Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Globalization Cap 15

    Uploaded by

    Ana Sandoval
    9 views8 pages

    Original Title

    GLOBALIZATION CAP 15

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    9 views8 pages

    Globalization Cap 15

    Uploaded by

    Ana Sandoval

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 8
    security JOHN BAYLIS Framing Questions International and global © Does globalization increase or decrease international security? © Which international Relations theories best help to provide an understanding of global security an security? ‘* What are the most important contemporary threats to international security? Reader's Guide “This chapter looks atthe question of whether iner- national relations especially n an era of increasing ‘lobaization, are likely tobe as violent in the future a they have been in the past It begins by looking at existing dsagreements about the causes of war and whether violence is always kay tobe with us Iethen tums to tradtional/lsscal relist and more ‘contemporary neorelstand neoliberal perspectives ‘on international security, before considering rang ‘of alternative approaches. The chapter then goes to eamine recent debates about globalization and {geopoics. The conclusion considers the contin tension between national and international secur and suggests that, despite the important changes sociated withthe processes of globalization, that seem fo be few signs that a fundamental dif more peaceful paradigm of international polis emerging ts of international polities deal with some of Prt profound questions it s posible 1 consider the most important of these i whether i s le o achiev international security i the work! mich we ive. For mach ofthe intellectual history subject, «debate has raged about the causes of Forsome writers especially historians, the causes are unique fo each ease, Other writers believe tis posible to provide a wider, more generalized ration. Some analysts, for example, se the causes in hun nature others inthe internal organiza fof states, and yet others in international anarchy. major work on the causes of wae, Kenneth Walt what he calls the thee “images of wat (man, ffnle, and the international system) in terms of thinkers have sald about the origins of eanlct out the history of Western civlzaion (Waltz ‘Waltyhimselt puts particular emphasis on the of lnternational anarchy (wars ozcur because Js nothing to stop them from occurring), but 0 recognizes that a comprehensive explanation 1 understanding ofa thee. Inthis on-going debate, as Waltz points out; there fundamental difference among politcal philoso x3 over whether conflict can be transcended o In particular, there isa diference between and idealist thinkers, who have ben respec ly pessimistic and optimist in thei response to eniral question inthe international peli field {Ch 6) After the Frst World Wa, idealism claimed spread support as the League of Nations seemed is security? rites agree that sccurty is ‘sontestd con: Theresa consensus that it implies freedom from fo core values forboth individuals and groups} there is a major disagreement about whether aln focus of inquiry should he on “individual tional’ or global” security For mach he cold war period most writing on te subject was td by the idea of national security, which was i define in militarized terms. The main area of for both academics and statespeople tended the military capabilities that theie own states Chapter 1$ international and global security 1939) to offer some hope for greater international order. In contrat, during the cold war, which developed ater 1945, realism became the dominant schoo of though ‘Warand violent conflict were sen as perennial features of inter-state relations stretching bac through human history. With the end of the cold war, however, the debate began agin. For some, the end of the intense \deologcal confrontation between Bast and West was 8 major turning point in international history, usher- ing in new paradigm in which interstate violence ‘would gradually become a thing ofthe past and new cosmopolitan values would bring grester cooperation between individuals and human eolectiviis of vari ‘us kinds (including states) This reflected mote opt: istic views about the development ofa peace global society. For others, however, ealism remained the best approach to thinking about international. security In thee view, very litle of substance had changed as ‘result ofthe events of 1989 Although the end of the ‘cold war initaly ushered in anew, more cooperative ra between the superpowers, realists argued that this ‘more harmonious phase in international rations was ‘only temporary. Contemporary evens seem to confirm this view “his chapter focuses on this debate in an era of Increasing globalization, highlighting the different stcands of thinking within these two optimistic and pessimistic schools of thought. Before this can be done, however, is necessary to define what is meant by ‘security’ and to probe the relationship between ‘ational security and global security. Should develop to deal with the threats they faced, More recently, however, this ides of security has been caitczed for being ethnocentric (culturally based) and too narrowly defined. Instead, a numberof contempo "ary writers ave argued foran expanded conception of Security, cutward fom the init of parochial national security, to include a range of other considerations Barcy Buzan, in his study People, States and Fear (1983), argues fora view of security that includes plitial, eo omic, societal, and environmental aswell as military aspects, end that isalso defined in broader international ——S yon varus (Chapter 15 International and global security 240 A the same time other commentators argue the emergence of an embryonic global society in Postcold war era renders the stress on national ang iternaional security less appropriate. Like the tal security” theorists, they point tothe fragmeny tion of the nation-state; however, they argue that. attention should be given nat t society at the ety ‘ational level, ut to global soley. These writes ag "hat one ofthe most important comtemporary trends ‘the broad and on-going process of globalization ‘accept that this proces brings new risks and dange “These include the risks associated with internat terrorism, a breakdown of the global monetary tem, global warming, cyber confit, and the da ‘of nuclear proliferation. These threats to security, ox15.1. Notions of security Study 15.1 Insecurity inthe post-cold war world: the Democratic Republic of Congo thekabia goverment Atough acevo 198, ‘ighng contnue nthe eaters part fhe ou. nay 2 Fla was assed and veplicd by hn, oeph Kab Fghing cord unt 208 pty eto ete dv sions the ORC county of 20 ee rp and 24 ie. Ent langage). su ao bea fh cotinngercipton of foren roop fe ngage in Heyl mang of rina sad tamed) Negotaton designed ake peace werent venta ot the Petra Acorn Apel 203 Aa eal me oF the foreign Woops ie ut hott and mance mind spec Ue est of he enya al tie Uke by Rea ad Unda con i and pdr ‘he reoucer of he BRC, ‘0818 Jy 2003, the Tanstonal Goverment wae st up 1353 rt of what as known asthe Global and Acie ration secueto the ent which notin dager having tomer cor val shes o od we fd able ehalenged tort them by tay (te ipaon) Secu nan cece Sere, sues the bse of Wren t aque vali ute sen the nance Pt ae be atace ‘deel Wate) nthe ce of ety theca abot the pa sto eedom rom est. When ts canon in he ‘eet of he tema tem ety abou the tly of sats andes oman he inepen etna ncaa eit (ren sua) Stabiescrtycanony be chive by pope nd pops ihe do mot epi ther of than be chee scary i concord a procs ef erancpton (Besta hess) a planeta Other veriters on globalization stress the trans ‘mation of the state (athe than its demise) and he level, are viewed as being largely outs the control of nation-states. Only the development 4 global community they believe, can deal with adequately re ol the old war prove a good station of the pete of contemporary cnt and te dang pro ig npc explanation of why was oc eteen 7996 2016, We Torgten wa meiner called inxs ets Vrs esimated that i milion people hive et Ine as rest of enc sec war, and frog ere, wel as savaton aed diane, The ey even Dateien The Aareement reqs all ations to help ‘ean he county. dam an tert the wang par {hs at hal lectons Contd inti, oever mea tha lens inet ake pace ati 206 ven afer these flection, peace has remained ene. Confit ae contin tes among foreign tops and rumarone mila groups on ‘te wandan and Usandon bores svn fae ‘aes ad clan deaths October 201. the UN produced Security agenda in the early years ofthe new century. tn "he aftermath ofthe 9/1 terrorist attacks in September 2001 and the new era of viokixe that flowed Jonathan Friedman argues that we reliving ina wodd ‘where polarization, both vertical and horizontal, class and ethnic, has become rampant, and where vo lence has become more globalized and fragmented atthe some time, and is no longer « question uf Detween states but of substate cont, globally m ‘worked and financed, in which states have become actor, increasingly privatized, amongst others 4x), For many of those who fe like this, the post ra ushered in a new and extremely dangerous peta In world history. Whether the word is so diferen today from in the pas isa matter af mich contempo ‘ary discussion. To consider this sue we need tobe by looking at the way security” has been tad conceived, ‘report aging Wat Randa wae det conting ane of {hema mila (M23) near cong In Spore 015, the Imernatonal Cima Cort (Cn the Haga barged Bow Mtaganda_one of the ede of M23, wth rdeting 00 cans, together wth ape ad th ected Th cot epoca eign Randi cs 00 pol el sie ont Cog aed Bare oe ti ncn ats on who fd aes perience pone pba i the Cary anh tacts on Ranch nae aden re Fraingt Congo wth hes ug een terms. Buzan’s work raises interesting and impoetant ‘questions about whether national and international security considerations canbe compatible and whether slates given the nature of the internatonel system, are capable of thinking in more cooperative international and global terms (eee Box 151. Notallvriterson security accep this focus on the tension between national and international secucity, Some argue thatthe emphasis on state and inter-state relations ignores the fundamental changes that have been taking place in wordpoitcs, Forathers, the dual processes of Integration and fragmentation assoc ated with globalization that characterize the coatem, porary world mean that much more attention should be given to ‘societal security’ (see Case Study 15.0, According © this view, growing integration in ‘Question: How doth cofctin the RC hight the ay fa broader dion 2 seca and he impor ne desea thurs and oct cy ovine ander ares Raila Ths sched Dy 1997 fala el ot this Bacher Apt 198 7d Rand and Uganda ited aration dese nev im Tis father invite ey Aibabue, Anal Nada, Chad, and Sun appt of usin 2: ouside taerene the main nee of He wa The traditional approach to national security Chapter 2 shows, from the Treaties of Westphalia and Rousseau tended to paint a pessimistic peture of reglons such as Europe is undermining the classical political order based on nation-states, leaving nations exposed within larger political frameworks {auch as ‘the EU). At the same time, the fragmentation of vat fous states, such asthe Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, has created new problems of boundaries, minortes, and organizing ideologies that are causing inceeas {ing egional instability (Wever et al 1993: 196) This has led to the argument that ethno-national groups, sather than states, should become the centre of ater tion for security analysts Key Points + Seculyea toned concept + The meaning of eur hsban brenden been tar considerations inde pola erm, sect an eionment apes + Oierng ents est ou te eson been aoa an iteration seat {+ Difleret ese ai energe about sian ‘of obtzaton or te tre fens sy 1648 onwards, states have beon regarded as by far ‘most powerful actors inthe international system. have been ‘the universal standard of political macy’, with no higher authority to regulate theie Jjons with eachother. This has meant that security been scen asthe priority obligation of state govern Beis Sats have taken the view tat thee is no alter but to seek thei own protection in what hasbeen erbed asa sel-help wold Tm the historical debate about how best to achieve onal security, such writers as Hobbes, Machiavelli, the implications of state sovereignty. They viewed the International system as a rather brutal arena in which states would seek to achieve their own security at the expense oftheir neighbours, Interstate relations were seen asa struggle for power, as sates constantly attempted to take advantage ofeach other. According to this view, permanent peace was unlikely oe achieved, All tha states could do was to try to balance the power ‘of other state to prevent any one from achieving over- all hegemony. This view was shared by writers such as EH, Care and Hans Morgenthau, who developed 242 ‘what became known a the realist (or ‘lassica” realist) school of though in the aftermath of the Second World ‘War, More recent attempts to update thee ideas can be seen in the works of Alastair J. H. Musray, Thomas Christensen, Randall Schweller, Wiliam Woblforth, snd Fareed Zakaria. The work is sometimes refesed tos neoclassical realism. “The reals, pessimistic view of international rel tions is shared by other writes, such as Kenneth ‘Waltz and John Mearsheimer. The pessimism ofthese neorealiss rests on a number af key assumptions they make about the way theinterntional ystems works and itsinberent propensity for violence (ee Box 15.2). ‘According to the neorealist view, national security, ‘or insecurity s largely the result of the structure of the international system (isis why these writers are sometimes calle ‘structural realists). The structure of anarchy is seen as highly durable, The implication of ‘this stat international polities in the future i likely to be as vilent as international polities inthe past Ln an important article entitled Back othe Future’ writ- tes in 1990, John Mearsbeimer argued thatthe end of ‘the cold war was ily to usher ina return tothe ra- balance of power polines of the Box 15.2 Key neorealis assumptions “+ Tne inrstonlaeem anarchic Bt hi doe mean ati nacesly cucu Rae anys (ath ino cont author pablo eoneling State ening srry nity demlopofesve rary capitis to deen erste ad extent wer Asch hey te patently angst ch + Uncertain eng nk fs rhein te introns ptm Sates can reer be ua ir hours a eco ast ays Be on erg + Sater wantto mnin th independence nt soreegty and a asus the mot bake Dough sates aon tere aay be room or ‘satan Ina wot mpatctfomation, Don antag aaye ave an inet ‘marr throu capa to ee a ppanan guessing Ths mye to mils abut eat Noort argue the suum, taken together ro ‘ic a tendancy for sts to act ages towards ch other past, in which extreme nationalism and ethnic ri ries would cause widespread instability and conf ‘Mearsheimer viewed the cold wat 98a period ofp and stability beought about by its prevalling be structure of power. With the collapse ofthis system he argued, there would bea return tothe kind of g power varios that had blighted international latin since the seventeenth century For ncocealist writes such as Mearsheimer, rational politics may not be characterized by cn vas, but nevertheless relentless security competi takes place, with war always a possibility. They ace that cooperation among states can and does occ such cooperation has its mits. is constrained by th dominating logie of secuity competition, which mount of co-operation can eliminate’ (Meats 1994/5: 9), Genuine long lasting peace, or & wold which states do not compete for power, therefore, ‘very unlikely to be achieved. Neorealists predicted th the postcold war unipolar structure of power, with pre-eminence, was likey to give way to ane in tional strctace with the vise of states such a5 Indi, and Bea Liberal institutionalism One of the min characteristics of the rere tpproach fo international security isthe bel incationl imitations dont hae avery imped pert to hay in the prevention of war. Iatto Seon asthe prodoc of date inteeteand the const imposed by the intereatina yt te. interests and constraints that thpe tated abot whether coopera or comet rte hath institutions to which they belong Nera poi the contemporary problems ced by abet ‘timation (ach a the UN and EL) 0 force hl ewe oth satespeople snd a number of Iter Relatonsspeciaischallenge thee nora on insttation. For example forme British Secretary Dogs Hurd made the et in Jone that insthaton themselves played cri el enhancing security, pay cu inBurope. He a thatthe Wet had developed se ointernatonais tations which fave proved thir worth or es problem He wenton arg tha the get ch Of the pont war era wa to adap thee in Sons to dea withthe new rumstances ha (Hur, quoted in Mearseime 9945 gis view reflected belief, widely shared among, staespeopl, that framework of complemen: ‘tvally reinforcing insttulons-—the European (BU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization {TO}. the Western European Union (WEU), and COrgalzation for Security and Co-operation in (OSCE)—

    You might also like