Globalization and Multilateralism: the inevitable systems of international relations

The author claims that globalization is an inevitable and overarching international system. The

history of mankind has written within its pages the destiny of all nations to come together and

interact with each other. Globalization as an inevitable facet of history deserves to be

analogized with the theory of man and society wherein men have the innate nature to aggregate

with each other in a society to achieve development and happiness. States, transnational

actors, terrorists and others volley their arrows in a conglomerate fashion with each other,

affecting even the existence of smaller creature and the earth itself. Also, like a society,

globalization promotes prosperity and downturns, good and evil, welfare and sickness. And

because the international and domestic society has parallel grounds, the international scene

should have a governing body but since sovereignty resides within each state, there should be

at least a compromise to achieve such order. The compromise would be multilateralism.

Globalization vis-à-vis the theories on man and society

Many scholars from Plato to Rousseau have tackled the nature of man and his inevitable

existence in a society. According to them, man cannot live in isolation because happiness of

man can only be achieved if he is in a civil society. It is the natural propensity of men to come

together, forming a society in a dialectic manner from savagery to civilized one, from oppression

to revolution, from wars to unity. It has been said that societies have developed throughout the

history because of changes in the ideological trend. Before, men live in tribes and then next in

colonies where masters and slaves exist but today, due to democratization, such existence

absolutely violates humanitarian rights and would receive sanctions morally agreed by all. The

thesis and anti-thesis of different historical societies suggests protocols that will be followed by

men whether they are written or not as long as they are trending and reliable. These

developments of societies have a pattern and the pattern has one common factor. The factor is

that the upcoming new trend must be in accordance with appropriate standards encapsulated in
a term called legitimacy. The more one know legitimacy, the more one know less about it so to

simplify the claim, as long as ideologies satisfy the needs and rights of men, it will not suffer

revolution.

Now going back to the pattern of development, as history recorded, many wars have been

waged before we have achieved the thing we enjoy nowadays, the luxury of democracy. Power

grabbing has been the motto of different warlords. Conquer here, conquer there, shouting myths

of greatness of one race from other races, and so on. And centuries have passed, market

systems arose, industrialization was introduced and new faces of war also manifested –

Economic wars, wars in the form of trades was added in the list of world problems. They are

wars that beget more wars, and more problems. Because it was once a new trend, men sought

to perfect it in order to avoid many conflicts. Hegemony arose, leading other countries in the

form of rational persuasion, force, and other means that several international systems have

defined. Negotiations were used, countries were deemed “more civilized”.

With the entire charade that has gone and has been going on, one thing is for sure, the world,

little by little, has shoot itself in the river of globalization – the product of economic conquest.

Like the inevitable society of men, globalization has its inevitable features and whether

conscious or unconscious the entirety of men have plunged in and accepted its protocols. Ideas,

foods, sources of energies, commerce, labor, songs, language and many others that form a

conglomeration of hand-me-down necessities are nowadays being shared, standardized, and

used by all. These luxuries are being protected by all and to the more extent being diffused on

most corners of the world. This is what is happening right now from 15 th century all the way to

20th century and will continue to happen in the entire 21st century.
Globalization: The aggregate of past models

Throughout the history, many a different international system models have been proposed by

scholars. Those models have been used during the past as the pattern of relationship among

states. Due to their resiliency, and timely existence, the states saw their viability in the world

scene. The states patterned their decisions in these models as they carefully interact with each

other. But due to the course of time, they successively loss their resiliency as they have become

facets of a bigger picture called globalization. But thanks to those models that globalization

comes into existence. While globalization came out as a synthesis of those models, they have

become only parts of globalization. Their mere existence nowadays is only a consequence of

globalization. They are consequence because globalization mandates their existence. Since

they are parts of globalization, their manifestation in the modern times and in the possible future

will not mean that they are coming back to renew their existence as the current model of

international relations.

Why other models are only facets of globalization?

To answer this question, the author will proceed in rejecting the “emerging system” other than

globalization nowadays. Moreover, it is safe to say that the following models have already

emerged but it is a misconception to say that they are the current emerging system or the future

system that will emerge.

The Unipolar Model. This model suggested that the international system is dominated by one

very powerful nation. The powerful nation to be regarded as the most powerful one must have

these qualities: Economical capacity, Technological advancement, and a military force with

nuclear weapons technology. The United States once had this so called hegemony but because

of a wrong step, its Allies turn their backs against U.S in some instances. The war on Iraq was

the best example where the G8 and the Security Council didn’t entirely support the unilateral
decision of U.S. hence, it has lost some influence. Many are being clouded by the fact that in

sometime other nation will become the new single superpower but in reality there will be not. To

become a super power, the main requirement is that a state seeking to be one must justify itself

by going into a war or engaging into a cold war. However, that same state cannot do so in this

century because of the WMDs entail absolute destruction and loss of resources. The principle of

deterrence binds the state not to go to war. But some may still argue that technologically and

economically speaking, a state may be considered a superpower and they are clouded because

of this belief. As a consequence of globalization, a supposed to be called “super power” only

exists nowadays as a suggesting entity employing rational persuasion Yes, one has to be a

captain of the ship but this captain is nothing without the other mariners. The ship will not move

without the paddlers and these paddlers won’t be forced by anyone because they have the

intellect of democracy and sovereignty. If there will be one time that one state mimic Hitler’s

Germany, other states will not let it to be successful. It will be peace or nothing but since

governments are being more rational, this phenomenon does have only 1% chance of

happening. In fact, a “super power” cannot force itself to dominate the world and threat its

destruction because a super power with a world where only one race in existence is not

domination at all but destruction. It is useless to have an empire in a destroyed world. Hitler has

tried, but he failed.

The Counterweight Model. This model says that the rest of the world resents the decisions

made by U.S. because it is positing world domination. The world shows U.S. that there is no

world for a single dominating super power to exist and direct world affairs in its whims. In some

time of the history, one may consider that this model can explain the power relation of states but

in reality it is only a part of the dialectic. It is also a consequence of globalization. It is only an

anti-thesis against the unipolar model. Because of war experiences, the other states are more

aware of the strategies that must be employed to protect their interests without exacting an all
out war. Protecting the interest of his state is the top priority of a sovereign. Hence, to counter

such leading power is only necessary to forward such interests. After Bush’s regime, all has

been back to cooperation with Barrack Obama proposing a multilateral model in a globalized

set-up. Hence, counterweight model is only a mean to prevent a boasting state to come into

power. It is not an international system itself. To regard counterweight model as a “model” is a

misconception.

The Multipolar Model. In describing the situation of the international scene after the Cold War,

scholars harbor the idea of a multipolar model. Its main feature is the breakup of the two bipolar

blocs into several blocs (supranational organizations) and/or into a regional set-up. Most of

these blocs are trade blocs. They mainly exist to forward the economic interests of aggregating

states giving off some of their sovereignty to earn more profits. However, the act of aggregation

for the purpose of economical advancement is one of the main features of globalization. Those

trade blocs are parts of globalization. In some time during the 21 st century, many trade blocs will

be made, thus the world will be compressed economically and because globalization is a

process, the regional setup is only a part of globalization because it promotes economic

conquest.

The Stratified Model. This model combines the features of Multipolar and Unipolar systems

and may better fit the emerging reality than the three above-mentioned models. This model

suggests that United Sates is still the premier military power but it depends on other powers in

undertaking important international motives. This model is wrong in two points. First point is that

although United States is the premier military power, some states other than the “other super

powers” do not depend on the decisions both by the former and the latter. They merely take

suggestions not because they feel the presence of U.S. siding to them but because they feel it

is the rational thing to do. If U.S. will make a mistake, other states may turn their backs against
U.S. like a magician failing a magic trick in front of feisty kids. On the second point, U.S. as a

suggesting entity, will not only depend on the other super powers in undertaking important

international motives. This is so because U.S. has changed its foreign policy (multilateral foreign

policy) in order to hear also feedbacks and other suggestions from other states, a manifestation

of rational persuasion indeed. The administration of Barrack Obama effected this foreign policy

and on the next 5 years to retract again the foreign policy from a multilateral to a unilateral one

will be impossible because other states may thought that U.S. do not act by its promises for the

world. In fact, the Philippines, being not one of the super powers employ good diplomatic skills

in claiming parts of the Spratly’s Islands without relying on foreign assistance.

The Zones-of-Chaos Model. This model, following the stratified type (forming layers of

international actors), sees a top-layer of rich high tech countries. The second layer consists of

middle-income industrializing lands and a third layer where there is a zone of chaos dominated

by crime, terrorism, warlords, and chronic instability. It says that the top-layer can devastate

more military targets but cannot control the third layer countries because there are innocent and

poor people in the area that may be caught in the fire. These countries also include many of the

world’s energy reserves which are mainly located in the Middle East. Conversely, the third layer

can reach the top because the rich lands have the appetite for illicit drugs and other vices. This

model can be encapsulated in the globalization model. Since the layering theme of this model is

like the structure of globalization, it is safe to conclude that this may only another interpretation

of the developed globalized structure of division of labor with additional components such as the

maladies already observed by the globalization model. While it may be true that the structure

can be interpreted in this way, in some time these problems can be reduced and if these are

reduced, it may not be true that the top layer cannot control the third layer.
The Resource-Wars Model. The resource war model is the consequence of a failed globalized

system. It is characterized by gaining advantage of supposed to be scarce resources after the

fall of a globalized model. Because of technological advancement, super powers and other

developing countries use a lot of energy as time passes by and this is the main reason why

there will be a scarcity of resources. If this scarcity would ever happen, the world will be put into

turmoil where states fight against each other in accumulating energy, raw materials and food.

This notion is entirely impossible. Why so? It is because state leaders are rational and they

won’t let this thing happen because it would mark the end of humanity. Yes, scarcity may occur

after the 21st century but it doesn’t mean that the international community won’t do something

about it. In fact, there are already movements in regulating climate change vis-à-vis the

regulation of energy usage. Other natural resources of energy are being harnessed so scarcity

in oil will not pose a destructive threat against the globe. There will be no resource-war in the

future because of diplomatic ties among states.

The Clash-Of-Civilization Model. This clash of civilization model is far from reality and will

merely exist as a theory and will never explain all the facets of world agitation. According to

Samuel Huntington, the world would be dominated by clashes among eight civilizations, each

based heavily on religion. Since their enumeration is not even worth mentioning, the author

proceeds to refute such claims. If there would be clashes among states and regions and of

continents, they don’t entirely mean clashes propelled by culture and religion. Although some

groups of people are driven by their religious instincts, there is a worldwide respect for culture

and religions. They do not battle because of the sole identification of religions but they battle

because of territorial and economic conquest. Again, this is only a part of globalization albeit

justified within shaky grounds.

of prestige and dominance for a state. The proliferation model suggests that many countries will

develop their own nuclear weapons while those countries that are feeling deterred by its effects

might sell them to terrorists groups. Well, this is also a part of globalization as many other

models were. In fact, this is the scariest facet of globalization. Because of economic downfalls

that some countries might suffer, they will be tempted to sell their nuclear weapons to terrorists.

This kind of problem can be classified as a short-term stress because of its economic nature. It

is not militaristic in nature because the reason of such phenomenon mainly rest on poverty

since they will not be able to use those WMDs because (again) of the principle of deterrence.

Like the zones-of-chaos model, this model only describes the future problem that a globalized

world may encounter.

The river of globalization

However, globalization, like any river that has its endpoint, will also cease to be an international

system. Like any proposed international system models, globalization will reach its peak. This is

because, like any other previously proposed international system models, globalization will fail

to satisfy the needs of men for a new order. One may view globalization as a course rather than

a system. It is also a course wherein a new system is being built. Globalization will give birth to

a new international model. This international model will be the compromise to the ever wanted

world government. Since a world government cannot come into being, multilateralism will be its

counterpart. By 2050, the author predicts that long term problems will manifest and the states

will have no choice but to work together to battle these problems.

Evans, A., et. al. (2010), analogize globalization as a turbulent river with many dangerous

currents and facing its challenges can be compared to “shooting the rapids”. The course of
globalization has many possible paths but also has few attractive destinations. While the

“paddler-nations” has the capacity, although may be least, depending on their cooperation on

which way the journey goes, to define the outcome, it is still the course itself that dictates the

speed of the journey. To pause and rethink a strategy is not an option, since the global change,

the globalization itself provides no pit stop since it is a turbulent river. There is no turning back

because destiny provides only forwardness. The paddler-nations have the inevitable task of

finishing the course and the only way to cope with the difficulties is to have the capacity to

reorganize while undergoing change. The direction of the boat will depend on the combined

efforts of all paddler-nations and cooperation itself will also be inevitable since general welfare

for all citizens of the world will be the national interest of all nations. Those apathetic and

“dissensionists” against collective international efforts will either become poor countries or nests

of global stresses. But then again, as time goes by, the dissensionists will realize the situation.

Bubbles and shocks will be the factors that would exact changes throughout international

relations but, nevertheless, the world is gearing towards a Multilateral Model – a model that

casts the shadows of future problems, rendering the world, at least, to grasp the silhouette

figures of them. Long term problems such as demographic problems and climate change are

nearly inevitable, so as short term problems such as economic instability among states would

be inevitable but the nations have always and will always base their national decisions through

international consensus against international problems. The fear of the risks of endangering

one’s sovereignty will be outweighed by the collective concern for global welfare. They have

already defined the destinations the boat should be and the foundations have already been laid

out. Summits have manifested and even more summits will be held in the future and will

address problems in a multilateral approach. Although past summits, protocols, and treaties

have been weak, the international community have no way to go but to go up and realize their

mistakes throughout these occurring changes. It is the natural tendencies of nations to have
their senses and to aggregate with each other in order to develop like that of a man who has the

natural tendency to form society with another. In these upcoming generations, multilateralism

will be the counterpart of national governments in the international levels. Since world

government will not be possible, multilateral approaches will be the pragmatic compromise. It is

the sole resilient global system that the nations will strive to achieve. It will be focusing in

functions rather than in forms. The world leaders would take interest more in the outcome of

their collective actions rather than the form and structure of international organizations.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean all out success because it will depend on how nations would

paddle out into the rapids. The danger lies on the level of cooperation among them but then

again there will be no other way but to go up and enter a river with overwhelming obstacles that

may hinder development. With this it would mean that although the international community

succeeds, the “casualties” may be larger than expected, rendering the world to barely survive

the problems.

A new enlightenment will come – the apocalypse. The apocalypse will make men realize that

they are not also citizens of their sovereign states but also citizens of the world and their

respective states will be their international representatives. Moreover, transnational actors and

business leaders will work hand in hand with the states to promote general welfare because

they will realize that there will be no profit in a world which is poor. New sources of energy will

be discovered because the “shock” of global warming that might come in the near future will be

ten times greater than what we are having now. Overpopulation will be compensated by new

food technologies which will focus more on making one’s stomach full rather than making one’s

tongue lush for more. The world will have a more pragmatic and simple world order amidst

complexities of technological advancement. Again, the author reiterates that a new

enlightenment will come and the people of the world, being not entirely stupid at all will realize

the situation and arrive into a consensus to save their habitat in order to save them. However,
before the enlightenment, the world will likely to enter a needle hole. Because of their

imperfectness, they will be blinded by nuclear weapons. Many will make nuclear weapons as a

mean of leverage but then again, accidents and incidents may occur during the course of

nuclear gathering. Nevertheless, they will not use it because of the principle of deterrence.

Hence, nuclear proliferation will just be a consequence of globalization. The evil in the society

will still manifest because they are also inevitable like yin and yang. There will still be terrorists

and radical minds who will try to challenge the system as there always been. The people will be

the reason to both the remaking of the world and its possible destruction. It is destruction in the

sense that nature will cast off its wrath if people do not stop their foolishness. So, the world itself

will not come to an end but humanity may.

The birth of Multilateralism

Nowadays, if one would only be interested in reading more about what’s ongoing on in the

international scene, he can see that multilateralism is already at the first trimester of conception.

Starting from the shift of U.S. foreign policy from being unilateral to multilateral, various nations

will also follow the trend or maybe they have just been only waiting for one to take the initial step

and U.S. having the most influence among other states, She has the obligation to assume the

role.

September 23, 2009. It was the official declaration of President Barrack Obama of the shift of

U.S.’s foreign policy before the UN General Assembly in his speech addressing the world to

take a collective stance in tackling global challenges.

"Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait

for America to solve the world's problems alone … We have sought -- in word and deed -- a new era of
 engagement with the world. Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global

response to global challenges."

This declaration alongside the past decisions in different summits like the treaty of UNFCCC in

its proclamation of the Kyoto Protocol signals the stigma of multilateralism. It is so because for

all we know, U.S. for all the time acts as the “suggesting entity” of the international community.

Most of its allies recognize its rational persuasions thus for U.S. to proclaim such foreign policy

meaning the other nations will likely to follow the same as the foreign policy entices more

cooperation and equality in decision making for all. Isn’t this what the nations want? Isn’t this a

compromise for the ever wanted world government to have an equal voice at par with the

superpowers notwithstanding the “hard power” itself but minding more on their rational

propensities?

Going back to the theory of man and society, the author reiterates that the nature of man is

being rational and they are destined to come together in a society to further their development

and achieve happiness, however, evil seeps in to society which is characterized when man

further his interest that would conflict with the interest of others thus government is needed to

regulate the affairs of man. Same as in the international set-up, government is needed but it

would never come into being, so multilateralism is the only compromise the international

community could ever have and since countries are aggregate of citizens, their natural

propensities are also innately rational like that of a man since countries protect their people.

They cannot let to happen the so-called “world destruction” so they will naturally come together

and make a consensus about some dangers and opportunities that would affect all of them.