REDEFINING GLOBALIZATION AND POWER IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Rona (Rhye) Ysais

M.A. International Studies, Miriam College

September 15, 2010

 Redefining Globalization and Power in the 21st Century 1

Redefining Globalization and Power in the 21st Century

Kay (2004) examined the modern role of power within a globalized international system and
these dynamics was illustrated within the context of international terrorism. He proposed that
“globalization has not radically changed fundamental aspects of international relations, but has rather
altered means and channels for the exercise of power” (p. 9).
Globalization is complex and multifaceted. To provide a comprehensive definition is hardly
attainable. There is no one concrete definition that could encapsulate the holistic of the term globalization.
Rather, various scholars defined globalization depending on the issue or matter. There are analysts that
treat globalization as independent phenomenon ignores the role of globalization as channel for the
exercise of power (Kay 2004)
Pro-globalization often sees it as catalyst of new idealism of economic openness, political
transparency, and global culture. That it provides an advancement opportunity for common human
standards. Moreover, to equality as norms and rules are conduits throughout the world. This propinquity
is thought to cultivate cooperation and increase security. On the other hand, globalization is a threat in
which it is seen as a tool for hegemonic states to exercise economic domination with little regard for
human rights and environment. States may seek to defend against the ‘threat’ of globalization as
individuals organize to ‘combat’ the perceived dangers of globalization (Kay 2004)
Globalization in this article is treated as a neutral force through which power is channelled.
Globalization is best understood as the creation of variety of transboundary mechanisms for interactions
that affects and reflects the acceleration of economic, political, and security interdependence (Kay 2004).
As the effects of globalization increasing felt and experience by the states, specifically in the economic
realm, the international structure of globalization become accounted in international relations theory. For
instance, the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis proved, close international economic interdependence can
increase vulnerability across borders. The crisis stemmed from the banking sector due to imprudent
expansion and diversification of domestic financial markets, fuelled by short-term private borrowing
(Montes 1998). The outcome became clear to authoritarian regimes who could not sufficiently adapt to
the pressures of economic and financial globalization without risking their hold on state power (Kay
2004). Indonesia as one of the countries affected by the crisis, witnessed a major economic pressures for
government reform. In China, with its desire to reap relative economic gains via international trade has
clashed with its internal human rights record as well with its management of transnational diseases.
To a large extent, the study of globalization centres on the economic interdependence and related
vulnerabilities and opportunities. However, it was argued that the September 11 terrorist attacked
necessitate a hard look at existing analytical frameworks for understanding the relationship between
 Redefining Globalization and Power in the 21st Century 2

globalization and security. If it is difficult to define globalization, it is even more difficult to make a
precise conclusion as to how globalization increases or decreases the degree of security (Clark 1999).
Assuming security is the pursuit for the absence of threats in an anarchic world, globalization might
increase or decrease security outcomes. If security is seen as a particularistic quest of nation-states to
provide for their own defence, then globalization also provides both challenges and opportunities.
The relationship between globalization and international security is difficult to measure compare
with economic globalization in which scholars can measure it through the flows of economic
globalization. Security globalization does not necessitate to be defined perfectly – as it has transpired
already, we need to accept, understand its effects and underlying relationships. Globalization is a crucial
aspect of modern international security because it brings an entirely new set of measurements of
international security layered on top of those that dominated global politics in the 20th century. According
to Kay (2004), globalization does not represent a transformation of the international system, but it
represents an adaptation of the means through which international interactions are exercised, combined
with an increase in the number and types of actors. Moreover, globalization is best understood as a
technologically facilitated proliferation of the means through which power within the international system
is channelled and pursued. The increasingly complex conditions under which international actors exercise
power makes globalization a new and essential component of contemporary international security.
Major international relations theory (realism, neoliberalism, and constructivism) shares an
emphasis on the role of power, despite the fact that each provides different conclusions as to its meaning
and consequences. Though, it helps us to understand that the quest for power holds within it the potential
for both security and insecurity, also for both war and peace. One of the most fundamental challenges for
international relations theory and practice of the 21st century is to understand the new means of exercising
power via globalization.
Power
In the epoch of globalization, “power” has been redefined. Historically, it was measured through
or in terms of military capabilities, economic strength, natural resources, and the capacity to transform
these assets into the exertion of influence. Power, in the classic sense, is the ability to get someone to do
something that they otherwise would not do (Morgenthau, 1978; Keohane & Nye, 2001). The distribution
of power has been central to understanding war and peace in security terms. Disparity in power may lead
to competitive arms races and wars, and a stable balance of power could prevent war. Traditionally, the
central measure of power in the security context is derived from military capabilities – assessed in either
offensive or defensive terms (Claude, 1962; Levy, 1983 in Kay 2004; Walt, 1987 in Kay 2004; Glaser
and Kaufman, 1998 in Kay 2004; Van Evera, 1999 in Kay 2004). The traditional understanding of power
 Redefining Globalization and Power in the 21st Century 3

views it as a means to an end – though the quest for power can also become an end in and of itself (Kay
2004).
Globalization forces states to reconceptualise the meaning of power (Kugler and Frost, 2001 in
Kay 2004; Tangredi, 2002 in Kay 2004). For a reason, globalization provides multiple channels of
communication. The nature of power has become diffuse to the extent that one person can change global
politics. There are three particularly important changes in the nature of power dynamics that are affected
by the globalization of the international system: asymmetric power; state power; and the role of people,
ideas, and media power (Kay 2004).
Meanwhile, threats are also reconceptualise through globalization particularly when non-state
actors seek to enhance their power via indiscriminate acts of violence, which is international terrorism.
Nation-state has been strengthened through the globalization of terror and resultant fear. Globalization
became a tool for the terrorists to put fear throughout the world with their actions, and it becomes a way
to counter attack the terrorists. The speed with which images of fear can be transferred into the living
rooms of citizens around the world radically distributes power in favour of asymmetric tactics (Kay
2004). In addition, it was also emphasized in the article that the ability to enhance power by cultivating
fear is made clear by statistics that show that while people worry about terrorism and states invest in anti-
terrorism measures, terrorism is actually in global decline. Mueller (2002) in his article said that, the risk
of being killed in a terrorist attack is virtually zero for the average citizen. The success at manipulating a
global audience with fear helps further terrorist recruitment as individual are co-opted into a sense of
empowerment that they feel from making the strong feel vulnerable (Kay 2004).While in the media of
globalization, it serves as a force multiplier by carrying the images of fear and destruction that terrorists
seek to perpetuate.
International relations theories remain and continue to serve as an excellent signpost for assessing
the nature of an increasingly globalized world. The power to affect which direction the world will take in
the 21st century lies with a new generation of leaders and strategic thinkers who are, themselves, a product
of this evolving global era (Kay 2004).
 Redefining Globalization and Power in the 21st Century 4

REFERENCES

Clark, I. (1999). “Globalization and international relations theory,” in Kay, S. (2004). Globalization,
power, and security. Delaware: Peace Research Institute Oslo.

Claude, I. (1962). “Power and International Relations,” in Kay, S. (2004). Globalization, power, and
security. In Security Dialogue. Vol. 35. No. 1. Delaware: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved on
September 08, 2010 from http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf

Glaser, C. & Kaufman, C. (1998). “What is the Offense–Defense Balance and How
Can We Measure It?” in Kay, S. (2004). Globalization, power, and security. In Security Dialogue. Vol.
35. No. 1. Delaware: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved on September 08, 2010 from
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf

Kay, S. (2004). Globalization, power, and security. In Security Dialogue. Vol. 35. No. 1. Delaware:
Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved on September 08, 2010 from
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf

Keohane, R. & Nye, J. (2001). Power and Interdependence, 3rd edn. NY: Addison Wesley Longman.

Kugler, R. & Frost, E. (2001). “The Global Century: Globalization and National
Security,” in Kay, S. (2004). Globalization, power, and security. In Security Dialogue. Vol. 35. No. 1.
Delaware: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved on September 08, 2010 from
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf

Levy, J. (1983). “War in the Modern Great Power System,” in Kay, S. (2004). Globalization, power, and
security. In Security Dialogue. Vol. 35. No. 1. Delaware: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved on
September 08, 2010 from http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf

Montes, M. (1998). The currency crisis in Southeast Asia. Singapore: Institute of

Southeast Asian Studies.

Morgenthau, H. (1978). Politics Among Nations, 3rd edn. NY: Knopf.

Tangredi, S. (2002). “Globalization and Maritime Power,” in Kay, S. (2004). Globalization, power, and
security. In Security Dialogue. Vol. 35. No. 1. Delaware: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved on
September 08, 2010 from http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf

Van Evera, S. (1999). “Causes of War: Power and the Roots of Conflict,” in Kay, S. (2004).
Globalization, power, and security. In Security Dialogue. Vol. 35. No. 1. Delaware: Peace Research
Institute Oslo. Retrieved on September 08, 2010 from http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf

Walt, S. (1987). “The Origins of Alliances,” in Kay, S. (2004). Globalization, power, and security. In
Security Dialogue. Vol. 35. No. 1. Delaware: Peace Research Institute Oslo. Retrieved on September 08,
2010 from http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/0403kay.pdf