Events in the Context of the Global Order, Essay Example

Globalization has been the vehicle through which events, technology and cultures the world over have become integrated as is evident from the level of interaction in world systems today. Issues of governance have for instance taken new turns with the role of external forces in both the national and international governance. Some nation’s political systems have been of international influence in that they determine events in so many other nations across the world. America for instance has undoubtedly become the hegemonic power as regards to the contemporary global order for close to fifty years (Held, 2004). This development has been taking place despite the expectation of many that the nature of world politics should dramatically shift following the aftermath of the cold war. Thus, many people expected that the American hegemony would disappear, many competitive regional blocs would rise, multilateralism would decay and that great balancing of pore would return (Joel, 2005).

Global governance has become a multilayered system because the implementation and development of good global policies constitute a process based on political coordination among transitional, national sub state and suprastate agencies. This is clearly illustrated in the efforts to curb HIV/AIDS as which requires a coordination of efforts between regional, local and national agencies (Held, 2004). Being multidimensional means that configurations and engagements of different agencies often differ from issue to issue and sector to sector thus bringing forth significantly differentiated patterns of politics. For instance, the politics behind the global regulation of finances is interestingly different from the politics of global regulation of trade. Additionally, a good number of the participants and agencies in the complex of global governance are not purely intergovernmental organizations. The global governance is a multi actor system in that there is participation of diverse agencies in global public policy development (Held, 2004). The pluralistic conception of governance from a global  context does not necessarily presume that all interest or state have say in, not even equal influence its programs or agenda.

Beginning 1977 July, much of the Asian continent was hardly hit by an economic and financial crisis following the collapse of Thai Baht and this caused fears of a possible global economic meltdown as a result of financial contagion (Radelet Et al, 2001). Experts have studied the nature of the crisis and thus have come up with a number of factors that are believed to have set in the financial crisis. Within the financial sector, there existed financial fragilities that were perhaps the most detrimental factor leading to the crisis. These fragilities made the economies of Asian states vulnerable to serious domestic and external developments. The extent of the crisis catalysts was not clear in the early setting as there lacked transparency (Radelet Et al, 2001). Gradual unfolding of events prompted the realization that inadequacies in supervision and regulation, little experience in risk and pricing and management in the financial organizations were also major weaknesses that triggered the crisis. Poor corporate governance and absence of commercial alignment also made the financial situation worse in Asia.

Liberalization of both capital accounts and financial market across Asia in the 1990s intensified the extent of competitive pressures and hence financial institutions would be prompted to lend imprudently. Due to this, there was liberalization of financial systems that were weak and at the same time excessive risk and low quality investments enhanced the financial crisis. In a number of Asian economies such Korea, there existed intense government intervention with the industrial structure hence credit was mainly governed directed. This prompted ignorance of market discipline resulting in excessive and unproductive investments (Radelet Et al, 2001). In places such as Indonesia, import regulations and monopolies and trade restrictions hindered economic efficiency and thus reduced competition. This policy environment adversely interfered with the investment productivity and quality hence eventually it led to the financial crisis. Policies regarding exchange rate and macroeconomics had proved to be unfavorable for alteration of external circumstances (Radelet Et al, 2001). This is because there had been increased high current accounts which increased pressures on demand and thus resulted into asset price inflation triggering the financial crisis. Decrease in asset yields was also another factor that led to the crisis. Smadja is right on the crisis causes because at the time, there were intense pressures from all sectors of Asia’s financial sector and economic sector resulting from explicit guarantees by the government against failure. This then triggered the on set of events such as weakening of the financial sector which led to the crisis.

Zbigniew Brzezzinski served as U.S president Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor and thus was involved in major foreign policy making and implementation decisions. In an interview with Bernard Gwertzman, Zbigniew criticized the manner in which the Bush administration was handling the issues of foreign policy then (Bernard, 2003). He asserts that despite the U.S having worldwide power there lacks international credibility making the U.S to be at an unprecedentedly low standing point. Zbigniew recommends that three is need for U.S to embark on a foreign policy that is centered on moderation and is developed from bipartisan consensus (Bernard, 2003). He also is critical of the efforts of U.S in Middle east’s peace making mission claiming that the U.S has in claiming to fight terrorist activity, Washington has provided only single sides support for Israeli leadership.

Zigniew notes that America’s foreign policy has been focused largely on extremist orientation in the Republican party, the neoconservatives strategic opinions and dominance by the Christian fundamentalists ‘ outlook and that this is unfavorable for fostering bipartisanship. He recommends that the U.S has to consult to a greater extent with foreign governments and reject the premise that ‘when someone one is not with us, they are definitely against us’ and hence he refers to this as self-destructive philosophy which discourages consensus (Bernard, 2003). He also recommends an intelligent service charged with intelligent decision making tasks rather than a decision making approach relying on worst case scenario. President Obama’s one major objective has been to establish a high consensus with other governments by employing policies that encourage consensus building rather than dominance. He has sought to focus on international relations to improve U.S’ credibility.

References

Radelet, D., Sachs, R., Cooper, P and Bosworth, P. (2001). The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.

Bernard, G. (2003). America Lacks International Credibility. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved on 23rd January, 2010 from http://www.cfr.org/publication/6534/brzezinski.html

Joel, K. (2005). Globalization and State Power. New York: Longman/Pearson

Held, D. (2004). Global Covenant: The Social Democratic Alternative To The Washington Consensus. Cambridge, UK: polity press