• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
26.07.2007

SOVEREIGNTY AND GLOBALIZATION

   

Gagik Ter-Harutyunyan

One of the most actual political-social scientific problems today is the issue of the future of national, sovereign states. Taking as a basis the formation of the common global political-legal and economic-information field as well as the raising role of transnational companies and various organizations, some of them think that the sovereign states have no perspective to develop as a result of globalization. According to this approach, already in the near future the whole humanity will be ruled by some supranational structure or structures. The others think that such an executive system contradicts the national, human essence and that in pursue of development the national sovereign states will go on remaining the main subjects of international relations. It is obvious that the issue of sovereignty is more actual for small states (for Armenia as well) as because of lack of resources they are more dependant on global processes.

A little bit from history

According to the western historiogrphic tradition, the national sovereign states, as the main form of the society’s political organization, appeared in the 17th century after the Thirty Years’ War in Europe was over. At the very period the main European confronting powers concluded a peace treaty as a result of negotiations in the Westphal (Saxon) cities Osnabruck and Munster in 1648 which marked the beginning of the epoch of international relations basing on the conception of “nation state”. The Westphalia Treaty consolidated one more reality: the final collapse of the Holy Roman Empire (pretending on the role of the main center of Europe’s political and military power). That’s to say, one can assert with some reservations that the “Westphalia Peace” and formation of the legal conception “nation state” is the reason of the collapse of the European “unipolar system” of that epoch.

In the post-Westphal period the nation states underwent reforms and developments. In particular, the appearance of the centers aspiring to political supremacy, as a rule, reduced the role of nation states. For example, in the epoch of the First Cold War the states of both “social camps” and the ones of “free world” often, in spite of their will, “transferred” a part of their powers (especially in the sphere of international relations) to Moscow or Washington correspondingly. For preserving that political “discipline” in the “Social camp” “Soviets” often turned to military force thus being universally condemned. At that, the US used more delicate technologies to preserve its allies in the Westphalia status: these technologies were not only expedient from the political standpoint, but also provided a chance for western ideologists to carry out well grounded propaganda of the privileges of the “free world” and denounce the “Soviets” in braking the principles of “sovereignty.”

As a result of the First Cold War was destroyed not only “Social camps” but also the philistine illusion that the collapse of the “empire of evil” will result the formation of national and truly sovereign states: other realities were given to birth by the establishment of multipolar system. In particular, the term “globalization” was put into circulation, which contained some component of geopolitical expansion. It is true that many newly independent countries acquired attributes of sovereignty; however, their political status is a little different from the former one: probably the only difference is the fact that the ruling center has transferred from Moscow to Washington or Brussels. In political-analytical literature such countries are derogatively called «proxy», which would be better to translate “governed by proxy.”

Present-day ideas about sovereignty

One should mention that the above mentioned realities are quite natural in historical or political aspects: during the whole history of humanity the countries depending on the more powerful ones have had limited sovereignty and sometimes even had the status of colonies. We can say that the extent of sovereignty of this or that state is conditioned by geopolitical developments as well as by the general potential of the given nation and in particular its elite. However, in any case the necessity of sovereignty in “Post-Soviet world,” at least in theoretical political science, is accepted unilaterally. At that, in the analytical literature one can notice a clear cut tendency to reinterpret the concept “sovereignty” in the context that the processes of globalization make senseless and devalue the concept “sovereignty”.

It goes without saying that the processes of integration have an objective character and correlation of states in political-economic spheres has really strengthened. The sovereignty today can’t appear as an absolute category, and for any state it is not advantageous to ignore international norms or resolutions of international organizations completely. However, all this can’s serve as the basis for the nation states to be called “satanic idea” as an American senior officer called it. It is obvious that such conceptions serve the political project called “unipolar world” supposing the existence of one and absolute sovereign power state.

The adherents of “multipolar world order” appear with an opposite position. According to their approaches the preservation of a nation state doesn’t hinder integration or processes of integration. It is also supposed that desovereignzation in general tells negatively on global processes as that tendency may turn the world into a casern or a dormitory: it is known that under such conditions the societies acquire a more radical character. The political scientists especially single out the thesis according to which devaluation of sovereignty brings to cultural revival of nations and loss of their authenticity/originality.

Some theorists, especially the representatives of the Russian school of political science, base on so called neocapitalistic theory and think that preservation of sovereignty and originality of a nation is only possible in case of the domination of the idea of general welfare and moral values of the society coinciding with the vector of global developments and promoting the achievement of ideals common to all mankind.

Not excluding the possibility of carrying out the above mentioned scenario, let’s mention that it is the harvest of the traditional Russian political culture. Such a development of events is sure to be more desirable and optimal. But this scenario is somehow utopian: it reminds the idea of achieving general welfare and in particular communism. At that, the realities of up-to-date world still don’t inspire us to be optimists and even if such a harmonious world order is established one day, the time is still to come not in the near future.

The new Cold War as the mechanism of preserving sovereignty

According to a big number of analytics, up-to-date political situation is very much like the one among the US and the USSR at the period of the First Cold War. However, in comparison with the previous one, the Cold War today is multipolar. If in the past the confrontation was held between the two poles, the carriers of universal ideologies, then now it has acquired a character of intercivilization-international multipolar confrontation. One can assert that the aspiration to preserve sovereignty of states and originality of nations is the main pushing power which resists the unipolar world order and aspires establishment of multipolar system.

Let’s also mention that it seems that the present day tendency of establishing multipolar world doesn’t suppose to create “tough” military-political blocks, which allows implementing political technologies basing on their own national interests, especially for such countries as Armenia. Such logic of development creates maybe not that comfortable but quite objective conditions for developing sovereign states.


Return
Another materials of author