The Impacts of
Globalization on the Global Security
Wichai chucherd
Globalization
is seen differently through a variety of conceptual lenses of theoretical
perspectives. In the eyes of realist, it is not so much meaning. It may affect
our lives, but it could not change state-system. For liberals, globalization is
transforming the world. State centric will no longer exist. Interconnectedness
between societies causes the most significant change in our lives. Marxist
theorists see globalization as nothing new; it is only the most recent step of
capitalism development (Baylis and Smith 2001: 6). These perceptions of
globalization were presented through some discussions, such as the theory of
modernization, economic growth pattern, economic interdependence, the global
village, the world society, the international society, and the end of history
(Baylis and Smith 2001: 7-8).
Why does
globalization have to be argued? Its reality and its widespread impacts on the
world community may be the best answer. The world has become more
interdependence, and economic and political systems are transforming.
Communications and media form a narrow society, which time and space is
collapsing; consequently, they have created a global culture, which reduces a cap
between people (Baylis and Smith 2001: 9).
To examine
the impacts of globalization on the global security, I review a definition of
globalization and its implementations on international society and states, and
then I survey the global security after the end of the Cold War. I argue more
detail about globalization in the world politic and economy before analyzing
its impacts on international society, which refer to the global security. I
conclude that global security’s sphere is changed by the impacts of
globalization. Concepts of security that were implemented in the world
community should be reconsidered. An idea of contemporary security should be
the concept, which contains the power to explain, analyze, and anticipate a
phenomenon that may cause the world less secure.
Scholte
(2001: 14-6) defines globalization as ‘the process whereby many social
relations become relatively delinked from territorial geography, so that human
lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single place’. There are
some aspects pointed out the existence of globalization, such as world-wide
communications, transborder organizations, global ecological change, global
production, global weaponry, global norms and cultures, and global thinking.
From this point of view we can say that globalization is quite a new
development. The number of translational corporations was over 40,000 in the
1990s; it has not occured before. There has been the rise of international government
and non-government organization since the 1960s (Buzan and Segal 1998: 8-12).
There were nearly 1.5 billion passengers per year on flights, 850 million
telephone connection points, and 60,000 transborder corporations in the 1990s.
These quantities and qualities of globalization are not a continuous figure,
but they are comprehensive, intensive and rapid increased frequency incidences
in our lives. Form these incidences, Scholte (2001: 17) conclude that the fully
globalization occurred after the 1960s.
International
society was first explicit with the existence of European society. However, it
became clear after it replaced the medieval Respublica Christiana in the
nineteenth century. It used international law, formal body, diplomacy
institutions, and a balance of power, which were applied around the world.
After the end of WWII, nationalism and anticolonialism against European
affected on the expansion of international society. The membership of the UN
came up to be fourfold. Contemporary international society shared norms and
values based on state sovereignty. These norms and values appeared in the UN
Charter, such as international peace and security, self-determination,
non-intervention and non-discrimination. (Jackson 2001: 42-6).
Confrontation
with globalization, the norms and values of international society provoked some
critical problems as
States-system
has dominated international relations for a long time. Confronting with
globalization, this system is changing. States may survive, but they could not
hold their sovereignty as they did before (Scholte 2001: 20-2). Buzan and Segal
(1998: 159-61) differentiated states into three types, open, weak/failed and
closed states. He explains how states reform. Open states, which are more
powerful, wealthy, and dominant international affair, are the ones who created
sovereign states-system and spread it around the world. They deeply involved in
a strong web of agreements and interdependencies. Encountering globalization,
they will no longer be self-contained economy and military. Contemporary
regimes will be less effective administration. A significant layer of
government above states such as the EU will be created. Open states are in the
process of globalization which old systems are breaking down and transforming
to the new ones.
Weak/failed
states were the products of decolonization. Their governments are less
effective and their societies are broken up. Governments always use force more
than consent in controlling their people. Internal sovereignty has not created
appropriately yet. They exist from the result of international recognition of
their states. Facing globalization, they face with a variety of problems.
Boundaries drawn by their empire states regardless identities of people cause
disaster. Transborder communications and media urge people to re-identify
themselves. It causes a dilemma over weak/failed states. If they cannot create
their internal sovereignty, should they divide their states into a number of
small states? It may be create 900 new states only in
Closed states,
which take their sovereignties and territories critically, always try to be an
independent and self-reliant state. Confronting with globalization, they fall
into two prongs, one is stepping back to a chaos situation such weak/failed
state, and another one is stepping forward to the open world. Whatever they
choose, they could not keep their dependency. The
Security
concept is quite a contested concept (Baylis 2001: 254). The main discussion
concerns the most important subject of security, dimension of the concept, and
interactions of subjects and dimensions. Buzan (1983: 214-42) use the security
concepts defined by Walter Lippmann, Arnold Wolfers, Michael H.H. Louw, Ian
Bellany, Frank N. Trager and F.N. Somonie and John E. Mroz to explain a
confusion of the concept in his work. Then he concludes that security comprise
five dimensions, politic, economy, social, environment and military.
It is no
doubt that in the world of state centric, nation-state should be considered as
the most important subject of security. Hobbes, Machiavelli and Rousseau
concentrated in the best way to achieve national security. E.H. Carr and Hans
Morgenthau of realist school and Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer of
neo-realist school shared their views on self-reliance, aggressive behavior of
states, violence and a struggle for power in international relations. A balance
of power was needed to maintain national security. They argued that insecurity
of a nation was caused by the structure of international system. This view of
security had dominated the world for a long time (Baylis 2001:256-7). However, the coming up of globalization
has caused many changes in international relations. There is an international
organization such as the UN, which had not occurred before the twentieth-century.
There are more actors than in the past, such as NGOs and other transnational
agents. These phenomena brought to an argument of scholars to rethink about the
concept of security.
There are
some concepts of security that try to replace realist view. Collective
security, co-operative security, common security, mature anarchy, liberal
institutionalism, democratic peace theory and comprehensive security are some
of those. Among these concepts, collective security quite became popular. It
replaced a balance of power. It was applied in the
Co-operative
security is argued by neo-realists. Optimistic neo-realists believe that
adversary states could achieve their security through co-operative policies.
Self-help behavior of international relations is no need, states can work
together to decrease the risk and uncertain of security competition. States are
keen enough to accept partially gain instead of maximum gain, which may bring
to a risk and uncertain situation. They believe in states behavior that will
not cheat on any agreement. In contrast, pessimistic neo-realists believe that
states always try to get a maximum gain and try to cheat or at least fear the
other will cheat in any agreement. Therefore, co-operative idea will dangerous
to good behavior states (Baylis 2001: 258-9).
Common
security was presented in Palme report, ‘Common
Security: A Bluprint for Survival’, in 1992. There are six principal of
common security; the right of national security approach, means of conflict
resolution, states behavior, military power in conflict resolution, limited arm
and disarmament, and politic power and disarmament issue (Palme report 1982:
7-11).
Mature
anarchy is presented by Buzan (1983: 208). He argues that globalization has
brought the understanding of the intense dangers of security competition.
States tend to realize that national security is interdependent. State is not
only one subject of security as in the past. Therefore, states should more
co-operate with each other.
Baylis
(2001: 261-3) argues liberal institutionalism concept and democratic concept.
Liberal institutionalism tends to concentrate on building international
institution and co-operating regional institution in order to achieve
co-operation and stability of the world. While democratic peace theory tries to
democratization states in the world. Democracy is a critical condition for
creation international security.
Comprehensive
security is less interesting in western view. The concept views security as
multidimensionality, politic, economy, social and military. It occurred in
There are
also another views on international and global security. Social constructivists
believe that social or societal dimension of security is more importance than
the other dimensions. Therefore, they stress on shared knowledge, material
resources and practices in the world community. Critical security and feminist
emphasize on individual as the important subject of security. Consequently,
they argue about human rights, gender and emancipation. Post modernists emphasize
the importance of ideas and discourse. Therefore, they try to present how to
change the idea of security based on realism. Globalists, who stress on
globalization, try to explain security by using globalization to be a reason of
incidences (Baylis 2001: 265-71).
Globalization has brought to a
change of global security concept. Subject of security, individual, group,
nation, region, and global, are changing their rules and their importance.
Discussion of dimensions of security, politic, economy, social, environment,
and military will be continue on the issues which one is the most important and
have to deal with. Along with these arguments the process of fragmentation,
integration will go on. The negative outcome of globalization and the process of
transformation will come together with their positive impacts in the world
politic, the world economy and the world community.
International
relations concentrated on states actor; however, there are other actors
so-called non-state actors. These non-state actors were less concentrated in
the past; however, the effects of globalization have risen the three issues.
Firstly, inter-societies are equally important with intergovernmental
relations. State does not match with the world as it did. Secondly, facing the
new economic systems, such as transnational companies, state sovereignty is
losing its important. Thirdly, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have
participated in diplomacy, social and a variety of activities, which were the
function of government. These have caused governments loss their political
independence (Willetts 2001: 356).
Diplomacy,
which is a process of communication and negotiation in the world politic,
changed dramatically. This could be explained in two ways. First, diplomacy
changed from diplomacy of the two major powers, the
The
creation of regimes across a wide range of security dimension was the outcome
of an attempt to anticipate the impacts of globalization. There are a variety
of regimes such as security regimes, environmental regimes, communication
regimes and economic regimes. Security regimes work on international security
issues especially in arm control and nonproliferation agreement. Economic
regimes work on the global welfare based on free trade. Environmental regimes
run for maintain the world resource. Communication regimes concern shipping and
postal (Little 2001: 303-6).
The United
Nations has an important role in maintaining peace and security. After the late
1980s, its roles and organization have been changed significantly. The UN has
taken broader range of missions. It has to involve both within state and
between states. It more concentrate on human right and economic welfare, and
more concern on intervention within intra-states conflicts. These rose some
questions, such as state sovereignty, legitimate government of the UN and the
UN mechanisms. The UN became more concerned in three ways. Firstly, there are
increasingly the problems of the order of international system and internal
standard of states, such as human right, minority identities,
self-determination, regimes and economic systems. The UN has to provide
humanitarian assistance and help states to adjust themselves in the new
environment. Secondly, the principal role of the UN, to promote peace and
security, contrast with states rights in international society. Thirdly, there
is a dilemma over the construction international order of the UN, which
contested with state sovereignty (
Globalization and complex interdependence in the world economy
As
globalization has affected the world politic, it has strongly influenced in
economic sector. Furthermore, effects on the global economy are more apparent
than the other dimensions. Consequently, globalization was highlighted by
economy. Economic interdependent means productions, using of resources, company
locations, and markets could be managed from elsewhere in the global world.
Economic globalization became a high priority agenda for international
governance bodies. However, economic globalization has brought some critical
problems. It has caused high unemployment, decreased working standard,
increased inequality, high percentage of poverty, expanded financial crises and
widespread environmental degradation (Scholte 2001: 519-20).
Scholte
(2001: 520-5) explains the globalization of trade and finance within three
distinguished types, cross-border transactions, opening of borders and
transcendence of borders. The increasing of cross-border movements of people,
material and idea are the popular phenomena to explain globalization. In this
sense, globalization was seen as internationalization. Therefore, the
contemporary globalization economy is no meaning anymore for this context. On
the other hand, seeing globalization as opening of borders, the results will be
different. Globalization is not the same as internationalization indeed it
replaced internationalization. Scholte argues that these two perceptions miss
the meaning of globalization. He distinguishes globalization economy from
international economy by using distance and state control aspects.
International economy activities are deeply depend on distance and state
control, while global economy activities spread around the world in the same
time with no barrier from states divisions. Consequently, globalization
concerns the increasing of transborder economy and supraterritorial.
Transborder
economy refers to transborder production and transborder products. Transborder
production is a global production operation, which contrasts with territorially
centred production. It is a chain of production, which each stage is dispersed
across different states. A company pulls materials, components, machinery,
finance, and service from a variety of places. The company locates its
factories in any countries, which they will gain maximum interest. It sells
goods globally so-called transborder products, which required a
supraterritorial market. These products have created transborder stores, such
as shopping centres. Moreover, electronic commerce has made transborder
products more dispersed (Scholte 2001: 526-8).
Telephone
and computer networks have changed the global financial system.
Supraterritorial money caused foreign exchange dealing has become widespread,
and transborder money has become a parallel of national currencies. The diary
use of plastic form through internet and online web has become more normal in our
lives. Supraterritorial banking caused the growth of transborder deposits,
transborder bank lending, transborder branch networks, and interbank transfers.
Globalization has changed the nature of money and banking, in which the flown
of money go along with transborder economy by no time and no limited location
(Scholte 2001: 528-32).
There are
four significant problems of economic globalization. Firstly, the globalization
of trade and finance have not been spread equally everywhere. There are
different degrees of global economy in different places. Consequently, a
significant gap between rich states and poor states, and between people within
states itself is enlarged (Scholte 2001: 533-7). Secondly, less importance of
distance and borders caused territoriality loss its control over the
contemporary organization of production, exchange, and consumption. This is the
end of the monopoly of territoriality in influencing the world economy.
Thirdly, facing with global economy, states lack effective means to control
over dynamic and moveable economic activities. Lastly, global economy affected
on indigenous culture within states. It has created a cultural homogeneity and
cosmopolitan identities.
The Impacts of Globalization on the Global Issues
Current
phenomena have pointed out the impacts of globalization on the global issues.
In this part, I pick up some of the global issues that quite important and have
strong impacts on the global security. These are global nuclear weapons,
transnational criminal, global environmental change, culture change, and
poverty and hunger.
Howlett
(2001: 416-39) explains nuclear proliferation issue as a global phenomenon. It
has changed the nature of military and political relations since the end of
WWII. There are six issues concerning nuclear proliferation. Firstly, the
capacity of nuclear weapons urges states to create their national strategy to
seeking the weapons. Secondly, there is a global agenda on nuclear
proliferation. People deeply comprehend the catastrophic impacts of nuclear
weapons. In some region, they have signed Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ)
agreements. Thirdly, the effects of nuclear weapons are against human
population. Nuclear for war or energy could create a disaster incidence.
Transnational actors such as NGOs are trying to stop its expansion and its use.
Fourthly, creation of the global diffusion of nuclear technology has made it
possible that the weapons could be delivered beyond everywhere. These concerned
the weapons may disperse and fall into a bad behavior state or a terrorist
group. Furthermore, the dissolution of the former
Transnational
crime and a variety of illegal groups have engaged in violent behavior across
boundaries. Their activities are transborder; therefore, it is impossible for a
government to deal with them separately. Among these groups, illicit trading in
arms and drugs may be the most important criminal. There are four problems to
deal with these criminals. Firstly, financial flows of their money laundering
are massive and unpredictable, at which case banking and other financial
institutions need to be integrated locally and globally. Secondly, criminal
trade such as drug and arm trafficking is so diversity. Their routes and
activities have gone beyond around the world, no government could confidently
deal with the problems lonely. Thirdly, preventing transnational criminals should
affect transnational companies. Fourthly, it needs an extraterritorial
jurisdiction that is supported by the overwhelming majority of governments in
the region and in the world to deal with transnational criminals (Willetts
2001: 367).
There are several
groups, which hanging between legal and illegal depended on different
perspectives, such as terrorists the disapproving groups, guerrillas the
undecided groups and national liberation movements the approved groups.
Globalization affected strategy and status of these groups. They have benefited
the improvements of communications to transfer people, money, weapons and ideas
within their illegal businesses (Willetts 2001: 367-9).
Environmental
change is an international agenda within five ways. Firstly, some environmental
problems are global by their nature. Stratospheric ozone depletion caused by
CFCs (chlorofluoro-carbons) and carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere have built
up the Green House environment, which affected the increasing of temperature of
the world. Secondly, public areas shared by all members of global society such
as the oceans and outer space should be maintained by the world community.
Thirdly, some environmental problems are transnational and cross-state’s
boundaries. The forest fire in Indonesia affected the environment in Malaysia,
Singapore and Thailand. Fourthly, some environmental problems such as soil
degradation and erosion, deforestation, river pollution have an impact globally
in long-term period. Lastly, all of global environmental problems are
significantly related to broader problems such as socio-economic problems
(Greene 2001: 387-412).
Murden
(2001: 456-69) discusses a dilemma over culture change affected by
globalization. Globalization has reduced distance between different people. It
has challenged traditional patterns of culture and social order. Culture
changes, lost of culture and new culture are happening. These cause some
friction and tensions in society and between society as Francis Fukuyama
presented in End of History; Samuel
Huntington presented in Clash of
Civilizations. On one hand, western has dominated the world by their
civilization. On the other hand, there are local and global resistances on the
revolution of culture in global age. Facing global culture, local people are
trying to preserve their culture. To protect their culture, religious
fundamental tend to be an effective mean for them. However, this mean may lead
to a conflict, such as domestic insurgency, and international terrorism.
There are
unexpected results of development policies and global economic growth. The gap
between rich and poor within state and between states is increasing. It has
caused poverty and hunger especially in poor countries. It has caused the
increasing of inequalities within state and between states. These phenomena
refer to the process of globalization. Developed countries have controlled the
flow of food and property. Developing countries have to hang on the aid from
developed countries. A local production has changed to a global production.
Consequently, the production of food is lost from local (Thomas 2001: 559-81).
Globalization
has changed the world dramatically. Global security was affected directly from
this change. In the world politic, new actors appeared to anticipate the
problems in new environment. Diplomacy and international relations pattern were
more complex as the increasing of participant. The UN and its agencies have to
face with a comprehensive problem. Transnational actors have proved that
government and sovereignty are losing their monopoly role in international
relations. In the world economy, the increasing of transborder economy and
supraterritorial caused economic interdependent, which production operation,
using of resource, company location, and market could be managed from elsewhere
in the global world. Nuclear weapon capability could easily transfer to
elsewhere. Transnational criminal has benefited the interconnectedness of the
world to manage their illegal businesses globally. Development was attached
with some negative effects; global environmental change, and poverty and
hunger. Clash of Civilizations discoursed by Huntington should not ignored to
analyze. These problems, which caused by globalization, need a new approach to think
about and to deal with.
I would
like to argue that globalization has a critical impact on global security both
in theory and security issues. Security concept needs to be evaluated.
Contemporary security concept should have a power enough to monitor, examine,
explain, analyze, synthesis, and anticipate the problems of contemporary global
insecurity. Collective security is too narrow to examine all dimension, it
concentrate only military and a little political aspects. Common security is
broader, but it could only use to explain the problems. Co-operative security,
which try to solve a problem by political mean, is likely more appropriate.
Comprehensive security is a concept concerning all security dimensions, but it
did not present the way to solve the problem clearly. Should we have a security
concept which better than these. This is may be a mission of scholars in
security field.
Baylis, J., 2001.
‘Introduction’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 1-12.
Baylis, J., 2001.
‘International and global security in the post-cold war era’, in J. Baylis and
S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of
World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 2nd
edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 253-276.
Buzan, B., 1983. People, States and Fear: the national
security problem in international relations, Harvester Wheatsheaf
Publishers, Sussex.
Buzan, B. and Segal, G.,
1998. Anticipation the Future, Simon
& Schuster, London.
Greene, O., 2001.
‘Environmental issues’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 387-414.
Howlett, D., 2001. ‘Nuclear
proliferation’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 415-439.
Jackson, R. H., 2001. ‘The
evolution of international society’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An
introduction to international relations, 2nd edn, Oxford
university press, Oxford: 35-50.
Little, R., 2001.
‘International regimes’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 299-316.
Miller, L.H., 1999, ‘The
idea and the reality of collective security’, Global Governance, 5(3): 303-332.
Murden, S., 2001. ‘Culture
in world affairs’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 456-469.
Palme report, 1982. Common Security: a blueprint for survival, Simon
and Sehuster, New York.
Scholte, J.A., 2001. ‘The
globalization of world politics’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An
introduction to international relations, 2nd edn, Oxford
university press, Oxford: 13-32.
Scholte, J.A., 2001. ‘Global
trade and finance’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 519-539.
Taylor, P., 2001. ‘The
United Nations and international order’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An
introduction to international relations, 2nd edn, Oxford
university press, Oxford: 331-355.
Thomas, C., 2001. ‘Poverty,
development, and hunger’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 559-581.
White, B., 2001.
‘Diplomacy’, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international
relations, 2nd edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 317-330.
Willetts, P., 2001.
‘Transnational actors and international organizations in global politics’, in
J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds), The
Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations, 2nd
edn, Oxford university press, Oxford: 356-383.