In his speech to the United Nations in September, Donald Trump called for a ‘great reawakening of nations’. How realistic is this? There is evidence to suggest that, far from a resurgence of the nation state, we may be nearing the end of the nation-state era.
When I was in New York as ambassador to the UN, one of my favourite questions to ask American friends was, ‘Do you think that the United States will exist within its current borders in 100 years’ time?’ Without exception, the answer would come back, ‘Yes, of course – why wouldn’t it?’ In my view, however, it is almost inconceivable.
In its brief history the United States has significantly changed shape 13 times. So what will change in the future? I don’t know − Puerto Rico could become the 51st state; Canada or Mexico might merge with the US; Texas or California might become independent. But my point is that it goes against historical experience to imagine that a country only 241 years old that has changed 13 times will remain untouched for the next century.
But the issue is not the United States. All nation states are at a crossroads. We are so used to governance structures based on sovereign, self-governing countries that we forget that these structures started with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Before that, international relations were conducted between a mixture of countries, empires and city states, all with fluid and shifting borders.
At first sight, 370 years later, the nation state seems to be flourishing. While there were only 70 independent, sovereign countries in 1945, there are now 193, the most recent being Montenegro, East Timor and South Sudan. Palestine and Kosovo are waiting to join the UN. But this proliferation of countries is a sign of the nation state’s weakness, not of its strength.
Look at the pressures that now bear down on a country. The first is regionalism. The European Union is the most developed form of regionalism, stemming from the view that pooling resources and sovereignty was the best way to prevent excessive nationalism leading to European conflict. At the heart of the Brexit argument is a call to ‘regain sovereignty’. The EU is, of course, a voluntary arrangement, but it has inspired other forms of regionalism around the world as countries feel that their security and economic interests are best protected as part of a regional bloc, and are prepared to sacrifice a degree of sovereignty to achieve that.
At the other end of the scale, localism is also on the rise. Individual communities are demanding from national governments a greater ability to manage their own affairs. The Kurds and the Catalans are the latest groups to express these demands through referendums on independence. But there are other examples, including Scotland and Quebec, not to mention the continual tussle between the US federal government and its constituent states. In almost all of these cases, national governments are being forced to give up power to local authorities.
Multinational corporations by definition operate across borders. If Walmart were a country, it would be the 10th richest in the world − indeed there would be 69 corporations in the top 100 economic entities. But the key point is that neither Walmart nor Apple is a country. Their constituents are global shareholders, not national voters. Hence the difficulty that the British government and others have in ensuring that such companies pay the requisite tax on profits generated in the UK; or in persuading the Tech companies to prevent their platforms being abused to spread extremism.
The internet itself is another threat to the nation state as it, by definition, does not respect borders. Countries can still − albeit with increasing difficulty − control the movement of goods, people and capital across their borders, but not the information or ideas that are conveyed on the internet.
Social media has changed the nature of politics in most democracies. The internet has enabled foreign interference in elections, as well as the transmission of pernicious material. Governments, such as China or Turkey, that have tried to control or regulate the internet, have found it virtually impossible to do so.
These different pressures on the nation state are all relatively recent. There are others that are much older but have become more acute in recent years, such as religion and migration. Religion has always been supranational and often divided nations − look at India, Sudan and Ireland to name just three. But so-called political Islam has upped the ante. The Islamic State’s failed attempt to build a new caliphate was based on the belief that the Muslim ummah is the only valid governance structure, not ‘artificial’ nations. The caliphate has been crushed, but countries in the Middle East such as Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen struggle in varying degrees to maintain their nationhood.
Migration is arguably even older than religion and certainly predates the nation state. But Angela Merkel’s difficulties in putting together a government after the German elections in September are a graphic demonstration of how the recent surge in uncontrolled immigration is putting pressure on the largest and richest country in Western Europe. And of course, the perception of excessive immigration affected the US and German elections as well as the UK Brexit referendum.
So how will these various pressures affect the future of the nation state? There are broadly two possibilities. I find it helpful to think of the nation state as an egg − structurally strong, but also fragile. If the different pressures balance or counteract each other, it is possible that the nation state will survive, or even becomes more resilient − just as an egg will resist a huge amount of symmetrically exerted pressure. But if the pressures develop unequally and are not successfully managed, then one or two of them could fatally crack the fabric of the nation state.
If the Westphalian nation state system ends, what governance system would take its place? I do not know, but there is no shortage of theoretical possibilities − In 1984, George Orwell predicted three opposing regional superstates; most sci-fi writers suggest either a form of world government or, often post-apocalypse, a breakdown into local community structures.
None of these options currently looks likely. But, equally, it would in my view be unwise, and fly in the face of historical experience, to assume that the system of nation states will automatically continue for another 100 years in its current form.
No comments:
Post a Comment