Globalization has been a primary driving force in today’s post capitalist world. Yet globalization is not at all easy to define (Al-Rodhan, 3). It is not simply a matter of increasing cultural sharing among people from different parts of the country. Rather, globalization is seen to be a “technological, economic, and political innovation that has dramatically reduced barriers to economic, political, and cultural exchange” (Drezner, 53). More than the micro-processes, globalization has fundamental effects to social, political, and economic process (Al-Rodhan, 3). The effects of globalization are manifold. In one hand, critics see globalization as the cause of many modern problems such as big gaps in equality, unfair trading, and insecurity (Naim, n.d). On the other hand, supporters of globalization see it as the answer to these problems. (Naim, n.d). However, whether or not its effects may be beneficial or detrimental, many believe that globalization is irreversible. Nevertheless, globalization has continued to challenge age-old macro and microstructures and one of the most salient effects of globalization is seen in foreign policies.
What is interesting is that globalization is nothing new to the United States. In fact, many contend that the United States has been one of the leading country for globalization—next to Britain, especially with its heavy endorsement to democracy and free trade. According to Chang, central to the creation of globalization is the conventional wisdom that the model of laisses-faire economic assumes global prosperity (1). After the period of interventionist economic policies, that may have greatly contributed to the Depression Era, the U.S sought to change their U.S foreign policy towards liberalizing their markets (Jones, n,d). The aftermath of the World War II gave them an opportunity to forge a sure alliance with different state leaders, and expanding their markets towards these allied (Jones, n.d). The U.S has been an instrument in creating salient international organizations such as the NATO and the United Nations (Lindsay, Greenbergm and Daalder,, n.d).
Hays (as cited in Drogus and Orvis, 1070) argued that there seems to be a convergence in policies among developed countries such as U.S, Germany, and Japan, despite their distinct liberal market economies. In fact, Hays argued that these distinctions—market characteristics, ideologies, and economic models—vanish as countries begin to take global capital in precedence (Drogus and Orvis, 1070). On the other hand, Drezner contends that globalization is not a determinant for increase convergence of policy, rather states still employ agency when they forge relations with other states (75).
The foreign relation of U.S in other countries has been diverse at best. Their brand of democracy and free trading schemes are met with mix reaction from the foreign community, some accepting and adapting it, while others rejects it. For example, the neo-conservative schemes put forth by the Bush administration, which resulted to the debacle in Iraq, were met unfavorably by some in both domestic and international communities. The increasing alliance between states due to globalization has created a potentially more effective and strategic platform to solve issues that transcends domestic controls such as climate change, terrorism, epidemics and the likes (Vallaure, n.d). On the other hand, diplomatic duties have also been increasingly difficult as it assumes both domestic and international interest.
Globalization has increase the interdependency of states within each other. The western-led globalization themed with open and free system of communication and economic relation has given myriads of people and institutions opportunities to interact with other states and culture; however, it has also made them especially vulnerable during economic crises. Nevertheless, globalization is here to stay. It has undoubtedly changed international relational systems and may have blurred the lines between what are domestic issues and what are foreign issues.
Work Cited
Al-Rodhan, Nayef R.F. Definitions of Globalization: A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition. Geneva: N.p., 2009. Web. < http://www.wh.agh.edu.pl/other/materialy/678_2015_04_21_22_04_13_Definitions of Globalization_A Comprehensive Overview and a Proposed Definition.pdf>
Chang, Ha-Joon. “Kicking Away the Ladder: The ‘Real’ History of Free Trade.” Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) Dec. 2003. Web. < http://www.personal.ceu.hu/corliss/CDST_Course_Site/Readings_old_2012_files/Ha-Joon Chang - Kicking Away the Ladder-The %E2%80%9CReal%E2%80%9D History of Free Trade.pdf>
Drezner, Daniel. “Globalization and Policy Convergence.” International Studies Review 3.1 (2001): 53–78. Web. < http://danieldrezner.com/research/pnvergence.pdf>
Drogus, Carol Ann, and Stephen Orvis. Introducting Compatarive Politics: Concepts and Cases in Context. 2nd Editio. Washington D.C: QC Press. Print.
Lindsay, James M., Maurice R. Greenberg, and Ivo H. Daalder. “The Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century.” Brookings Review 21.1 (2003): 12. Web.< http://www.cfr.org/world/globalization-politics-american-foreign-policy-new-century/p6330>
Naim, Moises. “Think Again: Globalization.” Foreign Policy 30 Sept. 2009. Web. < http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/30/think-again-globalization/>
Jones, Steve. “What Is Globalization?: US Has Supported Globalization For Decades.” US Foreign Policy About Dec. 2014. Web.< http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/introtoforeignpolicy/a/What-Is-Globalization.htm>
Vallaure, Javier. “Globalization & International Relations.” Diplomat Magazine Sept. 2013. Web. < http://www.diplomatmagazine.nl/2013/09/28/globalization-international-relations/>
