How is Globalism Different from INTERNATIONALISM?

Although the two terms may appear to be similar, yet there exists conceptual difference between the two. Globalism is much wider term in terms of its meaning, scope and outcome.

While Internationalism lays stress only on the solidarity and cooperation among the Nations, while acknowledging their Sovereign Character, Globalism on the other hand not only emphasises the dilution of the Sovereign Expression of the Nations but demonstrates the conflicts arising out of this dilution as well. This however does not mean that Globalism is a negative concept, because surrender of national sovereignty (to some extent) is aimed to moderate the barriers to international exchanges.
In spite of these conceptual differences between the two terms, practically we witness an amalgam of the two phenomena. In the contemporary world order, the international and transnational exchanges witness both Globalism and Internationalism with varying degrees.

For example, in International Organisations like WTO, the mode of exchange we witness is a blend of both Internationalism and Globalism. However, Globalism tends to dominate the scenario. While the countries seek cooperation for international trade and respect each other’s independence in decision making, yet, it is often the ‘southern nations’ that have to compromise their national interests. Subsequently, a conflict arises between the interests of various nations and in the name of global cooperation practices like neo-colonialism are undertaken.

Similarly, United Nations that seeks International Cooperation and sorts out various conflicts, witnesses both the phenomena, but it is again the Globalism that gets a little more edge. Though, there are various conflicts over a wide dimension of issues (such as the expansion of Security Council, dominance of the West and many more), yet, the organisation seeks to build consensus among various stake holders and enforce cooperation in the matters of Global Importance. The historic Climate Conference in Paris testifies this aspect wherein several nations agreed to put their foot down for the sake of Global Good. Also, even though the conflicts exist and sovereignty is surrendered (to some extent) yet they get overshadowed in pursuit of Global Interests.

Similarly organisations like SAARC, BRICS, and IBSA etc tend to have dominance of internationalism. The interdependence of the nations (especially regional) and the need for cooperation among them justifies the existence of such international institutions.
Terrorism and Fundamentalism in Global context is another important example wherein the aspect of Globalism dominates in terms of the rapid radicalisation of people round the globe, while the measures to counter them entails internationalism wherein ‘this threat’ is acknowledged and dealt via cooperation between nations. It depicts their interdependence on one another to deal with this issue. This example depicts another aspect to the two phenomena being discussed-i.e. - they not only entail the state but non state actors as well.

Thus it shows that free flow of men, material and information may not necessarily be functional as in the case of several Global Phenomena such as Terrorism, cultural conflicts, Proliferation of Nuclear Arsenal and so on.
Thus it is evident that in the world order that we witness today, conflicts, cooperation and interdependence among various nations go hand in hand and so do Internationalism and Globalism. Though in theory they share a significant difference in terms of their conceptual understanding, yet, in practice they are not exclusive of each other and are often witnessed together with varying degree.
 

By: Chandan Sharma