuato Di Tella. Working Paper number 1. Jameson, Fredric. (2000). Globalization and Political Strategy .New left review. July 2000. Retrieved from: www.newleftreview.org/shtml.cgi?number=23803 On 16th April 2020. Linklater, A. (1998). The Transformation of Political Community . Cornwall: Polity Press. Putzel, J. (2004). The Political impact of Globalization and Liberalization: Evidence emerging from Crisis States Research. Crisis States Discussion Papers. Skolnikoff, Eugene B. (2001). Will Science and Technology Undermine the International Political System?. Retrieved form: web.mit.edu/polisci/research/skolnikoff/technology_undermine.pdf . on 11th April 2010. Read More