Learning Objectives:

1. To understand how nation-states interact and comply with global standards

LESSON 4
THE GLOBAL INTER-STATE SYSTEM

This chapter discusses the summary of the “Governments and Citizens in a Globally
Interconnected World of States” as presented by Hans Schattle (2014) which was adopted from the
“SAGE Handbook of Globalization” edited by Manfred B. Steger, Paul Battersby, and Joseph M.
Siracusa (2014).

Introduction

The 21st century illustrates that globalization dispersed political and economic supremacy beyond
the state. Countries today are answerable to various global rules and standards. States at present face
various types of pressures (i.e., advances toward supranational or regional integration on one side and
forces of domestic fragmentation on the other side. According to Rosenau (2003), these opposing
dynamics is called “fragmegration”.

After World War II (1945), the United Nations (UN) had 51 founding member-states. In 2012, the
organization had 193 members. Palestine obtained acknowledgement in November 2012 as a
“nonmember observer state” of the UN. This is also the status held by the Vatican. When the People's
Republic of China (PRoC) took over mainland China in 1949 and replaced the Republic of China
(Taiwan) as China's representative in the United Nations, Taiwan totally lost its UN membership and its
permanent seat in the UN Security Council in 1971. Taiwan is trying for years (but without success) to be
acknowledged as a “non-member observer” standing in the UN (Schattle, 2008).
 According to Max Weber (1997) a “state” (a political concept) is an obligatory political association
having endless operations as long as its administrative staff effectively gains a claim to the monopoly of
the use of legitimate physical force in the execution of its mandate. Regimes and constitutions come and
go, but states continuously endure.

The word “nation” (an ethnic concept) emphasizes organic relations that hold clusters of people as
one and promotes a sense of allegiance and belongingness. At present, nations are seen as communities of
people that unite citizens together based on various cross-cutting identities: ethnicity, language, religion,
etc. (Anderson, 1991).

The State in a World of Economic Interdependence

The word globalization is associated with global free-market capitalism; the intensification of
transnational enterprises, the easy flows of capital across intercontinental borders. Both the supporters and
detractors of the Washington Consensus and its neo-liberal stress on deregulation, privatization, and free
trade view globalization as commanding a forced choice among nation-states which is to comply with
free-market principles or suffer the risk of being left behind.

Thomas Friedman (2000) introduced the notion on the “Golden Straitjacket” which explains how
countries are now obligated to adhere to rules that suit the likings of investment houses and corporate
executives (the “Electronic Herd”) who speedily transfer capital (money and other resources) into states
preferred as adaptable to the dictates of transnational firms. On the other hand, withdraw investments
from nation-states which are believed to be uncompetitive. Hence countries rely heavily on the Electronic
Herd for investments (Friedman, 2000).

Former national leaders such as Ronald Reagan (former US president) and Margaret Thatcher
(former prime minister of UK) pursued the laissez-faire economic policy of Friedrich Hayek and Milton
Friedman. This policy on the “invisible hand” (no/less government intervention in economic affairs)
generated the conditions for deregulation, privatization and free trade to flourish worldwide. This
encouraged the least developed countries to attract the capital of the globe’s wealthiest banks, companies,
and foreign investors in the expectation of raising their citizens’ standard of living (Frieden, 2006).

Under import substitution policy, Mexico failed to produce a feasible car industry. Nonetheless, it
was able to develop its global market for automobile parts. Growers in Argentina and New Zealand
generated profit exporting winter fruits and vegetables to Northern Hemisphere buyers. Firms in Thailand
and Turkey, facing difficulties of borrowing money domestically, now had access to cheap and abundant
overseas finance. These nations and their populace benefitted out of foreign markets to hasten their
growth (Frieden, 2006).

Experts on neoliberalism argue that if LDCs follow their recommendations on free and open
markets, they would later on become newly-industrialized countries (NICs). However, in reality what the
HDCs planned was to sustain control of the LDCs wealth, raw materials, and cheap labor (Barajas, 2004).

The Japanese rejected American ideas, and focused more on developing globally competitive
capabilities by protecting and funding infant industries (i.e., steel, consumer electronics, and
semiconductors). In South Korea, the most prosperous companies are the steel maker POSCO
(established with government investment) and Samsung (a huge family-dominated conglomerate with
wide-ranging special affiliations with the government in various interlocking industries and technologies
(Prestowitz, 2012).
 According to Clarke (2004), very minimal wages, awful working environments, and negligible
environmental standards entice MNCs to establish sweatshops/firms (usually through subcontractors) in
many LDCS. These LDCS only became aware when accidents happen (i.e., series of factory fires in
Bangladesh in 2012; the collapse of a factory building in April 2013 in which more than 1,100 workers
died producing clothes for retailers ranging from Benetton to Wal-Mart).

The detractors of economic globalization encourage states to define economic, social and
environmental objectives for their national development. In addition states must compel MNCs to meet
these priorities and to establish new systems of participatory democracy whereby citizens become
effectually involved in determining international policies on trade, investment and finance (Clarke, 2004).

Economic and Political Integration: The Case of the European Union

Due to intensifying economic interdependence, states decided to form regional linkages with
neighboring countries that encourage commerce and economic cooperation. Some of these include the
African Union (AU); the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); trading blocs (i.e., North
American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA); the Caribbean Community (Comunidad del Caribe).

After World War II, the political leaders in Europe, launched the European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC). Currently, the European Union (EU) which has 28 member states (with Croatia
becoming the 28th member in July 2013). The EU has a single currency (euro) and monetary system. It
also established a supranational European Parliament with increasing legislative powers alongside the
Council of Ministers. The EU Parliament composed of elected representatives from the national
governments of member-states. In 1992, with the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty, the signatories
approved a common citizenship that gives citizens of the member-states the rights to live, work, vote and
even run for office in European parliamentary elections outside one's country (Council of Europe, 2012).

According to the Council of Europe (2012), by the summer of 2012, there were campaigns for
“fiscal union” among the 17 member-states of the Eurozone to complement monetary union. Thus the
national budgets of these Eurozone countries will be subject to authorization and oversight by the UE’s
European Commission. The EU Parliament also passed a law in September 2013 to administer closer
integration and regulation of the banking sector.

From 1952, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) operated as the highest dispute resolution body for
the EU and its forerunners. It set forth provisions such as “direct effect” (EU laws take precedence over
national laws when the two sets of laws come into conflict) and “supremacy” (member-states are
obligated to follow EU laws) (Council of Europe, 2012).

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which is a portion of an even bigger association
(the Council of Europe) advocates the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), currently ratified
by all 47 of its member-states. Any person, group of persons, or CSO can file ECHR cases against a
member-state, and member-states can also initiate cases against each other. The ECHR has dispensed
groundbreaking decisions in various areas (i.e., freedom of expression, freedom of religion, protection
from discrimination, and the right to a fair trial) which are frequently violated by member states (Council
of Europe, 2012).

The Rise of International Law and Universal Principles

According to Doyle (2011), the failure of the League of Nations before World War II reinforced the
cooperative will among leaders of the world to establish another international association that would
assist global negotiations and uphold human rights and fundamental freedoms. Leaders of the Allies (US,
UK, France, Russian and China) collectively established the “United Nations” while fighting the war
against the Axis Powers (Japan, Germany, and Italy). The San Francisco Conference in 1945 established
the organization that endures up to this day.

The system has various limitations: (a) the United Nations (UN) has never surpassed the states
system; and (b) it only functions as a forum for countries to air their grievances and try to resolve them;
(c) the Security Council and its outmoded structure awards veto power only to each of the five countries
that won the Second World War; and (d) the General Assembly’s lack of power with its state-based
configuration (Doyle, 2011).

Other criticisms against the UN also include the Cold War deadlock between the United States and
the Soviet Union which made it problematic for the Security Council to reach cooperative judgments. In
addition, the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 without the consent of the Security Council signified that
countries invading foreign nations unilaterally and in violation of the UN Charter would suffer no
penalties of their actions aside from criticisms and hatred. The organization also was not able to prevent
many violence and killings from happening globally during its existence (Doyle, 2011).

Some of the shortcomings of the UN were gradually addressed with the formation of ad hoc
tribunals that sentenced several persons from Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia of war crimes. Another
significant accomplishment was the permanent establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in
2002. Its role is to prosecute individuals accused of genocide and other crimes against humanity.
However, China, India, and the US are not among the 122 states that authorized the court's founding
treaty, the Rome Statute. This signifies that adherence to international law ultimately remains a matter of
choice among states, and states can often evade international law without any sanction (Doyle, 2011).

According to Doyle (2011), the UN also works with countries across the globe to advocate human
rights and humanitarian values. The UN Security Council promotes the doctrine of “Responsibility to
Protect” (R2P) when it approved in early 2011 a “no-fly zone”, an arms embargo, and the use of “hard
power” in Libya's civil war. This strategy aimed to protect civilians from government attacks and gave the
revolutionary forces a better chance at dethroning the government of Moammar Gaddafi.

The R2P doctrine indicates an intensifying willingness among states to interfere in the unlawful
undertakings of governments which are unable to safeguard their own citizens. The North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO), with Britain, France and the United States taking the lead, intervened in Libya in
ousting Gaddafi through its NATO air strikes.

In Syria, Bashar Hafez al-Assad stayed in power at the start of 2014 even though his regime and
military supporters committed various atrocities against thousands of citizens (fighters and protesters),
including a chemical weapons attack in August 2013 that killed an estimated 1,400 civilians. After U.S.
President Barack Obama threatened to launch limited military strikes against Syria but obtained little
support from Americans and foreign countries, the Syrian regime sworn in an agreement worked out by
the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations Security Council to
extinguish its stockpiles of chemical armaments. In this manner, the R2P doctrine symbolizes that the
protection of human beings over any particular government or regime must take priority (Doyle, 2011).

According to Nye (2005), the partnership among countries in some cases means better provision of
government services. However, in some instances it may also mean infringements by the “national
security state” into civil liberties and privacy rights. These were evident in the immense global
surveillance operations engineered by the United States National Security Agency (USNSA) and its
government and business associates worldwide. These included interceptions of e-mail messages and
tracking of mobile phones. Global travelers and migrants are conscious that passport control officers take
compulsory photographs and collect fingerprints of people passing through checkpoints. These make it
easier for national governments to impart facts on the biometrics and travel patterns of countless people.
Other countries also include “biometric authentication” components in the issuance of passports and
visas.

States also compete not only for economic development but also for moral credibility. This is
evident on how various CSOs rank countries and publish annual indexes worldwide. Some of these
include the following: (a) Transparency International's “corruption perceptions index”; (b) Freedom
House's “freedom in the world index” of political rights and civil liberties; (c) the “democracy index”
published by The Economist Intelligence Unit; (d) the “press freedom index” compiled by Reporters
without Borders; (e) the “failed states index” from Foreign Policy Magazine; (f) the Fund for Peace; and
(g) the “better life index” launched in 2011 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). All of these have an impact on a country's global competitiveness and “soft
power” (Nye, 2005).

States as Targets: The Rise of Transnational Activism

According to Keck and Sikkink (1998), transnational activism has roots that go back to 19 th century
campaigns against slavery; against foot-binding practices in China; and for women's voting rights. Keck
and Sikkink coined the phrase “boomerang pattern of influence” to describe what can happen when
domestic CSOs/NGOs on the losing ends of political struggles join forces with compatible foreign
advocacy groups that can pressure the national governments in question.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee, a transnational CSO called attention to the rising trend of
Internet activism by awarding the 1997 Peace Prize to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. The
global advocacy campaign to ban landmines as a weapon of war specifically targeted states and urged
them to sign the Ottawa Treaty that now has 160 signatories. However, similar to the International
Criminal Court, some of the world's largest countries (China, Russia, and the United States) have not
signed the treaty (Keck & Sikkink, 1998).

The Global Justice Movement called for alternatives to neoliberal economic globalization. Scholars
and activists trace the contemporary origins of this movement to the transnational campaign launched in
1994 in Chiapas, Mexico, by the Zapatista Army of National Liberation in response to the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) (Barlow & Clarke, 1997).

In November 1999, the “Alter-globalization Movement became famous during the meeting of the
World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle. The media focused more on street disruptions and violent
incidents and branded it as an “anti-globalization” movement rather than an alternative model of
globalization more attentive to human rights, participatory democracy, local control, sustainability and
cultural diversity (Cavanagh & Mander, 2004). The implications of this proved that people obtained
public consciousness on globalization. Hence they think of themselves as “global citizens” who link this
idea with concepts such as awareness, responsibility, participation, and cross-cultural empathy (Schattle,
2008).

The entry of the World Social Forum (WSF) made it a counterpoint to the World Economic Forum
(WEF) (Steger & Wilson, 2012). The World Economic Forum is lavishly funded, efficiently organized,
and easy to observe online with a comprehensive website and abundantly archived documents and
transcripts of proceedings (print, audio and video). On the other hand, the World Social Forum avoids
hierarchy and centralized control which exists without a single permanent website. Unlike the world's
largest corporations and national governments that back up the WEF and advocate neoliberalism, the
WSF promotes a more socially and environmentally-responsive alternatives to globalization.

According to Busby (2010), the social media revolution has lifted advocacy groups and social
movements into an exciting new phase and energized CSOs at all levels. The revolutions in Tunisia and
Egypt in early 2011 showed how engaged citizens could topple dictatorships. Protests in Myanmar
(Burma) which were encouraged by cyber-activists eventually pushed the government there to open up
partially. In China, citizens are more linked and vocal than before, even if the government is still working
to manipulate public opinion and crush dissent (Shirk, 2010).

Social media platforms also eased the way for citizens’ groups across the “global south” to build
network partners. Facebook, Twitter and their local counterparts worldwide are now utilized in
transnational advocacy movements (Gladwell, 2010; Starbird & Palen, 2012).

Communication Networks, New Media and the State

According to Morozov (2011), technological advances made it easier for authoritarian states from
Russia to Saudi Arabia, and to Myanmar to silence bloggers utilizing software programs that filter
Internet content and denial-of-service attacks, making the targeted computers or web servers momentarily
inaccessible. Even the world's most isolated and repressive state (North Korea) maintains websites
boasting their national leaders and stirring out colorful news releases.

Ambassadors worldwide now utilize “public diplomacy” and maintain Facebook groups, Twitter
feeds, and dual blog postings written in both languages (that of the country they represent and the
language of the state that they are serving). Across all levels of government, from city halls to presidential
offices, interactive “e-government” sites have spread worldwide in partnership with constitutional
democracies. Citizens can converse with government officials through the Internet, not only to obtain
information about government policies and initiatives but to communicate their grievances (Coleman &
Blumler, 2009).

There is also an increase in state-funded television networks. No longer is the American vanguard
of CNN a hegemonic presence. BBC World (United Kingdom), Al Jazeera English (Qatar), Al Arabiya
(Saudi Arabia), France 24, Russia Today, CCTV (China), NHK World (Japan) are some of the most
evident players in this rising industry (Coleman & Blumler, 2009).

Television news performed a crucial role during the dismantling of the Berlin Wall in 1989 as live
news from West Germany ignited public demands in East Berlin to open the checkpoints. Similarly, Al
Jazeera played a significant role in the Arab Spring revolutions, broadcasting videos filmed by protesters
through their mobile phones and sent via e-mail to television studios (McChesney & Pickard, 2011). Al
Jazeera tends to go easy on the Emir of Qatar, while Russia Today features a Putinesque view of the
world (Seib, 2008). In this current world of government-run broadcasting, the lines amid journalism and
propaganda are often blurred and concealed, and also defended, if not legitimized, by the government
ministries shelling out the money.

The world's “digital citizens” who have enough Internet access and possess the capability to make
the most of cyberspace now evaluate for themselves which sources are credible and compelling enough to
follow on a continuing basis (Jamieson & Cappella, 2010; Sunstein,
2009).