The New World Order can be used in reference to the world we inhabit today.

This post Cold War era is different to any that have been before it, rife with the relatively new concepts of Globalisation and Internationalism. These two gastronomic phenomena affect every facet of our lives, but it is their impact on the New World Oder that is truly overwhelming. The New World Order is a phrase used to describe the era in which we live. From 1991 onwards, the end of the Cold War, the world has changed dramatically. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is often pointed to as being the kick Globalisation needed to become as integral as it is today. Globalisation involves the increased mobility of goods, services, labour, capital and communication. The fall of the Berlin wall opened the doors both literally and culturally to global trade in the former soviet Eastern Europe. It bridged the gap between the West and the East facilitating trade and the rise of Globalisation. In the 1944 Bretton Woods talks, the birthplace of the multilateral organisations synonymous with globalisation, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB) and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (now World Trade Organisation (WTO)) were born. These organisations revolutionised trade and facilitated the rise of a global economy. Similarly, the rise of internationalism was aided by the creation of the league of nations, what we know today as the United Nations (UN). The league of nations, created as a result of the treaty of Versailles in 1919-20 with the aim of of upholding the rights of man and limiting the possibility of another World War. Clearly, with the outbreak of WWII, the League of Nations failed in one of stated aims and the UN replaced it in 1945. Globalisation has caused state borders to be rendered almost irrelevant, no longer does the country in which a product is produced govern trade or is an economy isolated from the rest of the globe. Globalisation, facilitated by events such as the industrial revolution that made transportation cheaper and more accessible, Globalisation had meant that the world is at our fingertips. For the individual, it means a trip to the local supermarket can be journey through cuisines of the world but on a larger scale, globalisation has completely revolutionised the way the world trades. In the past, before WWII in particular, countries of the world prescribed to the protectionism. This school of thought dictated that each state should try and import the bare minimum, using tariffs as high as 60% (present in the US prior to the depression) to govern and control imports. After the global depression, WWII and the Bretton Woods talks of 1944, this theory was rebuked and the school of thought prescribing trade liberalisation became paramount to global economic stability. Globalisation and trade liberalisation has been attributed to increased standards of living, in china the average income has risen from $1460 (1980) to $4120 (1999) and now, the average American earns less than 7.4% that of an average Chinese person compared to the average 12.5% of 1980. Another positive change brought about my Globalisation is the concept of interdependency. Trade liberalisation encourages Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), this is the practice of one state contributing to the economy of another in various ways. Eventually, states economies begin to rely on that investment and become dependant on the support

thus, in times of conflict a state is less likely to declare war for fear of losing the trade partnership. Fundamentally, globalisation has, in some ways, stabilised the global environment. The concept of Interdependency can be illustrated with the case of China/Japan. China and Japan are traditional enemies having fought various battles and wars on apposing times throughout time. Since the dawn of Globalisation and China opening its doors to trade in 1978, the two states have become each other biggest sources of FDI and are thus the positives potentially gained from war are outweighed by the source of income and growth and war ceases to be an option. While many argue for Globalisation having a positive impact on the world, its negative effects are numerous. Globalisation advocates the concept of comparative advantage; this theory states that all states should focus singularly on the products that they are more efficient in producing than any other state. This, in effect, means ceasing production of all goods that are inefficient to create culminating the initial loss of millions of jobs. Another concept synonymous with globalisation is the Race to the Bottom. This phenomenon describes the competitive lowering of environmental and human rights standards by developing nations to encourage the FDI of developed states. Multinational Corporations (MNC) a products of the facilitation of transporting goods created by globalisation, have one aim, to make more money than anyone else. MNC are so powerful in todays global economy that 51 of the worlds largest economies are in fact MNC as apposed to states. Low environmental and human rights standards equates to lower overheads for MNC and thus larger profits. In the case of Indonesia, Nike used to have their production facilities located on the Asian state. When Indonesia raised their environmental standards to keep in line with the goals set out by the UN, Nikes withdrew their FDI and moved to a different state. Internationalism, similarly to globalisation has had incredibly varied effects on our world. Internationalism can be defined as greater economic and political cooperation among nations for the theoretical benefit of all. This theory is advocated in the creation and participation of states in Multi-lateral forums, the most poignant of them being the UN. The UN is an international organisation comprising of 192 member states, these member states gather collectively in the general assembly and are addressed by various world leaders and delegates to discuss issues such as security and human rights abuse. While Internationalism has