Globalism is defined as high levels of globalism. Globalism a form of codependence between many nations or continents, and has been growing in frequency in recent years. Globalism may take a series of forms, ranging from economic to military to environmental. Economic globalism looks at the transfer of money or trade across continents. Military globalism is similar, however it uses the threat of force to coerce a reaction. Environmental globalism stems from the transfer of biological substances necessary to human wellbeing from place to place. Finally, cultural or social globalism is the movement of people or cultural norms across state boundaries. This is seen heavily in the US as immigration rates rise. While globalization has been seen to share world GDP more widely into developing countries, drawbacks of globalism range from the rise of China as a world leader to more severe consequences, such as the facilitating of terrorism.
According to Keohane and Nye, globalization can be thick or thin. As previously stated, the modern world is now accustomed to thick globalization, meaning a large amount of globalism occurs at once and in many nations. This thick globalization is also defined by its complexity of networks and incredibly high velocity. It is this velocity, that will be later be discussed as a key feature in the rise of modern terrorism. Supporting this is Lund and Tyson’s argument that globalization is not disappearing anytime soon. It is, in fact, changing in a way that will make it more easily accessible for the world as a whole. This can be seen in the rise of “micro-multinationals.” These companies, such as Amazon, allow for many manufacturers or brands to pool into one collective distributer, which will task itself with fast delivery to the consumer. Continuing with the Amazon example, the site as a whole would be impossible were it not for the rapid growth of digital technology. Trade has also been spurred on by globalization. As new transportation methods become more available and cheaper, previously isolated countries are becoming more readily available for trade. This means a rising GDP globally, shared over a broader range of countries, including developing states which previously were excluded from the global sphere of trade because of high costs of production and shipping. Finally, Lund and Tyson view China’s rise as heavily influenced by globalization.
As argued by Friedberg, China’s rise as a major upholder of the global trade order is worrying to the US because of the various possibilities for conflict. The majority of these stem from a fundamental difference in ideologies: where China seeks regional hegemony in Asia, the US has long been committed to maintaining non-hostile powers on either end of the Eurasian landmass. This means no genuine alliance may ever be formed between the two super powers. Similarly, even open communication is hindered by the CCP’s fear of ideological subversion and desire to portray themselves as defenders of national honor. For this reason, the US must balance against China, for fear of it enforcing claims on disputed lands such as the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa. China also creates several “flashpoints,” as Goldstein calls them, which could further tensions with the US. These include Taiwan and the South and East China Seas. The US has approached the issue between China and Taiwan with triangular relations, meaning it has cordial interactions with both nations. Though China does not recognize Taiwanese independence (as this would undermine the CCP’s previously mentioned desire to promote a unified China), the US has provided Taiwan with protection against an unprovoked Chinese attack. At the same time, China and the US maintain an upstanding trade agreement. In the East China Sea, the Chinese and Japanese have sought control in overlapping portions of water, with a primary struggle arising from disputes over hydrocarbon exploitation. China has also laid claim for air-defense space which is currently unrecognized by both the Taiwanese and the Japanese. China has also begun to build man-made islands in the South China Sea to enforce a presence in the surrounding island chain and facilitate exploration of natural resources.
Another potential setback of globalization is the facilitating of Russian “hybrid war.” Giles argues that the current Russian foreign policy is based primarily in efforts to control information in whatever form it may take. This means an incredible online presence, which would be impossible were it not for the huge number of people moving online due to high levels of globalization. This undermines the idea that true news or media is possible, which destroys the credibility of all debate and global political discussions. Opinions are so far skewed that democracy and liberal institutions are even challenged by the “firehouse of falsehood,” so called by Paul and Matthews.
Apart from this, Naim outlines a series of misconceptions regarding globalization which may have been falsely misshaping perceptions of globalization. He argues that globalization is not by and for the rich, as will be discussed later, nor is it strictly for the gains of Americans. Despite this, Naim says that globalization will not dissolve great power politics, making is a useless strategy for global peace. Globalization has also not improved world security or made the world safer in any impactful way. On the domestic level, Frankel argues that the globalization debate can also been seen in the preferences of businesses to operate at home or abroad. He explains that some may feel a home-country trade bias. This may be due to things such as geography. Businesses which are closer to the coasts are more likely to ship or manufacture abroad, as they have easier access to the waterways. Other industries may choose to create their goods or services at home, due to things such as barriers of currency or language. States may also regulate trade based on existing alliance or global conflicts. Offsetting this are the benefits such as increasing average economic rates, which may close the gap between the incomes of wealthy elites and average citizens. The globalization argument is also applicable to climate change. NeoMalthusians like Homer-Dixon would argue against globalization as a failsafe in promoting equality among nations of differing economic levels. This is because they feel developing counties will never adapt as quickly or as greatly as richer states. This is seen in their distrust of technology and market-driven adaptations as a way to offset climate change. The response of Simon and the Cornucopians would be that globalization has only strengthened technological drive, meaning when shortages begin to occur the world will be prepared. As prices rise, the ability to share resources such as through globalization will prove vital and will allow for greater distribution of valuable innovation.
Finally, globalization can be seen to have unwelcome and unpredictable effects globally, such as in the argument if Cronin. Cronin states that globalism has made terrorism easier to conduct and more deadly in nature. She argues that radical Islamic terrorism is a reaction driven by the less wealthy and highly conservative members of the faith to the economic, social, and political changes that occur as a result of globalization. Though they view globalization as evil, something that must be made up for by a return to pure Islam, globalization is actually making all steps in the rise to terrorism more possible. Technological advances have made recruiting easier, as word-of-mouth propaganda is no longer the only form. These online recruitments are making terror cells highly mobile with a more global presence. In addition, transportation now allows terrorists to move easier between states or nations. The internet has also facilitated the purchasing of weapons, as the international trade market has bolstered weapons purchasing.