A World Unaltered: The False Promise of Globalization

The issue of the role and existence of nation-states also constituted the basis of the debate on globalization. Some scholars and analysts (mainly those who work within the liberal theoretical tradition) argue that as globalization advances, the role of states will diminish as they now have to share or give some of their role to other actors, namely international governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational companies. Thus, nation-states will no longer be the dominant actors in world politics. However, I would argue that nothing is further from the truth. I think even those who believe in the eventual decline of nation-states will recognize that the current state of affairs in world politics is that nation-states still dominate the scene. It is true that over the past decades, new actors have emerged. Consider the rise of the European Union, for instance, or the increasing role and power of multinational companies. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that these actors are operating within a state-centric system. Consider the previous examples I have given about the United States under the Trump administration. The use of trade as a strategic weapon and the breakaway from multilateral agreements are just some examples of nation-states exercising their power to further their own interests. Thus, in the end, it is states (especially the most powerful) who get to decide what is best for their interests, even if those interests clash with those of other non-state actors or even other states. 

The last thing that I want to point out about globalization is the assumption that the world is getting smaller. Globalists believe that along with globalization, the world eventually shrinks to a point where geography matters very little. Patrick Porter (2015) skillfully makes the argument against this notion. Reading his work, I can give the following insights: Although globalization has indeed created an interconnected and interdependent world, it has also generated a great deal of fear, vulnerability, and insecurity. This stems from the assumption that advancements in transportation and communication basically erode or even erase geographic boundaries between states. Thus, in a world that is shrinking, what happens in one country or region will eventually matter in other countries. In other words, what matters there matters here. This belief has ironically generated a world where preventive and preemptive actions are more prominent than diplomacy and cooperation. Consider the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. One of the reasons behind the invasion was that what Saddam had done to his people by brutally oppressing them would eventually threaten democracies elsewhere. Add to this the problem of the apparent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It was this belief that prompted the United States to illegally invade Iraq, which has resulted in a great loss of fortune and lives. Thus, globalization somehow has resulted in an exaggerated level of fear, vulnerability, and insecurity, which prompted some states to take a largely unnecessary course of action that didn't produce the desired outcome.

Conclusion

This piece's main objective is to provide you with my arguments on the impact of globalization on international politics. My main argument rests on the fact that although globalization is certainly a novel structural feature in the international system and has brought about great changes, it does not alter the basic structural feature of the international system. That is, the international system remains persistently anarchic, with globalization and interdependence unable to transcend the incentive for states to compete for power. Furthermore, globalization does not replace the dominant and crucial role of nation-states in world politics. Lastly, globalization has ironically brought about the incentive to employ preemptive and preventive actions, as has been illustrated above. Having mentioned that, this does not imply that I deny the existence of globalization. I don't. However, I don't believe it to be the necessary force to fundamentally alter international politics for many years to come.

References and Further Reading

Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: The Free Press.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.

Porter, P. (2015). The Global Village Myth: Distance, War, and the Limits of Power. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.

Waltz, K. N. (2000). Structural Realism After the Cold War. International Security, 25(1), 5-41.