Section 3

Globalization and Geopolitics

Globalization does more than reshape the world economy and communications. It also shapes international politics and security affairs, and is shaped by them. Here, too, the effects are uneven and often contradictory. In the near and medium terms, globalization appears to contribute to several simultaneous tensions that are shaping the current era of international politics: fragmentation and integration, localization and internalization, decentralization and centralization. Globalization not only speeds up the pace at which integration occurs, but it also provides an environment conducive to many disintegrative trends.

Globalization is creating a new context for the formal and informal exercise of national power. Regional and international institutions, local governments, and nonstate actors, particularly large transnational corporations and some nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), are making use of some of the instruments of globalization and diminishing the nation-state's monopoly on power. Some power is shifting to the international arena (for example, both the spread of and fight against organized crime and terrorism); some power is shifting down to local levels (for example, citizen mobilization through e-mail and the Internet); and new power centers are being created as corporations and NGOs use the tools of the Information Age to shape policy outcomes (for example, the World Trade Organization [WTO] meeting in Seattle and the protests that it sparked).

In Europe, Latin America, and Asia, regional economic agreements are becoming a dominant expression of relations among states, giving regional structures such as the European Union (EU), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), and MERCOSUR a geopolitical personality. While regional free trade areas promote growth and competition within their boundaries, they create multiple sets of rules and may siphon off negotiating energy that would otherwise be devoted to global free trade. Harmonizing regional agreements with the need for an open global economy promises to be a key challenge of the future. A related concern centers on the possible need for global rules to achieve various social goals, such as a clean environment and higher wage standards. Efforts to address these social and environmental issues are stimulating interest in international law and expanded roles for such organizations as the World Trade Organization, the International Labor Organization (ILO), and the United Nations. This may eventually create better ways to help regulate global and interregional conflicts.

Landing craft going ashore during exercise in Mediterranean. U.S. Marine Corps (Seth Rossman)

Apart from the transatlantic community, regional security arrangements are evolving more slowly and are likely to remain informal and flexible. Globalization does not eliminate traditional geopolitical concerns, but instead influences the ways in which they will be manifested in the future. National governments and various nonstate actors are motivated not only by economic gain but also by such classical aims as secure borders, domination of their regions, control of resources, and influence over their neighbors. There are still many lingering political conflicts over territory, borders, military competition, resources, and ethnic and cultural differences. Such stresses and strains on geopolitics continue to coexist and interact with the emerging global system. Sometimes globalization mitigates these stresses and strains, but sometimes it exacerbates them. For example, India's growing economic power, partly a product of globalization, is fortifying its stance vis-à-vis Pakistan and Kashmir.

While the world economy is integrating as a result of the globalization of finance, geopolitical affairs often are fragmenting along regional lines. In the absence of the bipolar political confrontation, regional political and security affairs are driven by their own dynamics, but with growing impact on developments in other regions. While this situation reduces the risks of regional tension triggering a wider global conflict, a pattern characteristic of the Cold War period, it exacerbates instability in key places. In some regions, old style geopolitics still dominates. In other areas, a new geopolitics is emerging. Asia is a key example, where China's growing strength is an increasingly important factor in the security policies of many countries.

The Bifurcated World Order

Overall, globalization is leading to a largely bifurcated international structure. The world is divided broadly between countries that are well integrated into, and committed to, the evolving norms of the global economy, and countries that are either being left behind by, or may seek to challenge the norms of, the emerging global order. The main effect is to create imposing barriers to rapid progress everywhere or to worldwide adoption of the democratic community's norms.

The first group is composed of about 80-100 countries that share a commitment to democracy, open trade, and collaborative security ties. Led by the United States, this liberal, democratic, and peaceful global core group includes the countries of North America, Western and Central Europe, Japan, much of East Asia, and the southern half of Latin America. Within this group, there is an inner core of about 30 countries (EU members, Canada, Japan, and a few other Asian countries) with per capita GDPs in excess of $20,000, well above the $7,000 world average. Another 50 states in Latin America, Asia, and parts of Africa that are struggling to keep pace and make progress comprise the outer core of this group.

The countries that are largely being left behind by the emerging global economy are in sub-Saharan Africa, the Greater Middle East, much of the former Soviet Union, large parts of South Asia, several countries in East Asia, the northern half of Latin America, and several states that have placed themselves outside most international norms (for example, Iraq and North Korea). This group has a per capita income well below $6,000 a year and finds it difficult to transform and adapt to keep up with the core group; these are the global outliers.

The evolution of several powerful countries is uncertain. They could emerge as even larger mainstream players in the global economy, they could suffer further internal turmoil and fragmentation because of their inability to cope with the effects of globalization, or they could choose to take advantage of certain facets of globalization while challenging norms that they find objectionable or incompatible with their national interests. This group includes China, India, Russia, and Iran. In the first three countries, there are segments well integrated into the global economy. But overall, these societies and their political structures are not well suited for energetic participation in the global economy. Some of these governments and their citizens may actively resist playing by its rules. They could choose to become more integrated into the global system or participate in it fitfully or in ways that are advantageous to their national interests, as they focus on bolstering their regional power status. They are either ambivalent toward, or willing to actively challenge, the norms of the emerging global system.

Future prospects for the democratic community point toward greater prosperity and integration, albeit marred by trade frictions and the uncertain capacity of its members to cooperate in handling common security problems outside their borders. By contrast, several outlying regions face both troubled economic conditions and unstable security affairs. The Middle East and Persian Gulf are examples. Such regions suffer from endemic poverty, slow growth rates, and inability to compete in the world economy. At the same time, they are victimized by the dangerous dynamics of modern security affairs: deep-seated political tensions, regional bullies, vulnerable neighbors, weak collective security mechanisms, power imbalances, WMD proliferation, and local violence. Because this combination of economic weakness and political strife inhibits these regions from achieving wealth or peace, it makes them natural breeding grounds for conflict and war. Some of their political tensions could be lessened if their economies became wealthier, but sustained economic cooperation is ruled out by the security rivalries among their countries. As a result, these regions remain mired in problems and bleak prospects even as the democratic community is further uplifted by globalization.

Ships transitting Panama Canal.

One key variable is the extent to which the governments on the outer core of the democratic community can strengthen their political structures and bolster their economies so that they can join the inner core and fully partake of the growing prosperity and stability. Regardless of changed policies, most of the outliers will likely suffer from continuing political and economic stagnation and the instability that accompanies it. Most of these countries are likely to see continuing turmoil and conflict, as they are buffeted by the forces of globalization and unable to take advantage of its most positive features. This scenario could be altered for the outer core democracies and globally disadvantaged countries if they are willing to pursue the policies and structural adjustments required to flourish in the Global Century. In this context, activist policies of engagement by the global core group could help promote prosperity, democratic development, and effective conflict prevention and management.

Where is this bifurcated international system headed? The scenario for major progress rests on the hope that democracy, market economics, and multilateral cooperation will spread outward from the democratic core, eventually encompassing most of the rest of the world in a stable global order. A less attractive scenario is that the world will remain as it is today, mostly outside the democratic core and beset by strife and economic hardship. The most worrisome scenario is that of a complete collapse of the emerging global system brought about by the toxic interaction of widespread economic turmoil, possibly caused by globalization, and new, polarizing geopolitical or sociocultural forces. Such a global economic collapse could trigger trade wars, widespread nationalism, multiple regional conflicts, and general global disorder. Because all three of these scenarios are possible, U.S. policy should be responsive to the requirements posed by each of them. Policymakers will need to promote progress where possible, address new risks and dangers, and act quickly and decisively, using various elements of state power in a more integrated fashion to head off regional crises that could quickly undermine global prosperity and security.

Proliferation and Unstable Imbalances

Military affairs will remain an important contributor to the evolution of the international system. Since the Cold War ended, military forces have declined in many regions. Yet global force levels remain appreciable: over 20 million troops worldwide, with 8 million in Asia alone. Many countries retain an imposing capacity to inflict violence, including against their neighbors. Well-armed military establishments are no threat to peace in regions marked by economic progress, widespread political accord, and purely defensive strategies. But the opposite can be the case in regions characterized by major discord, especially if significant imbalances of military power leave potential aggressors able to overpower vulnerable neighbors.

The military trend that poses the greatest threat to global stability is the continuing proliferation of WMD and delivery systems. In recent years, nuclear devices have been exploded in South Asia; several countries in the Middle East and Persian Gulf are known to be pursuing WMD capabilities; and North Korean actions remain a source of deep concern. The pace of future proliferation is hard to predict; arms control treaties and sanctions have a retarding effect. But a decade or two from now, and perhaps considerably sooner, a number of countries likely will possess WMD arsenals of varying sizes and capabilities. In this arena, globalization mostly has damaging effects, for it both accelerates the pace of WMD proliferation and makes its negative consequences contagious.

Trends in conventional weapons are also a concern. Owing to the Information Age, smart munitions, and new doctrines, conventional military forces are steadily becoming more powerful. In particular, their capacity to strike at long distances, to inflict widespread damage quickly, and to carry out offensive strategies is growing. So far, the Armed Forces have been the primary beneficiary of these trends, but in the future, many other countries will gain access to modern systems and strengthen their forces as well. A parallel risk is that future adversaries may develop the asymmetric assets needed to disrupt U.S. military operations against them.

Iranians chanting in support of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. AP Wide World Photos
(Kamran Jebrelli)

Turmoil in the Developing World

Traditionally, security has been an external, cross-border concept. In the global era, security threats increasingly have transnational consequences. This trend has led most of the world's democracies to place a growing emphasis on new forms of security cooperation. Protection of both citizens and territory remains a paramount defense priority, particularly with respect to certain outlaw states of concern. However, economic considerations figure more prominently than in the past in national security policy. As the U.S. National Security Strategy of late 1999 states, security policies should "promote the well-being and prosperity of the nation and its people." In this context, security has been more broadly defined to allow the use of defense establishments to deal with damaging environmental disasters or destabilizing population flows. Most of the prosperous democracies are willing to use their defense establishments to help promote and safeguard democratic polities abroad, but there is a preference for doing this through multilateral mechanisms. This attitude is a marked change from the Cold War period, when ideological hostility and worst-case scenarios drove defense planning.

Globalization has exacerbated transnational security threats to all states. But the economic and other nonsecurity aspects of globalization also pose significant threats to the internal security and stability of many rigidly controlled or weak states. The collapse of internal control can also have damaging consequences for regional security, as rebel armies, drug traffickers, or extremist religious groups pursue their agendas with little respect for national borders. The developed democracies would be well served by improving the level and coordination of assistance to help these countries improve governance and battle organized crime, corruption, warlordism, and piracy.

Globalization is likely to lead to considerable turbulence in a wide belt of developing countries. Development assistance and other elements of regional engagement should be better coordinated with defense strategies designed to head off regional conflicts and the quest for WMD. Similarly, regional security cooperation and the engagement of the Armed Forces with a wide circle of allies and partners should be part of an integrated economic, political, and military strategy stretching from the Middle East through South Asia and into Southeast Asia. The developed democracies can react to, and cope with, this turmoil, or they can engage in more focused preventive actions.

A compelling case can be made that investment in sustainable growth should be seen as a national security goal as well as a foreign assistance priority because, in the less developed countries, stability is more likely to accompany steady, sustained economic growth. Greater stability could mean reduced demand on the prosperous democracies for military intervention. Thus, greater investment in sustainable development policies, which are aimed at helping developing countries head off crises and cope with the challenges that globalization presents, is a logical step. Governmental assistance to these countries should complement the activities of NGOs and should be carried out in the ways most likely to gain the maximum benefits for the limited resources available.

For their part, governments of developing countries can help smooth their adaptation to globalization by pursuing such policies as strengthening the rule of law, dismantling unnecessary regulatory restrictions, promoting education, punishing corruption, fostering inclusion, guaranteeing the peaceful transfer of power, emphasizing the adaptive elements of the prevailing political culture, and, where feasible, deepening trade and investment relationships with neighboring countries. These steps are far more important than geography and natural resources. Countries that are resource-poor, have no seaports, or lack navigable rivers have to try harder, but if the policy climate is right--and if their neighbors are not waging war on them--they can often find a niche.

The defense establishment can make a positive contribution to this effort through more creative peacetime engagement of military forces. The inculcation of democratic values and effective civil-military relations in the developing world through military training and education can contribute to the management of peaceful change in developing societies.