In my view, the realist notion that states are the most
important actors on the global playing field fails to correctly characterize
current affairs, as it does not account for multinational corporations,
intergovernmental organizations and NGO’s, all of which have become formidable
players due to the process of globalization. Globalization, in my opinion,
threatens other realist premises such as the belief that societies are
contained units and that domestic affairs are generally not as important to the
global scene. (We need only look at the global economic recession/crisis of
2008).Furthermore, globalization in one form or another has given rise to or
exacerbated global problems such as the pollution and environmental health as
well as terrorism, which signifies that future survival will likely necessitate
interdependence and cooperation between various and innumerable actors and not
solely states, perhaps rendering the realist view somewhat arbitrary.
Some of the aforementioned points were discussed by Beitz as
he argued that morality should not be absent from the international realm and
that national interest and power are not the only motivators in foreign policy.
However, I find that our world is presently void of morality in international
politics despite the globalizing agents I described above, though globalization
presents possibilities for changes in the future. Globalization has created
economic incentives for countries to behave in certain manner towards one
another as they are becoming increasingly dependent on agents outside their
borders for economic well being. However, economic well being does not
necessarily imply countries will behave morally or ethically, and countries may
arrive at this economic well being within the globalized framework utilizing
different means which may or may not be moral. Furthermore, it is important to
question how much control states have over their economic well being with the
rise of multinational corporations. It is also often argued that IGO’s such as
the United Nations or the IMF actually serve national interests and perpetuate
power and strength relations among the already developed and westernized nations,
thus their presence on the international scene may not positively affect morality
or ethical codes but only reinforce national agendas. Globalization does,
however, present us with transparency which, in my opinion, may be its most
promising feature in terms of ethics or morality of states in the future. And
of course, as previously stated, the seeming ‘globalization of problems’ might
also bring about moral or ethical behavior, especially if our very existence is
being jeopardized.
This is interesting, agreeing with some of Beitz propositions about what should be considered 'international' but not buying his conclusion.
ReplyDeleteOne thing to think about, however, is that simply because one does not see ethical action today does not mean that the sphere itself is devoid of morality. If we can imagine an ethical international there is still hope for us to make it so. One could make similar arguments about the domestic sphere before the rise of democracy.
Globalization certainly creates a dependency on other outside actors, but I don't see so much of a transparency on a global scale. The United States is an incredibly shut in country with a 'center of the universe' paradigm. We use other states to our advantage and provide services as well. Yet I think that we (US) are still a contained unit in light of globalization-an actor in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThough I agree that the prevailing paradigm in the U.S. is one of a "center of the universe" complex, I think that the transparency brought about by globalization is certainly serving to challenge this. We have only to think about our sudden interest in the rise of China or the viral KONY videos which set off rage nationally. Whether this new interest fosters a new open minded "global citizen" way of thinking or whether it is entirely superficial is up for debate. Nevertheless, its very presence in American dialogue is certainly a milestone and something to keep us optimistic of a potential change in our ethnocentric narrative.
ReplyDelete