The Implications of the Globalization in Defining the International Security

Author:Florinel Iftode
Position:Danubius University of Galati, Faculty of International Relations and European Studies
Pages:303-306
SUMMARY

We live in a new world, but there is neither new order nor disorder. There is a safety zone in Europe but also one of chaos and danger. What makes this world to be particularly difficult and dangerous is that different areas of order-disorder are interconnected through globalization. Before we can think of security requirements for today and tomorrow, we must forget yesterday's safety rules. A... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
Globalization and Cultural Diversity
303
The Implications of the Globalization in
Defining the International Security
Florinel Iftode
Danubius University of Galati, Faculty of International Relations and European Studies
floriniftode@univ-danubius.ro
Abstract: We live in a new world, but there is neither new order nor disorder. Ther e is a safety zone in Europe
but also one of chaos and danger. What makes this world to be particularly difficult and dangerous is that
different areas of order-disorder are interconnected through globalization. Befor e we can think of securit y
requirements f or today and tomorrow, we must forget yesterday's safety rules. A new world order could not
become reality at all, but it may remain an ideal, especially for those living in the new European order. We
must understand that we are not living in a world of pure and exclusive national interest. Human rights a nd
humanitarian issues are inevitable in our political processes.
Keywords: globalization; security requirements; national interest
In the present world, a much more complex and ambiguous one, we might not face the same total
threats or we may not need to use the same method, that is: total war. Generally, we should give up at
the unconditional surrender as political purpose and objective.
The chaos of the pre-modern world? What should we do with such chaos? In the early '90s the answer
seemed to be "the least possible." The chaos is not a threat like those which we already know - one
armed attack by military forces of a neighboring state aggressor. It is true that the regions controlled
by chaos create undesirable effects (drugs, disease, refugees), but they are not, however, threats to
vital interests, which would attract the western military intervention.
First, the Westerners have learned that chaos is spreading. The collapse of Sierra Leone led to the
destabilization of Liberia. Destabilization of Liberia endangered the neighbors, including Sierra
Leone, even when the situation seemed to improve. In Central Africa, the chaos in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (former Belgian Congo) is related to the tragic events in Rwanda and to the
weakness of Burundi. Around Afghanistan, there were serious risks for Pakistan and post-Soviet
republics of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Normally, when a Member ceases to function its borders no
longer work either.
Partly, this is explained (this is actually the second thing learned by Westerners) by the fact that when
the state collapses, crime takes its place. This is actually in a way logical. When it operates, the State
exercises a double monopoly: one upon violence and the other upon the law. As the state monopoly on
violence is lost, the law disappears as well, which is immediately replaced by crime. The pre-modern
states are usually the scene of a series of civil conflicts, and then the wars against all for the control of
resources. The lesson learned on September 11
th
, 2001 shows that sometimes a zone of chaos can turn
into a major direct threat from a distance. It is true that the circumstances in Afghanistan were unique.
What remained of the Afghan state was taken over by the extremist Islamist regime which controlled

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL