http://www.polity.co.uk/up2/pdf/sample_chapter.pdf
Worldwide globalization can cause a new definition of what peace means especially to a state's citizens’ which will eventually democratize other nations as well following on the track of peace and globalization. In “Peace Operations in Global Politics,” the article discusses the importance of how globalization has affected the way peace is portrayed amongst states. With states being interconnected because of globalization it brings new issues to all states as well. Peace is difficult to conceptualize because it can mean a number of different things such as peace meaning no war, but then is a nation who has its citizens socially enslaved in peace? This is the difficulty that globalization introduces because if states are interdependent on one another, the other has the responsibility to create peace for that nation. Competition amongst states has caused a great deal of disadvantage towards citizens of a particular state. If democratic states are unlikely to result to war then that means states take on more responsibility. If a state doesn’t take care of its citizens then it becomes another state's responsibility. These responsibilities in return can cause more hardships for a particular actor in the world economy. For some states peace isn’t the best solution where war can be which represents the difficulty in maintaining peace in today’s collectivity of globalization.
In class we had talked about how war today is not a common event in world politics and how this can be from globalization. Without war means there is peace, but is peace desirable in today’s world? Peace can equal domination such as North Korea or any authoritarian state. The argument is whether globalization can change the meaning of peace, causing countries to democratize and unite together. A decrease in war globally in today’s world means there are other issues states have to deal with. In Peace Operations in Global Politics, “Peace operations need to be in the business of protecting human rights where host states prove unwilling or unable to do so, and of helping to build states capable of fulfilling their responsibilities in the long term.” If more responsibility is what creates peace then globalization should be effective since it is what liberal and democratic states have created. Therefore, globalization has been the factor for peace and the decrease of war. Even though there are difficulties with how globalization is conducted, there are still benefits rather than resorting to war. States should be able to take on more responsibility, and focus on uniting together instead of going against each other.
I agree with much of what is outlined here. Globalization can lead to a greater incentive for countries to negotiate before resorting to war but as we discussed in class, this is done best between democracies. In my opinion, peace should not be preserved at the expense of human rights violations including violence by governments (such as in North Korea). As I expressed in class, I do not believe in a world peace as defined as a lack of war but instead in peace where everyone feels safe and free. No war does not mean no violence; no war does not mean human rights. A lack of war simply means no structured fighting and I believe we should set the goal higher than this.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree that globalization is done sufficiently between democracies. I also agree that there has to be a new meaning for the definition of peace as I had depicted above. No war certainly doesn't mean peace. Peace should give freedom to the civilians of a state and to not be ruled over. That's why democracies work well with each other if they have a capitalist government. If globalization has an impact on other countries who don't necessarily have this new definition of peace, than I believe it is more likely for a country to fall into a new form of government because of democracy.
ReplyDeleteStephen has a good point as to what "peace" really entails, because you can have no war but still have no peace (North Korea, Cuba, etc.). I feel that what you were trying to refer to here was that peace more or less derives from bilateral cooperation and agreement, whether it be strictly through trade or through political relations. That might or might not entail preventing war but peace in itself doesn't mean no war.
ReplyDeleteI think the best argument that globalization in relation to nations working together is the sense of economic interdependence, where those trading with each other wouldn't go to war with one another and risk economic cooperation.