A World Unaltered: The False Promise of Globalization

KARYA#2 Publikasi esai mahasiswa FISIP UPN Veteran Jakarta

Penulis: Muhammad Erza Pradana

Program Studi Hubungan Internasional angkatan 2021
_______________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

For much of the 20th century, the world had to grapple with the worst of humankind. The two World Wars between the Great Powers and the subsequent decades-long Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union had tarnished the world with conflicts and suffering. However, at some point within the 20th century, humans imagined and attempted to create a world where peace and stability were the main defining features of the international system. This work began with the establishment of the League of Nations after the conclusion of the First World War. And when that institution failed to create the ideal world its creators and proponents had hoped for, the world, however, did not back down on creating such an ideal world. This was clearly apparent after the end of the Second World War, when new institutions were being set up, most notably the United Nations. Although the period after the conclusion of the Second World War did not witness another great war, it was nonetheless characterized by great power politics, with the United States and the Soviet Union competing vigorously for global supremacy through their proxies. In short, the 20th century was deeply characterized by conflicts and wars that brought suffering to many corners of the world, despite the fact that mankind has worked to great lengths to transcend that tragic reality.

Thus, it could be well understood that with the fall of the Berlin Wall (which symbolized the global division along ideological lines) and followed subsequently by the collapse of the once mighty Soviet Union, many people of all levels, from policy-makers to ordinary citizens, expressed their optimism that the world was heading toward a progressive path forward. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ideological battle between the liberal democratic Western world and the Eastern Communist bloc has faded. The world, thus, has no other way forward except with liberalism and democracy. In other words, the world was destined to adopt liberal democratic forms of government and ideals much like what has been practiced in the West (see, for instance, Fukuyama, 1992). Add to this optimism the new reality that the global economy is indeed in the process of globalization. Globalization means the ever-increasing interactions, mainly economic but eventually going beyond them, between states and other actors in the global system. It was believed that with globalization, the world is "shrinking," creating a condition of interdependence among different actors, thus eventually fostering a sense of community that would bring about peace in a previously tarnished world.

The False Promise of Globalization

Globalization is said to have brought about fundamental change when it comes to international relations. Many in the western world argue that as globalization continues to advance, the world will become highly interdependent on each other, which will lead them to be more inclined toward cooperation rather than competition or power politics. Globalists, as I should call them, believe that as states and communities across the globe become even more interconnected (thanks to globalization, of course), the world has become a tiny village where geography matters very little. The advancement of transportation, communications, and other technologies contributed much toward a truly progressive path forward (Waltz, 2000). All of these, in turn, would fundamentally change international politics, where states would no longer be dominant, where interdependence brings up the cost of power politics and wars, and where cooperation triumphs. All of these are believed to be paths to the world peace that humans so desperately desire.

As we entered the second decade of the 21st century, however, it seems like the change that globalists had hoped for did not come about. Although it is certainly true that the world has become much more interdependent on each other, this does not mean that globalization and the interdependence it has fostered can necessarily transcend states' incentives to compete for power. Now, some of you might ask, "Why is it that in a highly interdependent world, states still compete for power when they know they need each other to survive? My answer to that question is that globalization and interdependence do not alter the basic anarchic structure of the international system. The basic argument here is that states live and operate within a system where there is no global authority that is able to enforce rules and protect them in the event of danger. In other words, there is no state above. Add to this problem is the fact that each and every state in the system has, to some extent, the capability to coerce, attack, or invade other states. Thus, states have little choice but to compete for power and constantly oversee the global distribution of power if they hope to survive and thrive (if you would like to see more on why states compete for power, I highly encourage you to read Mearsheimer's (2001) The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

Now, what I am implying here is that, although globalization and interdependence are certainly novel structural features in the current international system, they are, after all, only changes within the system. Kenneth Waltz (2000) hinted at this when he defended his structural realist theory. Waltz maintains that although the post-Cold War world has seen very dramatic changes, such as the revolutions in the means of communication and transportation as well as the increasing level of interdependence, this does not mean the system has fundamentally changed. Through his reasoning, I can conclude that if we truly want to see a world where the logic of power politics can be transcended and where states can live with each other in perpetual peace, we would need a dramatic change in the system. That is, we would have to move from an anarchic world to a hierarchic world similar to what we have within nation-states. However, that would not be possible in the near or even distant future. Thus, we are bound to live in a world where power politics is still the main feature characterizing international relations. This argument alone is probably enough to capture my main argument about why globalization has not fundamentally altered international politics. Nevertheless, I will address some other points in the following paragraphs.

Another thing that pointed out that globalization and interdependence have not brought the peace we all dream of is the fact that interdependence can be interestingly utilized as a strategic tool of power politics. Joseph Nye (2020) has captured this point in his introduction by showing how the Trump Administration has used economic globalization as a weapon against other countries. This was clearly reflected in Trump's trade war against China by imposing tariffs and banning Chinese companies, most notably Huawei, for national security reasons. The logic behind these policies is that the United States sought to reverse China's massive economic gains relative to the United States in their trade relationships. Trump clearly does not want China to be the beneficiary of bilateral relationships. However, Nye has also pointed out that "interdependence without asymmetry generates little power, but when asymmetry exists, interdependence creates weapons that can be used in strategic competition." What this means is that although interdependence can be a strategic tool, asymmetry in the level of interdependence can create setbacks for countries that utilize it. Nonetheless, although interdependence has raised the cost of war and power politics, states will likely choose security through power maximization rather than economic interests.

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.