Globalization and its Impact on World Politics and National Sovereignty of States - Essay Example

Globalization and World Politics Is Globalization Fundamentally Changing The Shape Of World Politics? Considering ItsEconomic, Social And Political Impacts, Assess Whether Globalization Is Challenging Or Supporting Traditional Forms Of National Sovereignty? The modern globalization era has seen interconnectedness between the populations all over the world because of political, technological, economic and cultural integration becoming a sheer necessity. The situation has resulted to a serious threat to state sovereignty concept. National borders permeability has tremendously increased in the electronic commerce world together with other technology-influenced innovations which have made territorial state become vulnerable to external influences. All these characteristics constitute the dynamic globalization process; however these changes are associated with instability as individuals are anxious about their security. Globalisation definition remains fundamental in understanding it’s influence on the development of international relations theory. Globalisation is viewed as a historical process, which links remote communities and enlarge power politics reaches across regions and various continents. Globalization has, compressed the world leading to an integrated economy at the same time dwindling geopolitical boundaries. Global interaction has resulted to a marked reduction in political instruments effectiveness available for any government. The transfers of ideologies, cultural intercourse, sharing of commodities, capital and services have led to e border controls becoming less restrictive. Political Impact of Globalization on Sovereignty There is an argument that globalisation is linked to neo-liberalism as well capitalism, which, seem to have generated a debate on whether the notion encourages wealth or self indulgence. Globalisation promotes a booming and healthy economy, while other people believe that liberalised nations have continued to become richer, while developing experience suffering and misery. They have been unable to deliver their promises of providing an economic well being for all its citizens. As interconnections keep on increasing there has been many trades prospering with increase of trading class power resulting to democratization. Such a scenario empowers individuals to ensure attainability of modernity although the democratization process can be stalled by the dominant elite in their yearning to monopolize its potential thereby reorienting globalization in the direction of more exclusive strategies (Agnew, 2009, 234). Globalisation remains a multi-dimensional matter, which takes into consideration the political, social and economic changes. Globalization has made State centric theories less relevant. Even though, inter-state wars between great powers seem to be on the decline, but, increased cases of clashes and aggression within countries. The nonconventional fighting and security threats that are associated with non-state actors such as transnational terrorists, criminal organizations as well as Mafias, are penetrating and weakening national states. The rapid changes experienced in military technology have obviously undermined the capacity of countries to stand along during the war. The new global notion of collective security is founded on interests with an aim of reforming foreign policy to different formats to tackle each issue. Power struggle, interest pursuits and emotional attachment of individual belief system have continued to live in the globalization era. Globalization has a big influence in geopolitics in terms of raising warfare costs through economic integration and other ways. At the same time, it creates new power sources beyond the classic military of tanks, planes and missiles thereby creating a new pressure source on nations to change the normal organization ways (Miller, 2007, 201).  The pressures are not from classic military incursions against one state with the other, but invisible invasions of super-empowered persons. Countries are facing more challenges with the emergence of new governance levels and financial activity of bilateral and transnational entities. Individual liberty horizons have been expanded through globalization as countries have to share power through multinational institutions, transnational corporations and their people. Nation-states no longer enjoy power monopoly as they are being shared by many sources, which transverse state boundaries to compete for power, pacts and treaties. The modern international system and national security seems to have taken another new meaning, which is no longer associated with military issues. The issue has been broadened to embrace welfare, economic and ecological matters. These debates involve various actors in the state and non-state as international governmental organizations nongovernmental organizations and multinational corporations that are on the increase since the cold war end impacting the foreign policy process (Price, 2002,456).  The traditional international affairs agenda, which was the balance among main powers and countries security no longer explains perils or possibilities with the emergence of a new era. The conservative international patterns are disintegrating, old slogans becoming un-instructive and old solutions being unavailing. It is obvious that the world is seemingly becoming inter-reliant in economics, communications and human ambitions. Markets have battered national sovereignty leading to increase of international banks, trade associations and transnational lobbies, which all have key national, transnational, as well as international investments, which are considered a big influence on political decisions. None of them have a momentous national identity or a symbol of global consciousness. Economic Impact of Globalization on Sovereignty Various nation states are becoming too small to deal with global forces, but too big in terms of management of people lives. The idea of a national welfare state is a newer creation in comparison to the national security state. Even though, the nation-state remains welfare systems basic unit, it has nevertheless lost control in relation to national economic policies with the rising economic interdependence web. Welfare policies have been ignored with the global markets pressures. The ever increasing markets have obliged economies of nation-based capitalist to open their state borders to search for international financial emporium. Exchange rate, trade balance, rising investment transnationalization, production, and consumption tend to determine any economic policy. At the same time, states have to deal with limitations linked to global management of the environment, global warming, water pollution, deforestation ozone layer depletion and numerous other issues where decisions of such concerns are no longer viewed as not being important at the state level. Health campaign and the abolition of several childhood illnesses translated to longer lifespan of people and an increasing population. Statistics reveals that the global population increased at a disturbing rate in that the year 1830 saw a population of 1 billion, but in 1999, the numbers were 6 billion (Siebert,2009,345).  The rate of growth of 1.5% means the population is likely to double in the next 40 years with estimates 694 billion in 2150.The population growth has resulted in many challenges in terms of shelter, food production, employment, water supply, and clearing of more forests to create room for agriculture land and various commercial interests. Conversely, disagreement over natural resources, particularly water and oil, are on the rise in the past years as they remain are key needs for sustaining of human life and monetary activities. Social Impact of Globalization on Sovereignty Presently, globalization is viewed as one of the major determinants for survival of humankind. Globalization has transformed the paradigm on national sovereignty by challenging the ability of the state to capture any historical time by tradition appropriation and national identity construction and reconstruction. It is obvious that identities tend to originate from certain dominant institutions and are only considered identities if the social actors are able to internalize them and interpret their meaning in relation to the internalization (Buckley & Ghauri, 1999, 245). During this global period, individuals are exposed to many possibilities. The availability, expansion and speed of international trade together with global mass media seems to have exposed foreign cultural commodities and services, diverse viewpoint es at the local level. The migration of individuals has seen movement of cultures across borders resulting to changes in traditions, cosmopolitan identities local cultures, traditions and values, resulting to fragmented identities, which weakens the national identities. Conversely, existing territorial states are now a merger for profitable interests and social identities in an extremely competitive, integrated and unbalanced world economy. Another fundamental distinction is the one found amidst citizenship and nationality. The concept of a citizen as an individual has been abstracted from cultural characteristics with that of the national being a community member with universal cultural values. They have maintained the aspect that nation state is viewed as a political unit combination, which controls a bordered territory. A state with a national community with an influence to impose political will in those boundaries understands that the citizenship is being universalistic and comes above cultural difference. It exists in the nation-state context, which is above cultural specificity in terms of sharing the belief that their culture is different from others. There are scholars who share the belief that stretching of both social and financial relations across space have weakened and the nation-state. While states remain the main actors in the global affairs, they have suffered losses in power, sovereignty and functions. International institutions together with influential international bureaucracies are now operating directly on individual citizens. It means state borders are now becoming increasingly permeable as states power and influence have been weakened considerably. Globalization is not the end of territorial features and distinctiveness, but an additional set of influences on the identities associated with the local economies and developing capacities. Globalization seems to be establishing a global culture of as individuals are becoming more assertive in relation to their own cultures. Furthermore, people have become different from one another forcing the society to view culture in isolation. At the same time, culture tends to expose the dialectical relationship evident in individuals thereby leading to power inequity (Cranston, Cranston & Gorbachev, 2004, 467).  Cultures remain interwoven in the changing process, which is dynamic; when a groups tradition tends to clash with another one, conflict often arise. The differences in civilizations have framed the cultural identity issue to disclose the dialectical relationship in an individual and others. People tend to define themselves in relation to ancestry, culture, customs, religion, institutions, language, values, history, institutions and cultural identities. They have shaped cohesion patterns, disintegration, and conflict linked to the post-Cold War. The primary conflict source in the new world maintains the clash between various nations and groups of the different culture are not ideological and economic. The globalization era have seen people exposed to numerous possibilities and lifestyles, which are affecting their way of understanding and building their identity. Globalization notion involves interpenetration of the global, local or universal. When satellite television, CNN, the internet and other transnational companies tend to invade imagination of individuals and borders, they end up being domesticated at the local stage (Miller, 2007, 345).  Nevertheless, many scholars insist that not every culture is capable of assimilation with other cultures without the risk of loosing their identity. Such a situation is overwhelming and threatening experience mostly to people who are afraid of losing their traditions certainty and stability. Consequently, healthy globalization remains the capability of a culture to absorb influences when it experiences other solid cultures, which naturally fit and enrich their culture. At the same time, resist things considered alien and compartmentalize things although different, which can be enjoyed and feted as different. Consequently, globalization might be either an inspiring experience, or, the cultural genocide in the world as explained by liberals. The most dominant cultures have continued to become more dominant at other cultures expense (Hay, & Marsh, 2000,400).  There are two major tendencies, which keep on pulling the globe in opposite directions with equivalent strength. One of them is tied to technology, commerce, ecology and communications, while the other is a re-creation of antique sub national and tribal cultures, which have been pitted against each another. Neither of them provides hope for citizens with practical ways of governing them in a democratic manner. Culture distribution in the new world is a reflection of power distribution (Price, 2002, 345). Trade might or might not follow the flag; however culture nearly often follows power. The situation has led to evaluating of the duality of the present international order in terms of the amount of weight attached to the state as contrary to the market and internal scene actors. Conversely, another question that has remained unanswered is whether democratization can result to world stability or peace. Conclusion Globalisation is fundamental in understanding the development influence in relation to international relations theory. Globalisations, which are a historical process, which links remote communities and enlarge power politics reaches across regions and various continents. Globalisation has, compressed the world leading to an integrated economy at the same time dwindling geopolitical boundaries. Politically, globalization has created a new global notion of collective security, which is founded on interests with an aim of reforming foreign policy to different formats to tackle each issue. Power struggle, interest pursuits and emotional attachment of individual belief system have continued to live in the globalization era. Globalization has a big influence in geopolitics in terms of raising warfare costs through economic integration and other ways. At the same time, it creates new power sources beyond the classic military of tanks, planes and missiles thereby creating a new pressure source on nations to change the normal organization ways. The effect of globalization in the economic aspect has seen welfare policies have been ignored with the global markets pressures. The ever increasing markets have obliged economies of nation-based capitalist to open their state borders to search for international financial emporium. Exchange rate, trade balance, rising investment transnationalization, production, and consumption basically tend to determine any economic policy. Globalization has transformed the paradigm on national sovereignty by making it hard for the state to capture any historical time by tradition appropriation and national identity construction and reconstruction. It is obvious that identities tend to originate from certain dominant institutions and are only considered identities if the social actors are able to internalize them and interpret their meaning in relation to the internalization. References Agnew, J. A. (2009). Globalization and sovereignty. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Buckley, P. J., & Ghauri, P. N. (1999). The global challenge for multinational enterprises: managing increasing interdependence. Amsterdam, Pergamon. Cranston, A., Cranston, K., & Gorbachev, M. S. (2004). The sovereignty revolution. Stanford, Calif, Stanford Law and Politics. Driscoll, W. J., Clark, J., & International Debate Education Association. (2003).Globalization and the poor: Exploitation or equalizer?. New York: International Debate Education Association. Hay, C., & Marsh, D. (2000). Demystifying globalization. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, Macmillan Press. Miller, D. A. (2007). Globalization. Detroit, Greenhaven Press. Price, M. E. (2002). Media and sovereignty the global information revolution and its challenge to state power. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.  Siebert, H. (2009). Rules for the global economy. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.  Read More