A History of Global Politics: Creating an International Order
The world is composed of many countries or states, all of them having different forms of
government. Some scholars of politics are interested in individual states and examine the
internal politics of these countries. For example, a scholar studying the politics of Japan may
write about the history of its bureaucracy. Other scholars are more interested in the
interactions between states rather than their internal politics. These scholars look at trade
deals between states. They also study political, military, and other diplomatic engagements
between two or more countries. These scholars are studying international relations.
Moreover, when they explore the deepening of interactions between states, they refer to the
phenomenon of internationalization.
Internationalization is not equal to globalization; however, it is a major part of globalization.
As we explained in Lesson 1, globalization encompasses a multitude of connections and
interactions that cannot be reduced to the ties between governments. Nevertheless, it is
important to study international relations as a facet of globalization because
states/governments are key drivers of global processes. In this lesson, we will lock
afternationalization as one lens through which one can evaluate internatialization of politics.
Despite the subject matter of the thurse being the contemporary world, discussing history
catiner be avoided. International relations, as we know them today, ars substantially shaped
by events that occurred 400 years ago. In order to discuss contemporary world politics, there
is a need to work backward. This lesson will begin with identifying the major attributes of
contemporary global politics. Then, it will proceed to ask: How did this system emerge? In
doing so, you will have a solid foundation to understand the major issues of global
governance in the next lesson.
The Attributes of Today's Global System
There are four major characteristics in today's world politics. First, there are independent
countries or states that rule themselves. Second, these countries communicate with one
another through diplomacy. Third, there are international institutions that enable these
interactions, such as the United Nations (UN). Fourth, international institutions take on lives
of their own in addition to enabling meetings between governments The UN, for example,
apart from being a meeting ground for presidents and other heads of state, also has
task-specific agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International
Labour Organization (ILO).
What are the origins of this system? A good start is by unpacking what one means when
he/she refers to a "country" or what academics also call a nation-state. This concept is not as
simple as it seems. The nation-state is a relatively modern phenomenon in human history,
and people did not always organize themselves as countries. At different parts in the history
of humanity, people in various regions of the world have identified exclusively with units as
small as their village or tribe; and at other times, they see themselves as members of larger
political categories such as "Christendom" (the entire Christian world).
The term nation-state is composed of two non-interchangeable words. Not all states are
nations, and not all nations are states. The nation of Scotland, for example, has its own flag
and national culture; but it still belongs to a state called the United Kingdom. Closer to
home, many commentators believe that the Bangsamoro is a separate nation existing within
the Philippines, but, through their elites, recognizes the authority of the Philippine state.
Meanwhile, if there are states with multiple nations, there are also single nations with
multiple states. The nation of Korea is divided into North and South Korea, whereas the
"Chinese nation" may refer to both the People's Republic of China (the mainland) and
Taiwan.
What then is the difference between nation and state?
In layman's terms, state refers to a country and its government (e.g., the government of the
Philippines). A state has four attributes. First, it exercises authority over a specific
population, which is referred to as its citizens. Second, it governs a specific territory. Third, a
state has a structure of government that crafts various rules that people (society) follow.
Fourth and the most crucial, the state has sovereignty over its territory. Sovereignty here
refers to internal and external authority. Internally, no individuals or groups can operate in a
given national territory by ignoring the state. This means that groups such as churches, civil
society organizations, corporations, and other entities have to follow the laws of the state
where they establish their parishes, offices, or headquarters. Externally, sovereignty means
that a state's policies and procedures are independent of the interventions of other states.
Russia or China, for example, cannot pass laws for the Philippines and vice versa.
On the other hand, a nation, according to Benedict Anderson, is an "imagined community."
It is limited because it does not go beyond a given "official boundary" and because rights and
responsibilities are mainly the privilege and concern of the citizens of that nation. Being
limited means that a nation has its boundaries. This characteristic is in stark contrast to
many religious, imagined communities. Anyone, for example, can become a Catholic if one
chooses to be. In fact, Catholics want more people to join their community, they refy become
all discipleship. However, not everyone can simply become a Filipin An American cannot
simply go to the Philippine Embassy and "convert" into a Philippine citizen. Nations often
limit themselves to people who have imbibed a particular culture, who speak a common
language, and who live in a specific territory.
Calling it "imagined" does not mean that a nation is made-up. Rather, a nation allows one to
feel a connection with a community of people even if he/she will never meet all of them in
his/her lifetime. When you cheer for a Filipino athlete in the Olympics, for example, it is not
because you personally know that athlete. Rather, you imagine your connection as both
members of the same Filipino community. In a given national territory such as the
Philippine archipelago, you rest in the comfort that the majority of people living in it are also
Fillipinos. Finally, most nations strive to become states. Nation-builders can only feel a sense
of fulfillment when that national ideal assumes an organizational form whose authority and
power are recognized and accepted by "the people." Moreover, if there are communities that
are not states, they often seek some form of autonomy within their "mother states." This is
why, for example, the nation of Quebec, though belonging to the state of Canada, has
different laws about language (they are French-speaking and require French language
competencies for their citizens). It is also for this reason that Scotland, though part of the
United Kingdom, has a strong independence movement led by the Scottish Nationalist Party.
Nation and state are closely related because it is nationalism that facilitates state formation.
In the modern and contemporary era, it has been the nationalist movements that have
allowed for the creation of nation-states. States become independent and sovereign because
of the nationalist sentiment that clamors for this independence.
Sovereignty is, thus, one of the fundamental principles of modern state politics.
Understanding how this became the case entails going back as far as 400 years ago.
The Interstate System
The origins of the present-day concept of sovereignty can be traced back to the Treaty of
Westphalia, which was a set of agreements signed in 1648 to end the Thirty Years' War
between the major continental powers of Europe. After a brutal religious war between
Catholics and Protestants, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden, and the Dutch
Republic designed a system that would avert wars in the future by recognizing that the treaty
signers exercise complete control over their domestic affairs and swear not to meddle in each
other's affairs.
The Westphalian system provided stability for the nations of Europe until it faced its first
major challenge by Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonaparte believed in spreading the principles of
the French Revolution-liberty, equality, and fraternity to the rest of Europe, and thus,
challenged the power of kings, the nobility, and religion in Europe. The Napoleonic Wars
lasted from 1803- 1815 with Napoleon and his armies marching all over much of Europe. In
every country they conquered, the French implemented the Napoleonic Code which forbade
birth privileges, encouraged freedom or religion, and promoted meritocracy in government
service. This system shocked the monarchies and the hereditary elites (e.g., dukes and
duchesses) of Europe, and they mustered their armies to push back against the French
emperor.
Anglo and Prussian armies finally defeated Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815,
ending the latter's mission to spread his liberal code across Europe. To prevent another war
and to keep their systems of privilege, the royal powers created a new system that, in effect,
restored the Westphalian system. The Concert of Europe was an alliance of "great
powers"-the United Kingdom, Austria, Russia, and Prussia-that sought to restore the world
of monarchical, hereditary, and religious privileges of the time before the French Revolution
and the Napoleonic Wars. More importantly, it was an alliance that sought to restore the
sovereignty of states. Under this Metternich system (named after the Austrian diplomat,
Klemens von Metternich, who was the system's main architect), the Concert's power and
authority lasted from 1815 to 1914 at the dawn of World War I.
Despite the challenge of Napoleon to the Westphalian system and the eventual collapse of
the Concert of Europe after World War I, the present-day international system still has traces
of this history. Until now, states are considered sovereign and Napoleonic attempts to
violently impose systems of government in other countries are frowned upon. Moreover, like
the Concert system, "great powers" still hold significant influence over world politics. For
example, the most powerful grouping in the UN, the Security Council, has a core of five
permanent members, who all have veto powers over the council's decision-making process.
Internationalism
The world was split into independent, sovereign entities under the Westphalian and Concert
systems. There have been attempts to transcend this interstate structure since its inception.
Some, like Bonaparte, actively opposed the system by encroaching on the sovereignty of
other states while others attempted to envisage alternative governing systems that went
beyond but did not necessarily threaten sovereignty. Still, others imagine a system of
heightened interaction between various sovereign states, particularly the desire for increased
cooperation and solidarity among states and peoples. This desire is called internationalism.
Internationalism comes in different forms, but the principle may be divided into two broad
categories: liberal internationalism and socialist internationalism.
The first major thinker of liberal internationalism was the late 18 century German
philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant likened states in a global system to people living in a given
territory. If people living together require a government to prevent lawlessness, should it not
be that the same principle is applied to states? Without a form of world government, he
argued, the international system would be chaotic. Therefore, states, like citizens of
countries, must give up some freedoms and "establish a continuously growing state
consisting of various nations which will ultimately include the nations of the world." In short,
Kant imagined a form of global government.
Writing in the late 18th century as well, British philosopher Jeremy Bentham (who coined
the word "international" in 1780) advocated the creation of "international law" that would
govern inter-state relations. Bentham believed that objective global legislators should aim to
propose legislation that would create "the greatest happiness of all nations taken together."
To many, these proposals for global government and international law seemed to represent
challenges to states. Would not a world government, in effect, become supreme? Also, would
its laws not overwhelm the sovereignty of individual states?
The first thinker to reconcile nationalism with liberal internationalism was the 19th century
Italian patriot Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini was both an advocate of the unification of the
various Italian-speaking mini-states and a major critic of the Metternich system. He believed
in a Republican government (without kings, queens, and hereditary succession) and
proposed a system of free nations that cooperated with each other to create an international
system. For Mazzini, free, independent states would be the basis of an equally free,
cooperative international system. unify.one He argued that, if the various Italian mini states
could could scale up the system to create, for example, a United States of Furope Mazzini was
a nationalist that free unified nation-states should be the basis of global cooperation.
internationalist. who believes
Mazzini influenced the thinking of United States President (1913-1921) Woodrow Wilson,
who became one of the 20% century's most prominent internationalists. Like Mazzini,
Wilson saw nationalism as , prerequisite for internationalism Bc of his for nationalism he
forward3d the principle of self- determination-the belief that the world's nations had a right
to a free and sovereign government. He hoped that these free nation would become
democracies because only by being such would they be able to build a free system of
international relations based on international law and cooperation. When in short become
the most notable advocate for the creation of the League of Nations At the end of World War
I in 1918, he pushed to transform the League into a venue for conciliation and arbitration to
preven another war. For his efforts, Wilson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919.
Because
American President Woodrow Wilson became the most prominent advocate for the creation
of the League of Nations.
The League came into being that same year. Ironically and unfortunately for Wilson, the
United States was not able to jois the organization due to strong opposition from the Senate.
The League was also unable to hinder another war from breaking out.
It was practically helpless to prevent the onset and intensification of World War II. On one
side of the war were the Axis Powers- Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Hirohito's
Japan- who were ultra-nationalists that had an instinctive disdain for internationalism and
preferred to violently impose their dominance over other nations. It was in the midst of this
war between the Axis Powers and the Allied Powers (composed of the United States, United
Kingdom, France, Holland, and Belgium) that internationalism would be eclipsed.
Despite its failure, the League gave birth to some of the more task-specific international
organizations that are still around until today. The most popular of which are the World
Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO). More
importantly, it would serve as a model for future international collaboration. The ideas of the
League of Nations, despite its demise as an organization, survived World War II.
The League was the manifestation of liberal internationalism's principles. From Kant, it
emphasized the need to form common international principles. From Mazzini, it enshrined
the principles of cooperation and respect among nation-states. From Wilson, it called for
democracy and self-determination. These ideas would reassert themselves in the creation of
the United Nations in 1946 (see next lesson).
One of Mazzini's most vehement adversaries was German socialist philosopher Karl Marx,
who, like Mazzini, was an internationalist, but he did not believe in nationalism. Any
authentic version of internationalism, he felt, should purposefully reject nationalism, which
rooted individuals in domestic problems rather than global ones. Instead, Marx emphasized
economic equality, dividing the world into classes rather than countries. Owners of factories,
firms, and other "means of production" were referred to as the capitalist class. In contrast,
the proletariat class included those who did not own the means of production, but instead,
worked for the capitalists.
Marx and his co-author, Friedrich Engels, believed that in a socialist revoltution seeking to
overthrow the state and alter the economy, the proletariat "had no natione Hence, their now.
famous battle cry, "Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."
They opposed nationalism because they believed it prevented the unification of the world's
workers Instead of identifying with other workers, nationalism could make Instead of
identifying countries identify with the capitalists of their countries.
Marx died in 1883, but his followers soon sought to make his vision concrete by establishing
their international organization The Socialist International (SI) was a union of European
socialist and labor parties established in Paris in 1889. Although short. lived, the St's
achievements included the declaration of May 1 as Labor Day and the creation of an
International Women's Day. Most importantly, it initiated the successful campaign for an
8-hour workday.
The SI collapsed during World War I as the member parties refused or were unable to join
the internationalist efforts to fight for the war. Many of these sister parties even quarrelled
with one another. This was a reminder of Marx's warning: workers and their organizations
long-term interests are jeopardized when they side with their countries rather than each
other.
As the SI collapsed, a more radical version emerged. In the so-called Russian Revolution of
1917, Czar Nicholas II was overthrown and replaced by a revolutionary government led by
the Bolshevik Party and its leader, Vladimir Lenin. This new state was called the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics or the USSR. Unlike the majority of the member parties of the SI,
the Bolsheviks did not believe in obtaining power for the working class through elections.
Rather, they exhorted the revolutionary "vanguard" parties to lead the revolutions across the
world, using methods of terror if necessary. Today, parties like this are referred to as
Communist parties.
To encourage these socialist revolutions across the world, Lenin established the Communist
International (Comintern) in 1919. The Comintern served as the central body for directing
Communist parties all over the world. This was not only more radical than the Socialist
International; it was also less democratic because it closely followed the top-down
governance of the Bolsheviks.
Many of the world's states feared the Comintern, believing that it was working in secret to
stir up revolutions in their countries (which was true). A problem arose during World War II
when the Soviet Union joined the Allied Powers in 1941. The United States and the United
Kingdom would, of course, not trust the Soviet Union in their fight against Hitler's Germany.
These countries wondered if the Soviet Union was trying to promote revolutions in their
backyards. To appease his allies, Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, dissolved the Comintern in
1943.
After the war, however, Stalin re-established the Comintern as the Communist Information
Bureau (Cominform). When the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Great Britain
partitioned war-torn Europe into their own areas of influence, the Soviet Union took over the
countries in Eastern Europe. The Cominform, like the Comintern before it, assisted in the
direction of the several communist parties that had come to power in Eastern Europe.
With the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, whatever existing thoughts about
communist internationalism also practically disappeared. The SI managed to re-establish
itself in 1951, but its influence remained primarily confined to Europe and has never been
considered a major player in international relations to this very day.
For the postwar period, however, liberal internationalism would once again be ascendant.
The best evidence of this is the rise of the United Nations as the center of global governance.
Conclusion
This lesson examined the roots of the international system. In tracing these roots, a short
history of internationalism was provided. Furthermore, internationalism is only one facet of
the larger globalization phenomena. Nonetheless, because global connections are heightened
by growing state interdependence, it is a critical feature of globalization. This growing
interconnectedness is manifested in a variety of ways, not simply through state-to-state
relations. International organizations that promote global rules and policies are increasingly
facilitating international relations. The United Nations is the most well-known example of
this type of organization.
