There are several things happening in modern times to undermine the principle of territorial sovereignty and secular rule set down in the Peace of Westphalia, pulling the system in different directions:- Globalism, or the tendency for cultures to become homogeneous across national borders, including global commerce and interlocking economic systems
- The rise and increasing influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) including multinational corporations
- Nationalistic Self-Determination, or the tendency of non-state ethnic or national groups to desire their own states, or at the least, autonomy within an existing state
- The breakup of several multi-ethnic states (USSR, Yugoslavia)
- The growth of Pan-Islamic movements (some terroristic) as well as other "liberation" movements in other countries
Some of these things are pushing us in one direction: greater centralization, i.e. "One World Government", others are pushing in the opposite direction, i.e. greater Balkanization.
Globalism is linked with the expansion of multinational corporations, whereby many of the truly powerful groups and individuals have a greater incentive to support their own diverse interests than the interests of their native country. Relocating to a country that has more favorable tax laws, or outsourcing labor to a region with lower average wages may benefit the corporation but hurt the country that is losing the jobs and tax revenue. This, in combination with the international influence of organization like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the G-20, G-7, G-8 etc, various United Nations agencies, as well as regional trade treaties (NAFTA, TPP) and security alliances (NATO) combine to incentive large groups of people to be more concerned about the big picture, the global picture over against the local, national one. This is reducing internal national sovereignty to a great degree, but it is too soon to say how far this will go. There is a lot of resistance by politicians, at least in their rhetoric, to ceding any sovereignty at all, but who they accept money from tells a different story.
The other direction involves the fragmentation of existing nations. The USSR and Yugoslavia broke up two decades ago, both into internal "republics" that were set up along ethnic lines. Since then there have been separatist movements not only in the newly independent republics but in the remainder of Russia; Yugoslavia endured civil war as Serbia primarily, but to a lesser extent Croatia, attempted to incorporate their ethnic cohorts from other republics under their umbrella, savaging Bosnia and Herzogovina in the process. Kosovo went next. Scotland had a vote for independence last year (failed) and Catalonia in Spain is working on doing the same thing. The Kurds are agitating for their own state, Tibet is perpetually talking about independence and Native American tribes think the U.S. government actually gave them meaningful sovereignty. Pan-Islamic notions are a hybrid of local autonomy movements and ambitions of world conquest. At once they're trying to separate from the local "legitimate" governments while at the same time trying to set up their own uber-government.
Something is going to change. Likely, in my opinion, is a fragmentation of the world into micro-states representing the myriad ethnicities, each "people", each "nation" getting their own borders and territory, getting to use its own language and flag, but the real power flowing to the regional umbrella groups like the European Union or even to a world government descended from the U.N. - possibly within hegemonies dominated by China, Russia and the United States in an interim state.
Is this a good thing? What is likely to happen? Fragmentation, consolidation, domination by corporations or regional behemoths? Religious ascendancy? Starting with religious jihad: I believe that eventually the recent movement of fundamentalist, extremist Islamist groups will eventually, sooner or later, collapse under its own weight and its own lack of the ability compromise. Even now the different factions are battling among themselves. Fragmentation is likely or at least the appearance of it. There may be a self-determination trend right now, but many of these small nations could hardly survive on their own. Many believe that Scotland could never survive as an independent entity, and the former Soviet Republics in the Caucasus are barely self-sufficient and are themselves plagued by separatists movements of their own. I envision many of these small nations being in the same legal no-man's land as the Native American Nations in the United States: they are technically sovereign nations, but for all practical purposes they are part of the United States and dependent on it for all but the smallest symbolic gestures of independence. Worldwide consolidation, as much as I think it a bad thing, will probably eventually come to pass. One of the benefits of there being a multitude of nations with a variety of legal systems is that there is always somewhere else to go when things get too hot or the government intrusion becomes too much. There's always another place for refugees to run to. We have enough problems keeping our own country "free", what greater challenge would there be if we were all under one national umbrella - the world?
Perhaps there needs to be some tweaking and adjustments of borders in the former colonial areas. But internal sovereignty, without external interference, territorial integrity and religious neutrality is the soil in which our Western values will continue to grow. In short, the Westphalian system, despite its drawbacks and misapplications, is probably the best system available to maintain Western cultural values.
The other direction involves the fragmentation of existing nations. The USSR and Yugoslavia broke up two decades ago, both into internal "republics" that were set up along ethnic lines. Since then there have been separatist movements not only in the newly independent republics but in the remainder of Russia; Yugoslavia endured civil war as Serbia primarily, but to a lesser extent Croatia, attempted to incorporate their ethnic cohorts from other republics under their umbrella, savaging Bosnia and Herzogovina in the process. Kosovo went next. Scotland had a vote for independence last year (failed) and Catalonia in Spain is working on doing the same thing. The Kurds are agitating for their own state, Tibet is perpetually talking about independence and Native American tribes think the U.S. government actually gave them meaningful sovereignty. Pan-Islamic notions are a hybrid of local autonomy movements and ambitions of world conquest. At once they're trying to separate from the local "legitimate" governments while at the same time trying to set up their own uber-government.
Something is going to change. Likely, in my opinion, is a fragmentation of the world into micro-states representing the myriad ethnicities, each "people", each "nation" getting their own borders and territory, getting to use its own language and flag, but the real power flowing to the regional umbrella groups like the European Union or even to a world government descended from the U.N. - possibly within hegemonies dominated by China, Russia and the United States in an interim state.
Is this a good thing? What is likely to happen? Fragmentation, consolidation, domination by corporations or regional behemoths? Religious ascendancy? Starting with religious jihad: I believe that eventually the recent movement of fundamentalist, extremist Islamist groups will eventually, sooner or later, collapse under its own weight and its own lack of the ability compromise. Even now the different factions are battling among themselves. Fragmentation is likely or at least the appearance of it. There may be a self-determination trend right now, but many of these small nations could hardly survive on their own. Many believe that Scotland could never survive as an independent entity, and the former Soviet Republics in the Caucasus are barely self-sufficient and are themselves plagued by separatists movements of their own. I envision many of these small nations being in the same legal no-man's land as the Native American Nations in the United States: they are technically sovereign nations, but for all practical purposes they are part of the United States and dependent on it for all but the smallest symbolic gestures of independence. Worldwide consolidation, as much as I think it a bad thing, will probably eventually come to pass. One of the benefits of there being a multitude of nations with a variety of legal systems is that there is always somewhere else to go when things get too hot or the government intrusion becomes too much. There's always another place for refugees to run to. We have enough problems keeping our own country "free", what greater challenge would there be if we were all under one national umbrella - the world?
Perhaps there needs to be some tweaking and adjustments of borders in the former colonial areas. But internal sovereignty, without external interference, territorial integrity and religious neutrality is the soil in which our Western values will continue to grow. In short, the Westphalian system, despite its drawbacks and misapplications, is probably the best system available to maintain Western cultural values.
No comments:
Post a Comment