How Has Globalization Changed International Politics?

Introduction

Globalization is defined as an intensification of cross-border interactions and interdependence between countries (Oldemeinen, 2011). In other words, it is a process by which the social, political, and economic world order depends upon integration of states around the world. It is not, however, viewed as a positive development by all. As Rodrik (1998) points out, the process that has come to be called globalization is exposing a deep fault line between groups who have the skills and mobility to flourish in global markets and those who either dont have these advantages or perceive the expansion of unregulated markets as inimical to social stability and deeply held norms (p. 2). Globalization, therefore, is not necessarily viewed as a win-win for all by all. Indeed, the Brexit vote in the UK to leave the EU has been described as a referendum against globalization (Colantone & Stanig, 2016).

Yet, in spite of the integrated nature of globalization, international politics is defined as something quite opposite in essence. The concept of international politics has been described as a process of mutual influence in which each party seeks to protect and promote its own interests by shaping the behavior of the other party (Science Direct, 2004). Broadly speaking, international politics focuses on the relations among nations, foreign affairs, and foreign policy. But if in international politics each actor is focused on self-interest, it stands to reason that the collective interest of the whole (necessary for globalization to function effectively) will be in conflict with the self-interest of any one state if any one state opposes the goals of the collective. In fact, it was recently said by Larry Fink of BlackRock that due to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the sanctions by the West on Russia, globalization is effectively dead (Sorkin et al., 2022). Globalization relies upon all states working together toward a common aim. War threatens that aim, as does, it could be argued, hegemony by any one state.

Globalization has empowered non-state actors and had a two-sided impact on the global economy. Non-state actors now play a significant role in the global world order as a result of their empowerment. They provide funds for developing nations, issue health warnings and guidance, oversee trade disputes and provide a place for resolutions, supply liquidity to markets, and influence regional policy. All of these actions have a two-sided impact on the economy, however. On the one hand, they help multinational companies to grow into new markets; on the other hand, they push out smaller business owners and entrepreneurs who cannot compete with larger corporations that enter the local marketplace as a result of globalization (Baars, 2019; Mukwarami et al., 2020; Vietor et al., 2008). The outcome is that globalization benefits those who can afford to leverage into the opportunity, but it hurts those who seek jobs offshored or who find their market share greatly diminished as a result of new international competition, and as a result international politics is at a crossroads in terms of how the future world order will be arranged (Colantone & Stanig, 2016).

Empowerment of Non-State Actors

The current world order is essentially unipolar-based, with the US in the West acting as the main hegemonic power whose might is demonstrated through a united front of multinational corporations (Baars, 2019). These multinational corporations work with other organizations in the private and public sector, including non-state actors and state actors, to establish their influence (Baars, 2019). However, the unipolar-based order is now at risk of being changed to a multipolar-based order, as Russia and China offer the Global South a new alternative to Western hegemony. This shift may be a problem for multinational corporations that are based in the West. Already there has been an enormous shift out of Russia by multinational corporations that want to avoid Western sanctions (Sorkin et al., 2022). How this will play out in the coming years remains to be seen.

The main point to be understood from globalization is that while individual voters like those in the UK may feel they have been hurt by it, others have certainly been empowered by globalizationespecially various non-state actors like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Trade Organization (WTO), central banks like the Federal Reserve, the Assembly of European Regions, and major multinational corporations (Colantone & Stanig, 2016; Oldemeinen, 2011). Each of these non-state actors has played a tremendous role in globalization in different ways, but without the globalized world order, none of them would have grown or succeeded to the extent that they have. Their success has depended upon the integration of nations, cultures, politics, economies, finances, and trade. But as Baars (2019) explains, it is really the corporation that has benefitted the most from globalization.

The empowerment of the corporation could not have happened without globalization. Nor could the empowerment of other non-state actors have happened. For instance, Bakan (2003) states that globalization has substantially enhanced corporations abilities to evade the authority of governments (p. 25). Multinational corporations can put pressure on governments without worrying about the position of any single government or feel any sense of loyalty to any one government or state. As a non-state actor without considerable economic and financial clout, a multinational corporation essentially acts as the dictator of policy in the global arena in many cases: corporations now govern society, perhaps more than governments themselves do; yet ironically, it is there very power, much of which they have gained through economic globalization, that makes them vulnerable (Bakan, 2003, p. 25). Mistrust, fear and anxiety are all social effects spawned by the takeover of the global society by multinational corporations; and this is why the Brexit vote occurred, according to Colantone and Stanig (2016): it was a reflection of the anxiety of UK voters over seeing their livelihoods, jobs, and sovereignty offshored or usurped by other actors. There was a push back against globalization by every day citizens. It could be said that the election of Trump in 2016 in the US essentially occurred for the same reason. But now that de-globalization is at hand as a result of the war between Russia and the West, the world will see new effects: De-globalization will pushinflationeven higher, forcing central banks to choose between higher prices or lower economic activity (Sorkin et al., 2022). Central banks, being another group of non-state actors that have been...

…East Ukrainians. If globalization has integrated the global economy to a point where the only way for states to extricate themselves from it is by way of war, it has also created a situation in which the zero sum game players will use force to oppose any actors who do not submit to their zero sum game play.

The effects of civil war are social, economical, political and environmental. Socially, whole generations can find their futures taken away from them as they grow up in an atmosphere of war and instability. Social norms become lost as violence removes people from normal routines and causes people to flee or become refugees in foreign lands. The civil war in Syria has displaced millions, many of them now living in parts of Europe, trying to navigate foreign cultures. Economically, the cost of civil war is in the billions as countries become indebted to others for the rebuilding of infrastructure. Politically, civil war ushers in conflicting groups that end up partnering with other nations, as has been the case with Afghanistan and the US. Sovereignty can be lost.

Indeed, it is easier to count the number of countries in the world that are currently NOT at war (Withnall, 2014). There are only a dozen of them. The rest are involved in some form of conflict, either internally or externally. Either way, war is what is happening all over the worldbut in cases where it is happening externally it is often proxy war that occurs, with various groups or non-state actors propped up and supported by other nations. Globalization may have helped boost the global economy on the one hand for some actorsbut it has also come with wars, invasions, regime changes, and destabilization for many others.

Conclusion

The interconnectedness of nations around the world is what we call globalization. However, this does not necessarily mean it is a good thing. The effects of globalization include exploitation of weaker societies, high risky investment costs, the loss of local identities and social systems, poor regulation, immigration problems, and lost jobs in the local economy as competition on the global scale increases. The history of globalization shows that as it increases, poorer nations end up doing the jobs once held by workers in richer nations. The richer nations then experience a wealth gap between the haves and have-nots, much like what is seen in the US today, while undeveloped nations are exploited by corporations. In fact, one could argue that the history of globalization is the history of colonization and that today the non-state actors are the new colonizers are they serve as the masters of the global order (Bakan, 2003). Globalization has changed international politics because no country is outside the global constellation of nations and states. But only the strongest countries have gained, and weaker ones have been dominated. Gain in market share as a result of globalization, but this gain is typically only realized by the multinational corporations. The small business owners are pushed out of their markets and cannot afford to compete. Laborers in the domestic market in the West, moreover, see their jobs offshored to the East or to the Global South. Essentially, a handful of nations and their corporate sponsors have…