Death of the Nation-State

"In the age of globalisation, pooled sovereignty means more power, not less." 
~ Jose Manuel Barroso 

Interconnectedness is the sign of our times. Globalization theorists were the optimistic  about the full effects of this interconnectedness and some scholars from this school of thought even contemplated the notion of the demise of the Nation-State as we know it.

The world is now more connected than it has ever been in modern history, economies, trade, security and cultural issues have surpassed the traditional notion of statehood. Globalisation theorists posit that this move toward globalisation would lead to an evolution of the human society away from the Sovereign states. However, the State still remains the locus of governance despite the major advances that have been made in how human society interacts.

One may argue that despite the rise of globalisation, the state has managed to hold on to a significant role in international affairs. The state still makes decisions on behalf of its people at the global arena. Though some states go as far as to suppress the voice of its people at the international level. 

The state also holds sway against globalisation because of the question of identity. The citizen’s identity is closely related to their nationality and with that comes a 'loyalty to the state' that may be difficult to leave behind. This makes it difficult to encourage integration with other parts of the world.

On the other hand, despite the Sovereign state’s supremacy in governance, it is indeed dying a slow death. The modern state serves, more and more, an administrative role in modern society as opposed to a substantive role. The argument is that in the face of globalisation, the modern state has become a servant or a facilitator of its people's global activities. This argument suggests that there is a role for the state to play but it is increasingly limited by our ability to connect without the help of the state.

This has led to an increasingly multi-lateral world. There is a realisation in the international system that it is difficult for a state to survive while it is isolated form other states. However, global governance is still a dream that is far from achievement. The world is not yet ready to let go of the sovereign state in terms of governance. However, there is a slow but steady shift and this is in the form of regionalisation. Regionalisation represents the compromise that states are willing to make towards globalisation. Regional organisations such as the European Union and the African Union demonstrate that it is possible to work together and collaborate. However, these collaborations are only with our neighbours and those with whom we share similar interests and culture.

The view from the attache's desk is that the nation-state does have a role to play in governance for the foreseeable future. However, this role is being slowly eroded by globalisation and the first step of moving toward global governance could be regional governance. Perhaps the globalisation theorists will be proved right in the end. Perhaps it was only the period of time needed for globalisation to take root that they got wrong in their predictions. 

Why Bulls fight.....and the grass that is injured

"In bull-fighting they speak of the terrain of the bull and the terrain of the bull-fighter. As long as the bull-fighter stays in his own terrain he is completely safe. Each time he enters into the terrain of the bull he is in great danger. Belmonte, in his best days, worked always in the terrain of the bull. This way, he gave the sensation of coming tragedy." ~ Chapter 18, The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway

"In international relations, we all work in the terrain of the Bull" ~ The Attache

In the recent past, Russia and China have vetoed resolutions in relation to the conflict in Syria at the United Nations Security Council.

In the wake of the Arab spring, the conflict in Syria has continued to escalate. Attempts have been made, most recently by the British Government, to punish the Government of Syria by imposing economic sanctions. The Security Council has the mandate of tackling issues of global peace and security. Therefore, any such sanctions against Syria would have to be passed by the Security Council. However, in order for any resolution to be passed, the Permanent Five members of the Security Council must vote unanimously in favour of the resolution. 

In our current discussion Russia and China, who are part of the P5, have vetoed resolutions for sanctions in Syria. This means that the UN may not impose sanctions on the Syrian Government. The sanctions are meant to coerce the Syrian government to end the conflict.

There has been wide ranging academic discourse on the veto power and its use since its inception in the late 40’s. The P5 consists essentially of the victors of the Second World War. Scholars have argued that due to ideological differences, such as Socialism and Capitalism, Russia and China have traditionally been at odds in voting at the Security Council with America, France and Britain. This is an argument from a more Structuralist school of thought that talks about the development of two streams of society. This may be ‘the Core’ and ‘the Periphery’ or ‘Socialists and Capitalists’. These differences in ideology may explain why Russia and China may vote together against the other members of the P5.

On the other hand, a realist theory perspective may explain the actions of Russia and China in voting against the proposed sanctions. Scholars from this school of thought have very state-centric perspectives and they argue that national interests are of the utmost importance in the decision making of a state. 

This argument would lead us to the conclusion that there are certain national interests that Russia and China have in Syria and perhaps in the region that need to be protected. The Governments in Russia and China choose to safe guard interests by voting against any resolutions on Syria that may harm their National interests. These interests may be economic, military, a need to have a foothold in the middle-east, among others.

 The perspective from this desk is that it is relevant important to ascertain the motives of the fighting bulls and that perhaps it may lead to the development of solutions to the conflict in Syria.....and perhaps saving the grass a lot of damage.