Critically evaluate the case for and against global governance Essay Example

for their own advantage. They contend that although globalization is occurring, its effects are not certain (2004: 23). Keohane (1998) posits that this perspective is necessary to comprehend why states collaborate in the international system.

There are individuals referred to as 'anti-globalizationists' or 'new unilateralists' who believe that globalization is being exploited by those in positions of power to establish a global government or a "New World Order" that primarily benefits them. They assert that the neo-liberalist agenda, which includes deregulating financial markets, serves the interests of the privileged few by permitting foreign direct investment (FDI) and aggressive takeovers by multinational corporations (MNCs) of formerly state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Moreover, this agenda assists in securing access to oil and mineral reserves (Jones 2007; Burchill et al. 009:78).

When countries are unable to achieve their goals through economic and political pressures, they often resort to military action as a final option. This has been observed in many nations that have resisted the exploitation of their economies by Western powers. Curtis (2003) provides several examples of this strategy in his book "Web of Deceit." To fully comprehend this phenomenon, it is important to explore the origins of the modern nation-state in Europe and give a brief overview of global governance, with particular emphasis on the past four decades.

The state system began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, following the Thirty Years War. Since then, states have been the primary participants in global affairs (Karns ; Mingst 2004: 15-16). However, despite their dominance, there have been numerous efforts to challenge nation-state sovereignty. One such effort was the formation of the unsuccessful League of Nations in 1919. In the aftermath of

World War II, both the Bretton Woods institutions and the United Nations were established to prevent future conflicts.

The Marshall Plan, which provided assistance to Europe, had certain conditions that ultimately led to the creation of the European Union (EU), making this statement partially true. The EU is seen as a potential starting point for a global government (Aubourg 2003; Estulin 2009: Ch. 5). From the 1970s onwards, there was significant growth in trade connections, resulting in unprecedented political, cultural, and societal integration during the 1990s (Karns & Mingst 2004:21). This integration was particularly evident in the ongoing development of the EU (Cini 2007:31).

Other continents have also created their own Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs), such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) involving the USA, Canada, and Mexico. Additionally, discussions are underway for the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) which aims to establish a free trade zone between NAFTA and the EU. Nevertheless, this progress raises concerns as the EU initially started as a trade agreement but has expanded into other fields of authority.

In summary, a pattern is emerging that suggests the creation of a potential world government (Jones 2007; Estulin 2010: 2; Ch. 5). In addition to political and economic ties, elites from multiple nations are also establishing social and cultural networks, including interest groups and NGOs, both for-profit and non-profit (Karns; Mingst 2004: 12). Moreover, the private rating agencies Moody's and Standard ; Poor's hold significant influence and can pressure countries to implement reforms as specified by the elites in the northern hemisphere, by threatening to downgrade their credit rating (ibid: 14).

NGO's, such as Human Rights Watch, receive financial support from business tycoons

and Bilderbergers like George Soros (Estulin 2010: 102). Additionally, there are strong connections between "UN agencies and corporations" who heavily advocate for Private-Public-Partnerships (PPPs) (Utting ; Zammit 2009). This illustrates the ease of reaching agreements in various UN conventions, as suggested by Karns ; Mingst (2004: 28). Consequently, the elites own banks, multinational corporations (MNCs), NGOs, and exert significant influence over weaker states by supporting their leaders with IMF loans in exchange for opening up their economies to the 'free market'.

The convergence of interests among the elites in the northern hemisphere and their puppets has resulted in the establishment of a "transnational elite" (Carroll; Carson 2003). Carroll and Carson (2003) stress that these elites possess significant influence, and they identify five main organs associated with them. The primary controlling body is the Bilderberg Group, which consists of members such as David Rockefeller, government officials, royalty, business leaders, and academics. This group conducts confidential annual meetings where they openly discuss current issues without concern for media coverage (Carroll; Carson 2003; Jeffers 2009:9; Estulin 2010:1-17).

Various organizations have a significant impact on global economic policies. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) focuses on promoting "corporate self-regulation" for small and medium-sized businesses. In contrast, the Trilateral Commission (TC) holds regular meetings that bring together business leaders from North America, the European Union, and Japan. Additionally, the World Economic Forum (WEF) organizes annual gatherings where CEOs of multinational corporations and leaders of Bretton Woods institutions participate. Lastly, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) advocates for corporate responsibility and "eco-efficiency" (Carroll ; Carson 2003).

The Council for Foreign Relations is seen as the public relations branch of the Bilderberg Group,

influencing government decisions and publishing journals like Foreign Affairs (Estulin 2009: 83). It's important to examine the philosophies behind this trend and its opponents. According to Hobbes and Locke, humanity was initially in a "state of nature" similar to anarchy until people, through rationality, sacrificed individual freedoms for the betterment of society and the establishment of "civilization".

The concept of this type of thinking originated from the Enlightenment in the West (Friend 2004). This inherent fallacy influences all of our intellectual thinking. It suggests that our once primitive instincts were somehow controlled through the establishment of governments at pivotal moments in history, such as the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia. In The Prince, Machiavelli (2009: 55) provided a more accurate portrayal of human behavior by stating that "the way people actually live and the way they should live are so different that those who reject reality for ideals will only bring their downfall instead of preserving themselves."

In response to the above, realists adopt the Hobbesian belief in an anarchic system of states competing in a constantly shifting power hierarchy to protect their interests (Burchill et al. 2009: 233). Traditionally, realists have been associated with unilateralism, although in modern society, institutionalists have begun to rely on realist ideology to support their theories (Mearsheimer 1994/95). Therefore, liberal institutionalists hold the Kantian perspective that "representative governments working together through a world federation could potentially eliminate conflict entirely" (Schlesinger 2003: 18).

Recent discourse has revealed that neither the idealists' nor the realists' positions can adequately explain the current international environment. The issue lies in the realists' belief in power and how it interacts among governments, non-governmental organizations, and intergovernmental organizations,

resulting in a regulatory network that restricts governments. Additionally, power is now shared and negotiated among various forces and entities at different levels, from local to global. As a result, some scholars have referred to this new state of affairs as an "emerging polity" (Armstrong et al. 2004: 12-13).

Estulin (2009: 49) suggests that the Bilderbergers are Fabianists, who adhere to the principles of the Fabian Society that advocates for the gradual spread of socialist principles instead of revolutionary means (Free Dictionary 2010). This ideology aligns with the elites' agenda as economic fascism, or "corporatism" in Europe, served as a model for intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe's economic policy (Estulin 2009: 49).

The United States implemented a form of economic fascism in the 1930s, and this ideology persists today. While these policies were labeled as "planned capitalism" rather than fascism, they essentially align with the concept of industrial policy, which is synonymous with fascism. DiLorenzo made this assertion in 1994. Additionally, there are three groups of critical theorists who offer their own interpretations. Those influenced by the Frankfurt School aim to understand contemporary patterns using scientific methodologies. Marxists view globalization as a globalized form of economic exploitation carried out by the ruling capitalist classes.

According to Armstrong et al. (2004: 13-14), feminists have a negative view of global governance when it comes to women. This is surprising considering that globalization has been successful in advancing equal opportunities for women (Murphy 2000; Burchill et al. 2009: 243). Kearney's empirical analysis using the Globalization Index confirms that the more globalized a country is, the more unequal its prosperity (Karns & Mingst 2004: 23). Therefore, this

analysis supports the Marxist perspective as the most accurate explanation.

To ensure that an international organization does not become tyrannical or imperialistic, it is crucial for it to be composed of separate political communities (Armstrong et al. 2004: 1). As demonstrated earlier, the actors in the global stage are far from being independent, with the USA and its allies, as the remaining superpower, taking charge of the agenda on all matters (Karns ; Mingst 2004: 4).

However, Karns and Mingst argue that global governance is not the same as global government and it does not involve a top-down, hierarchical structure of authority. On the other hand, Brauer and Haywood claim that most forms of global governance are based on arrangements made by and for states. These treaty organizations are more influenced by sovereign interests rather than the common interests of the global community. Danaher adds that these treaties are not created by the states themselves but by their elites. This hegemonic situation highlights the lack of democracy in global governance, as pointed out by Marchetti, Utting, and Zammit.

Mearsheimer (1994/95) and Damro (2006: 34-35) have criticized the idea of collective security. According to Urpelainen (2010: 1), there is a significant power imbalance between larger and smaller states, leading to the argument that states should accept constraints on power instead of solely focusing on maximizing collective enforcement power. One major criticism of public international law is the absence of corresponding enforcement mechanisms (Karns & Mingst 2004: 6). The United Nations, for instance, does not possess a military force, although NATO is prepared for this role (Jeffers 2009: 122).

This is a response to the idea that NATO must either cease

to exist or adapt to the new power dynamics since the end of the Cold War (Mearsheimer 1994/95: 14). Numerous international human rights and humanitarian laws are currently established but are frequently violated, especially in relation to Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) (Liu 2010). Chandler (2003) argues that enforcing human rights through an international legal system is a daunting challenge.

In contrast, Karns and Mingst (2004: 12) emphasize that actors in regimes feel compelled to honor them. They comply because they accept the legitimacy of the rules, underlying norms, and the decision-making process, despite it being "governance without government." Therefore, although implementing treaties can be challenging, compliance with regimes appears significantly higher.

The advocates of multilateralism support political democracy and economic neo-liberalism. This ideology promotes unrestricted exchange of money and goods among commercial traders, disregarding national barriers. They argue for minimal legal limitations on international commerce and oppose artificial protection or subsidies. The goal is to establish an environment that enables the free flow of goods and services across nations. Their belief is that only through free trade can economic growth be maximized, competition promoted, and resources, people, and capital used most efficiently (Burchill et al. 2009: 75).

The IMF and World Bank provide loans with attached structural-adjustment policies to assist developing countries in liberalizing their economies. However, there haven't been any success stories so far (Danaher 2004: 67). This is not unexpected since all developed nations in history were established on state-interventionist models (ibid: 72). Even among the most developed nations globally, some industries are still protected by subsidies, such as the EU's CAP. The resulting imbalance should be resolved through the GATT's dispute settlement system.

The

establishment of the GATT had an official goal of promoting global trade liberalization, with the aim of benefiting poorer countries through the reduction of trade barriers (Heywood 2004: 110-111). However, the actual motive behind removing protectionism and trade barriers has been more politically driven (Estulin 2009: 139). Nonetheless, there have been differing opinions within the TC members, especially during the Uruguay Round negotiations, where the CAP was a major point of contention.

The United States (US) contended that the large subsidies given to European Union (EU) farmers negatively affected non-EU nations, while the EU maintained its protectionist position along with Japan (Cini 2007: 346). As per Anderson (2010), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) have historically been unsuccessful in stopping trade distortions caused by protectionist measures, especially in agriculture. Prior to the Uruguay Round, subsidization regulations solely applied to the industrial sector, which was a significant oversight.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the primary strategy employed by the European Union (EU) to safeguard its agricultural market, which has an approximate value of ˆ42 billion annually. Consequently, there is an excess of agricultural products that are subsequently exported to developing countries. As a result, local producers in these nations suffer and struggle to compete with imported goods (Flint 2003). The impact of protectionism on farmers in less developed countries (LDCs) is an ongoing subject of debate. Panagariya (2004) asserts that EU protectionist measures have adverse effects on prices, creating opportunities for LDCs as importers. Furthermore, she emphasizes the significantly higher tariffs imposed on LDCs compared to developed nations.

Despite being net importers, poorer countries are importing goods at lower prices than

they are exporting, resulting in a rise in their GDPs by around 6% per year. Ferreira (2006) argues that quantitative restrictions should be more extensively used for both environmental and economic purposes. This approach not only reduces the strain on natural resources but also enhances the trading environment and brings about an increase in social advantages. In contrast, free trade harms the environment without benefiting the local community.

Using suboptimal quantity instruments restricts the harvest, leading to a higher price per item. However, this does not harm the environment and improves the welfare of the local population (Krishna ; Panaragiya 2000). Contrary to the beliefs of many scholars, trade liberalization can yield positive outcomes (Ferreira 2006). The World Bank believes that increasing manufacturing industries would benefit the poorest communities, as they are predominantly engaged in agriculture.

One proposal to alleviate poverty through the Doha Development Round (Hertel ; Winters 2006: 4-5) is the relocation of manufacturing bases to developing countries. However, according to Burchill (2009: 76), multinational corporations (MNCs) have actually moved their manufacturing bases to these countries solely for profit maximization. This has been accomplished by taking advantage of low wages resulting from a complete disregard for the workers' health and safety in these regions. An area of global governance commonly believed to have made a positive impact is the environment.

Efforts to reduce the release of sulphur dioxide through global cooperation, as shown in Helm & Sprinz's 2000 study, have proven effective. However, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) has had negative consequences, except for those who benefit from carbon credit trading and the production of inefficient wind turbines. The Kyoto Protocol allows countries to

establish their own emissions targets. Therefore, while Blair set the UK's target lower than current levels, Germany took a more cautious approach and set hers higher.

Germany has continued to increase carbon output and has benefitted from countries' concessions. However, the money passed on to developing nations through the EU ETS has not helped bridge the gap between richer and poorer countries. Many developing countries, especially in Africa, are ruled by dictators who do not use the money from selling carbon credits for social programs. Additionally, by selling off their carbon allowance, these countries hinder industrial growth. Ultimately, the elites' agenda for a one-world government raises questions about how globalization will be governed. This essay demonstrates how the UN is gradually becoming a global central government rather than a democratic tool.

The current hegemonic situation will likely persist due to the significant power imbalance between richer and poorer states. The elites utilize states as instruments to further their dominant position, maintaining an unequal power dynamic. While it is apparent that states will continue to influence one another, the exploitation of the global south by the global north through institutions such as the Bretton Woods must be significantly reduced. Cooperation among states should still be upheld to foster mutual understanding between diverse cultures and prevent conflicts.

Critics often claim that contemporary realist thinkers oversimplify international relations. However, this paper demonstrates the realistic portrayal of the behavior of the international world. The corporate world, traditionally dominated by Western powers but increasingly influenced by other forces like China, openly disregards international law while covertly manipulating it to exploit natural resources for maximum profits and to maintain their dominant position. The crucial

question is: what is their ultimate objective?

Their ultimate objective consists of two parts: increasing corporate profit and preserving their hegemonic status. The atrocities committed during the 20th century under communism proved that Marx lacked solutions for these challenges; nevertheless, he did identify inherent issues within capitalist society. As we face the potential of a global government, it becomes vital to recall Edmund Burke's words: "When wicked individuals unite, those who are virtuous must come together; otherwise, they will be defeated one by one as pitiable sacrifices in a contemptible struggle" (Quoteland.com 2010).