Considering that one of the major aims of international order is to bring about stability globalization seems to have a negative influence on making stability available due to the fact that so many people especially those of the third world are living in poverty due to globalization and that in not providing stability but widening the gap between the rich and the poor therefore making the world unbalanced.

Another issue that one should take into account is that theories of globalization were put forward in the 1980’s and 1990’s around the time that interdependence and international trade once again became huge concepts as it was believed that all the states “were in the same boat and trade was vital for everybody” 10 as it would expand all of the economies around the globe and all the states would become a lot richer and stable, due to the reliance on foreign trade, however that was not the case, what really happened was that instead of moving forward the poorer countries moved backwards and became the “net capital exporters subsidizing the rich North. ”

That therefore leads me to the assumption that globalization is not all that good for international order as I believe that the term `globalization` and its definitions are a contradiction in terms put forward by western scholars so that an amazingly great picture would be painted advertising a united world in which everyone is equal and stable yet that today is proven not to be the case.

I believe that the whole concept of globalization is an incongruity as it is true that there is North to South trading and interdependence however the North seems to get richer by it and the South poorer, how is that possible when trading and interdependence is supposed to be beneficial to both parties involved? How is that making the “world a single place”? I believe that globalization would have a positive impact on international order if the way globalization is defined today was the reality of the world today. If it would actually be possible to have a united world in which everyone was equal and in which everyone interacted and got on very well. However, I do not believe that that is possible having into account that human beings are greedy and only do things that suit their interests.

The North is not willing to spread its wealth and help the south unless it convenes them and they get something in return. Therefore globalization is not as colourful as it’s made out to be. On the whole I believe that the implications of globalization for international order are partially negative. When first writing this essay I though that I would find a middle ground and have a two sided argument providing a balanced essay however the more I read about globalization the more I came to a biased conclusion that globalisation brings about inequality and that some get advantaged by it and others get severely disadvantaged by it and end up worse that they started off. I perfect example of this is Indonesia.

The world bank helped Indonesia by giving them a great sum of money that was supposed to “help” the country develop however the money given to them benefited world capitalism and the richer countries became richer by that loan as the people in Indonesia had to work very hard to pay off the loan and the huge taxes that came with it, the level of production of the country decreased, people couldn’t afford to eat as well as they used to and therefore got exhausted very quickly and became incapable of working as hard as they used to.

As a result of this the country became poorer than it was before it got the loan as Indonesia is poor and on top of that has a huge loan with high rate of interest to pay. Furthermore, considering that globalization has all of the consequences stated above I have come to the conclusion that in a globalizing world international order is very hard to enforce.

Bibliography

John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of world politics, Oxford 2001, Second Edition, Pages: 1 – 30 Hedley Bull, The anarchical society, Third edition, Palgrave 2002, Pages: 1 – 21