International Relations

Ahtisham Jan Butt

0321 46 46 037
Join my facebook groups
Scope CSS Center & The CSS Club

The New World Order

The New World Order
First manifestation: Gulf War 1990-91
American power in support of "collective security" led to the idea that
Cold War had now been replaced by a fresh paradigm- New World Orderin which Washington would impose its values on the rest of the world.
The dominance of United States in post cold war era: Some
Manifestations
Internal conditions of US during 90s...
a. Transformation of World Economy
Projection of Economic Power: driving forward the process of globalization
i.e. WTO
World Trade Order? Making GATT in 1995 into a permanent institution
that would work for the progressive lowering of tariffs.
American Pacific policies: persuading Southeast Asian economies to open
them for international Investments.

 c. New Russia and the WEST

incorporating into new system of West. First manifestation PfP 1994... defense cooperation
economic Incorporation through G7+1. A psychological boost... ?????????

d. Influence in Americas: Western Hemisphere

Non interventionist policy towards Latin America during 1980s as opposed to 1960s policies...
Use of forces in 1990s in Panama and Haiti under the pretext of Wilsonian Internationalism...
NAFTA 1992

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

it brought together US, Canada, Mexico into a trading bloc.
Three countries pledged to eliminate trade barriers, duties and tariffs
Mexico economy opened for US and Can investment.
Mexico-US trade doubled just within 5 years. 83 to 157
efforts of WHTFA failed...
Sharpe differences in NAFTA/ proposed WHTFA and EU?

 f. Post Cold war Europe and US

Clinton administration's role in beginning of
peace process between Britain and Republic
of Ireland. Belfast agreement 1998
NATOs role in Bosnian crisis and US role in
imposing sanctions on Serbia 1992
Kosovo crisis defused by NATO 1999
Policy of absorbing ex-soviet satellites in
NATO

 g. US and Africa
Rise of Democratic spirit in Algeria, Angola,
Mozambique, Ethopia and most importantly
South Africa
Other side of the picture which NWO failed to
addressed and it's a blot on its image i.e.
Rwanda crisis, Congo civil war etc
Problems US failed to address: HIV, debt crisis,
unwillingness of West to develop trade links with
Africa...

 e. US and Middle East

The collapse of USSR removed the cold war
framework which had been an obstacle to conflict
resolutions.
PLOs support of Iraq in 1990 and apprehensions of
US
One million Jews to be absorbed in Israel from former
soviet areas
Madrid Conference : bilateral and multilateral tracks
Oslo Accords first initiative 13th September 1993
1995 coming of conservative Netanyahu

TERRORISM
The meaning of terrorism is socially
constructed.

terrorism lies the word terror. Terror comes

from the Latin terrere, which means
frighten or tremble. When coupled with
the French suffix isme (referencing to
practice), it becomes akin to practicing
the trembling or causing the frightening.
The word terror is over 2,100 years old.
Terrorism is a pejorative term. Examples?

Defining Terrorism
Studies have found more than 200 definitions of terrorism. In fact, Simon
(1994) reports that at least 212 different definitions of terrorism exist
across the world; 90 of them are recurrently used by governments and
other institutions.
Schmid and Jongman (1988) They gathered over a hundred academic
and official definitions of terrorism and examined them to identify the
main components. They discovered that the concept of violence emerged
in 83.5% of definitions; political goals emerged in 65%; causing fear and
terror in 51%; arbitrariness and indiscriminate targeting in 21%; and the
victimization of civilians, noncombatants, neutrals, or outsiders in 17.5%.
Merari (1993) found that, in the U.S., Britain, and Germany, there are
three common elements that exist in the legal definitions of terrorism of
those countries: (1) the use of violence, (2) political objectives, and (3)
the aim of propagating fear in a target population.

Defining Terrorism
Walter Laqueur: Terrorism is the use or the threat of the use of violence, a method of combat, or a
strategy to achieve certain targets [I]t aims to induce a state of fear in the victim, that is ruthless and
does not conform with humanitarian rules [P]ublicity is an essential factor in the terrorist strategy.
Bruce Hoffman: Terrorism is ineluctably political in aims and motives, violentor, equally
important, threatens violence, designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the
immediate victim or target, conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or
conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia), and perpetrated
by a subnational group or non-state entity.
Alex Schmid and Albert Jongman: Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent
action, employed by (semi-)clandestine individual, group, or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal, or
political reasons, wherebyin contrast to assassinationthe direct targets of violence are not the main
targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of
opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as
message generators.
David Rapoport: terrorism is the use of violence to provoke consciousness, to evoke certain
feelings of sympathy and revulsion.
Yonah Alexander: terrorism is the use of violence against random civilian targets in order to
intimidate or to create generalized pervasive fear for the purpose of achieving political goals.

Defining Terrorism
Stephen Sloan: the definition of terrorism has evolved over time, but its political, religious, and
ideological goals have practically never changed.
League of Nations Convention Definition of Terrorism (1937): terrorist acts are all criminal acts
directed against a State and intended or calculated to create a state of terror in the minds of particular
persons or a group of persons or the general public.
U.S. Department of Defense Definition of Terrorism: terrorism refers to the calculated use of
unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate
governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
U.S. Department of State: terrorism is premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated
against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine state agents.
Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism: terrorism is any act or threat of violence,
whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal
agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives,
liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private
installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize a national resources.
Yasser Arafat, late Chairman of the PLO (the Palestine Liberation Organization), notably said in a 1974
speech before the United Nations, [O]ne mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

Most Universally Accepted Definition

There is no universally agreed-on
definition of terrorism. At best, we
have a most universally accepted
definition of terrorism, which is the
following:
terrorism is the use of violence
to create fear for (1) political, (2)
religious, or (3) ideological
reasons

THINKING HISTORICALLY
BRIEF HISTORY OF TERRORISM
Accounts of terrorism existed before the word itself was invented.
Assurnasirpal, the conqueror and king of Assyria (884860 BCE)
In 9 CE, Germanic tribes conducted guerrilla attacks against passing Roman brigades.
Approximately 15,000 Roman soldiers were killed and hundreds more slain after being
taken prisoner. For the Romans, such Barbarian resistance would have been considered
terrorism.
Sicarii (6673 CE), a Zealot-affiliated religious sect fighting against Roman occupiers in
Palestine and Jerusalem. The Sicariis most fundamental justification was that all means
were legitimate to achieve political and religious liberation.
During the Middle Ages, in 11th century Persia, the Assassins were a religious sect striking
terror against the empire of Saladin and resisted the armies of the Ottoman Empire.
French Revolution: Reign of Terror
Terrorism in 20th century and beyond

THINKING THEORITICALLY
OLD TERRORISM VS. NEW TERRORISM
Walter Laqueur (1999), a prominent terrorism expert,
suggests that there has been a radical transformation, if not
a revolution, in the character of terrorism. Laqueur
compares old terrorism with new terrorism. Old terrorism is
terrorism that strikes only selected targets. New
terrorism is terrorism that is indiscriminate; it causes
as many casualties as possible.
Another major feature of new terrorism is the increasing
readiness to use extreme indiscriminate violence. Laqueur
argues that the new terrorism is different in character,
aiming not at clearly defined political demands but at the
destruction of society and the elimination of large sections of
the population.

THINKING THEORITICALLY
OLD TERRORISM VS. NEW TERRORISM
Terrorism has changed because of a paradigm shift. Many scholars
argue that the paradigm shift from old to new terrorism occurred at
some point in the 1990s, with the 1993 bombing of the World Trade
Center in New York and the 1995 sarin gas attack in the Tokyo subway
system.
concept of new terrorism identify the strict compliance with religion,
predominantly radical Islam, as one of its main characteristics. While
old terrorism was mainly secular in its focus and drive, new terrorism
works hand-in-glove with religious fanaticism.
Gurr and Cole (2000) examined the sixty-four international terrorist
organizations that existed in 1980; they found that only two of them
were religious organizations (only 3% in total). By 1995, the number of
religious terrorist organizations rose sharply to twenty-five out of fiftyeight (43% in total). It was an increase of 40% in just fifteen years.

Comparison between Old and New

Terrorism
For Ganor (2002), the comparison between old and new terrorism can be articulated
through the differences between classical, modern, and postmodern terrorism.
Classical terrorism means that group warfare is direct; it is aimed at
specific targets with few casualties (e.g., assassinations) or wreaks havoc on
non-significant facilities. The damage is fairly low because the terrorist acts are
perpetrated to achieve a specific political objective.
In modern terrorism, a more indirect approach is used; attacks are more
indiscriminate and destruction is much higher, inflicting hundreds of casualties.
Although conventional weapons are used in modern terrorism, they are used to
create mass fatalities.
Postmodern terrorism has the objective of altering the reality of the conflict
(with its enemy) by the very act of terrorismsuch as using CBRN
(chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons; pronounced CBURN) weapons or attacks against symbols of the enemyto materially
demolish as much of their adversary as possible. The objective here is to eliminate
the source of conflict itself.

Comparison between Old and New

Terrorism
Four Waves of Terrorism
The comparison between old and new terrorism can also be explained through
the evolution of terrorism in four waves, the Fourth Wave being new terrorism.
The First Wave was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The Second Wave was the colonial wave, confined within national
geographical boundaries from 1921 until today.
The Third Wave was the contemporary wave; it introduced international
terrorism, crossing national boundaries, which began in the 1960s.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks gave rise to the Fourth Wave
of terrorism (both for the U.S. and nations worldwide). The Fourth Wave
is symbolized by religious justification for killing, international scope,
unparalleled gory tactics and weapons, and dependence on
technologies of modernity.

CAUSES OF TERRORISM
CONCEPTUALLY

THINKING

Why do people resort to terrorism? The reasons are

complex and plentiful.
The factors that motivate people to join and
remain in terrorist groups can be religious,
economic, social, psychological, retaliatory, and so
forth.
Below is a list of causes, based on an extensive
examination of journal articles and books on
terrorism written by various experts on the matter.

Religion
religious fanaticism is an extreme sense of ideological zeal complemented
by a focused and unrelenting set of activities that express the high
dedication of one or more people to their own belief system(s). Radical
religious Islamism has been identified as a root cause of terrorism.
In the early 1950s, Hizb ut-Tahrir (The Liberation Party) advocated the
collapsing of Arab regimes and the formation of an Islamic state. In 1952,
Jordan and all other Arab states banned the party.
As one Hamas fighter said, Before I start shooting, I start to concentrate
on reading verses of the Quran because the Quran gives me the courage
to fight the Israelis.
Christians have also committed acts of religious extremism. For example, in
the U.S., radical Christian killers have been involved in abortion-clinic
bombings and militia actions. Likewise, in Northern Ireland, Catholics and
Protestants have perpetrated terrorist acts.

Oppression
terrorism can be the result of groups portrayal of governments as
oppressive. Terrorism, then, feeds on the desire to reduce the power of
opponents. In autocratic societies, military-occupied areas, or even in the
international arena where political expression is limited, groups opposing
the current state of affairs may engage in terrorism as a principal method of
expression and not as a last resort.
case of nationalist-separatist movements (e.g., ETA, Hamas), terrorists often
invoke the unfairness of their treatment by governments that deprive them
of identity, dignity, security, and freedom as the main reason for joining
terrorist groups.
Chechen Black Widows are reported to retaliate against Russians for their
own experience of rape by the Russian military or for the deaths of their
husbands and male family members and friends.
In the late 1800s, Andrei Zhelyabov, a leader of Peoples Will (a terrorist
organization) and the architect of many political assassinations (e.g., the
bombs that killed Czar Alexander II), resorted to terrorist activities as a
promise to revenge the many crimes by the monarchist regime that he
experienced directly.

Historical Grievances
terrorists target governments and groups they view as responsible for
historical injustices.
For Crenshaw (1981), avenging comrades or the community is the single
common emotion that drives the individual to become a terrorist.
Chechen terrorists have defended their terrorist attacks by alluding to
Russias long-lasting rejections of Chechen desire for independence, and
the old and cruel history of Russian invasion of Chechnya dating back to
the 17th century.
The Basque separatist movement ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna), Sikh
extremists (in India), the IRA, the ANC (in South Africa), and pro-Palestinian
terrorist groups have all looked for vengeance for historical grievances.
Resentment and revenge are a major principle in the writings of the
thinkers of jihad.

Violations of international
law
The international rule of law is the standard by which all nations are
subject to and bound by supranational legal covenants. Enduring conduct
such as extended military occupation or foreign domination in violation of
U.N. resolutions may be a major cause.
According to Imre, Mooney, and Clarke (2008), Palestinians were not
granted justice through the U.N. and other legal channels.
Other examples of violations of international law include the failure of
Britain to protect the rights of Palestinians after the Balfour Declaration
(1917)
the failure of the Paris Peace Conference to grant Arab autonomy under
the Treaty of Svres (1920)
the annexation of Palestinian territory by Jews in the 1940s and the
resulting eviction of thousands of Palestinians from their land.

Relative Deprivation
multiple scholars have found a strong link between poverty
and terrorism. In view of the 70% adult unemployment rate
in Gaza, the GDP of less than $1,000 throughout the
Palestinian Territories, the very limited economic
opportunities due to the unsettled IsraeliPalestinian
conflict, and the cultural prominence of the male wage
earner role, it is easy to allude to the possibility that relative
deprivation has helped trigger Palestinian terrorism.
In Peru, the popularity of the Shining Path (Sendero
Luminoso) in the 1960s, where government economic
restructurings initially gave hope but then failed, is another
historical case of relative deprivation.

Hatred toward the global economic

hegemony
countries that express hatred toward the global
economic hegemony will produce more terrorist groups.
The background that gave birth to Al Qaeda, namely
Afghanistan and Pakistan, symbolizes this notion. Many
terrorists abhor the World Trade Organization (WTO).
According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, the
September 11, 2001 attacks shattered $16 billion of
private and government property, including structures,
computer equipment, and software. The loss is of the
same degree as that caused by Hurricane Andrew in
1992 and the California earthquake of 1994.

Financial gain
terrorism can be used for sheer financial gain. Generally,
corporate hostage taking in Central and South America,
and hostage taking by the Abu Sayyaf group in the
Philippines, happens more out of a desire to earn a
ransom than achieving political goals.
In 1987, the Iran-Contra scandal concluded with an armsfor-hostage deal, even when the Reagan administration
initially refused to negotiate with terrorists.
After Palestinian bombers commit suicide, their families
earn subsequent social status and are usually secured a
financial reward.

Racism
racism can be a powerful method for dehumanizing
adversaries and accomplishing moral disengagement.
Gottschalk (2004) found that both Palestinian and
Israeli terrorists draw on stereotypes and racism to
dehumanize the other group.
Similarly, the FBI-watched Aryan Brotherhood (a
group of devious bikers formed in U.S. prisons)
identifies with Nazi ideals (as noticed with their Nazi
symbols) and has vowed to remove the Jewish and
Black races out of the earth.

Guilt by association
for terrorists, you are the company that you keep.
For example, the 2004 Madrid train bombings were
executed by an Al Qaedainspired terrorist cell. One of the
motives was Spains involvement in the Iraq War, where
the country had troops.
Likewise, since decolonization in continents like Africa and
South America, the West has been the target of terrorist
attacks because it has been accused of making local
minorities of Westernized people become ruling elites.
Accordingly, the latter is blamed for the substandard
quality of Third World governance because of a
partnership between corrupt Third World elites and their
backers in the West.

Globalization

What is Globalization?
Globalization is defined in many ways by scholars
"The intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant
localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events
occurring many miles away and vice versa." Giddens
"The integration of the world-economy." Gilpin
"De-territorialization- or... the growth of supra territorial relations
between people." Scholte
"Time-Space compression." Harvey
"By globalization we simply mean the process of increasing
interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part
of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies
far away. These events can be divided into three types, social,
economic and political." John Baylis
Some manifestations/ contributors: World Wide Web, worldwide
television communications, global newspapers, International social
movements like Amnesty International, global franchises, global
economy, global risks, global agendas etc

Globalization: A
Historical context
(try to understand in the context of
Interconnectedness).
Globalization is not a novel idea. It is viewed as a
historical process by which human civilizations
have come to form a single world system. It has
occurred in three distinct waves.
The Age of Discovery and subsequent
developments 1450-1850
The second Wave 1850-1945: spread of European
Empires
Contemporary Wave 1960-

The Engines of Globalization

Explanations of globalization tend to focus on three

interrelated factors, namely: technics (technological change
and social organization); economics (markets and
capitalism); and politics (power, interests, and institutions).
Technics is central to any account of globalization since it is
a truism that without modern communications
infrastructures, in particular, a global system or worldwide
economy would not be possible.
Economicscrucial as technology is, so too is its specifically
economic logic. Capitalisms insatiable requirement for new
markets and profits lead inevitably to the globalization of
economic activity.
Politicsshorthand here for ideas, interests, and power
constitutes the third logic of globalization. If technology
provides the physical infrastructure of globalization, politics
provides its normative infrastructure. Governments, such as
those of the USA and the UK, have been critical actors in
nurturing the process of globalization

Patterns in which process of Globalization can

be easily understood
Globalization, to varying degrees, is evident in all the principal sectors of social
activity:
Economic: in the economic sphere, patterns of worldwide trade, finance, and
production are creating global markets and, in the process, a single global capitalist
economywhat Castells (2000) calls global informational capitalism. Multinational
corporations organize production and marketing on a global basis while the operation
of global financial markets determines which countries get credit and upon what
terms.
Military: in the military domain the global arms trade, the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, the growth of transnational terrorism, the growing significance of
transnational military corporations, and the discourse of global insecurity point to the
existence of a global military order.
Legal: the expansion of transnational and international law from trade to human rights
alongside the creation of new world legal institutions such as the International Criminal
Court is indicative of an emerging global legal order.
Ecological: a shared ecology involves shared environmental problems, from global
warming to species protection, alongside the creation of multilateral responses and
regimes of global environmental governance.
Cultural: involves a complex mix of homogeneity and heterogeneity given the global
diffusion of popular culture, global media corporations, communications networks,
etc., simultaneously with the reassertion of nationalism, ethnicity, and difference. But
few cultures are hermetically sealed off from cultural interaction.
Social: shifting patterns of migration from South to North and East to West have turned
migration into a major global issue as movements come close to the record levels of

Theoretical Approaches vis-a-vis Globalization

Theory of Modernization:
Medelski and Morse: According to these writers, industrialization brings into
existence a whole new set of contacts between societies, and changes the political,
economic, and social processes that characterized the pre-modernized world.
Crucially, industrialization altered the nature of the state, both widening its
responsibilities and weakening its control over outcomes. The result is that the old
power-politics model of international relations becomes outmoded. Force becomes
less usable, states have to negotiate with other actors to achieve their goals, and
the very identity of the state as an actor is called into question. In many respects it
seems that modernization is part of the globalization process.
Universality of Economic patterns:
Waltz Rostow: who argued that economic growth followed a pattern in all
economies as they went through industrialization. Their economies developed in
the shadow of more developed economies until they reached the stage where
they were capable of self-sustained economic growth. What this has in common
with globalization is that Rostow saw a clear pattern to economic development, one
marked by stages which all economies would follow as they adopted capitalist
policies. There was an automaticity to history that globalization theory also tends
to rely on

 Global Village:
McLuhan: According to McLuhan, advances in electronic
communications resulted in a world where we could see in real time
events that were occurring in distant parts of the world. For McLuhan,
the main effects of this development were that time and space
become compressed to such an extent that everything loses its
traditional identity. As a result, the old groupings of political,
economic, and social organization simply do not work anymore.
Without doubt, McLuhans work significantly anticipates some of the
main themes of globalization, although it should be noted that he was
talking primarily about the communications revolution, whereas the
globalization literature tends to be much more extensive.
Cobweb model of World politics:
John Burton: who spoke of the emergence of a world society.
According to Burton, the old state system was becoming outmoded,
as increasingly significant interactions took place between non-state
actors. It was Burton who coined the phrase the cobweb model of
world politics. The central message here was that the most important
patterns in world politics were those created by trade,
communications, language, ideology, etc., along with the more
traditional focus on the political relations between states.

 The WOMPers:
World Order Models Project 1968: Mendlovitz: in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s,
there was the visionary work of those associated with the World Order Models
Project (WOMP), which was an organization set up in 1968 to promote the
development of alternatives to the inter-state system which would result in
the elimination of war. What is most interesting is that they focused on the
questions of global government that today are central to much work going on
under the name of globalization. For WOMPers (as they were known), the unit
of analysis is the individual, and the level of analysis is the global.
Interestingly, by the mid-1990s WOMP had become much wider in its focus,
concentrating on the worlds most vulnerable people and the environment.
International Society versus International system:
Hedley Bull: there are important parallels between some of the ideas of
globalization and the thoughts of those who argued for the existence of an
international society. Prominent among these was Hedley Bull (1977), who
pointed to the development over the centuries of a set of agreed norms and
common understandings between state leaders, such that they effectively
formed a society rather than merely an international system. However,
although Bull was perturbed by the emergence of what he called the new
medievalism, in which a series of sub national and international organizations
competed with the state for authority, he did not feel that the nation-state
was about to be replaced by the development of a world society.

 End of History:
Francis Fukuyama: globalization theory has several points in common with
the infamous argument of Francis Fukuyama (1992) about the end of
history. Fukuyamas main claim is that the power of the economic market
is resulting in liberal democracy replacing all other types of government.
Though he recognizes that there are other types of political regime to
challenge liberal democracy, he does not think that any of the
alternatives, such as communism, fascism, or Islam, will be able to deliver
the economic goods in the way that liberal democracy can. In this sense
there is a direction to history and that direction is towards the expansion
of the economic market throughout the world.
Liberal/ Democratic Peace Theory:
there are very marked similarities between some of the political aspects of
globalization and long-standing ideas of liberal progress. These have most
recently been expressed as liberal peace theory, although it goes back
centuries to writers such as Immanuel Kant. The main idea is that liberal
democracies do not fight one another, and although of course there can
be dispute as to what is a liberal democracy, adherents to this view claim
quite plausibly that there is no case where two democracies have ever
gone to war. The reason they claim this is that public accountability is so
central in democratic systems that publics will not allow leaders easily to
engage in wars with other democratic nations. Again the main link with
globalization is the assumption that there is progress to history, and that
this is making it far more difficult to start wars

Globalization versus Theories of IR

Realism: For Realists, globalization does not alter the most significant feature of world politics,
namely the territorial division of the world into nation-states. While the increased
interconnectedness between economies and societies might make them more dependent on one
another, the same cannot be said about the states-system. Here, states retain sovereignty, and
globalization does not render obsolete the struggle for political power between states. Nor does it
undermine the importance of the threat of the use of force or the importance of the balance of
power. Globalization may affect our social, economic, and cultural lives, but it does not transcend
the international political system of states
Idealism/Liberalism: For Liberals, the picture looks very different. They tend to see globalization
as the end product of a long-running transformation of world politics. For them, globalization
fundamentally undermines Realist accounts of world politics since it shows that states are no
longer such central actors as they once were. In their place are numerous actors, of differing
importance according to the issue-area concerned. Liberals are particularly interested in the
revolution in technology and communications represented by globalization. This increased
interconnectedness between societies, which is economically and technologically led, results in a
very different pattern of world political relations from that which has gone before. States are no
longer sealed units, if ever they were, and as a result the world looks more like a cobweb of
relations than like the state model of Realism or the class model of Marxist theory.
Marxism: For Marxist theorists, globalization is a bit of a sham. It is nothing particularly new, and
is really only the latest stage in the development of international capitalism. It does not mark a
qualitative shift in world politics, nor does it render all our existing theories and concepts
redundant. Above all, it is a Western-led phenomenon which basically simply furthers the
development of international capitalism. Rather than make the world more alike, it further
deepens the existing divide between the core, the semi-periphery, and the periphery

Globalization: Myth or Reality?

In Favour of Globalization:

Pace of Economic transformation is so great that it has created a new world system. States are no longer closed
units and they cannot control their economies. The world economy is more interdependent than ever, with trade
and finances ever expanding

Communications have fundamentally revolutionized the way we deal with the rest of the world. We now live in a
world where events in one location can be immediately observed on the other side of the world.
A Global Culture: There is now, more than ever before, a global culture that most of the urban areas resemble
one another. The world is rapidly sharing a common culture.
A Homogeneous World: The world is becoming more homogeneous. Differences between peoples are diminishing
.
Compression of Time and Space: Time and space seems to be collapsing. Old ideas of geographical space and of
chronological time are undermined by the speed of modern communications and media
A Global Polity: There is emerging a global polity with transnational social and political movements and the
beginning of a transfer of allegiance from national to transnational and inter-national bodies.

A Cosmopolitan Mindset: is developing. People are beginning to think Globally and act Locally.
Global Risks: A risk culture is emerging with people realizing both that the main risks that face them are global
and that states are unable to deal with the problems.

Globalization: Myth or
Reality?

2. Against Globalization

Last Phase of Capitalism:

Present World Economic Patterns are not NEW. e.g. 1870-1914
No Global Economy: Trade and investments are only concentrated in and between US, Europe and Japan
There is nothing Transnational.
Concentration of Capital and finance by developed countries only

Overestimation: A western theory only applies to developed countries. How many people use internet? or even
made a phone call in their live?
A Western Imperialism: The forces that are globalized are those found in the western world. What about nonwestern world valves? Where do they fit in? Globalization is western world view at the expense of the worldviews
of the other cultures.
Exploitation: Globalization allows efficient exploitation of less well off nations, all in the name of openness.
Globalization made Terrorism easy:
No provisions of accountability:
Why to attach Western values with Globalization? Can't states progress without adopting western values? Asian
Economies like Singapore, Malaysia, Korea etc...