Lesson 3 – A History of Global Politics: Creating an International Order

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Identify the events in the development of international relations;
2. Differentiate internationalization from globalization;
3. Define state and the nation;
4. Distinguish between the competing conceptions of internationalism;
5. Discuss the historical evolution of international politics.

INTRODUCTION

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. Other scholars are more interested in the interaction between states
rather than that 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 does not equal globalization, although it is a major part of globalization. It is

important to study international relations as a facet of globalization, because
states/governments are key drivers of global processes. Although this course is about
contemporary world, we cannot avoid history. What international relations are today is largely
defined by events that occurred as far back as 400 years ago.

Activity I: Have a research and make an assessment of how the Philippines’ international relation
and internationalization with other countries affect the sovereignty of the nation.

COURSE CONTENT

The Attributes of Today’s Global System

World politics today has four (4) key attributes:

1. There are countries or states that are independent and govern themselves.
2. These countries interact with each other through diplomacy.
3. There are international organizations, like the UN, that facilitate these interactions.
4. Beyond simply facilitating meetings between states, international organizations also take on
lives of their own. The UN also has task -specific agencies like the WHO and the ILO.

What are the origins of this system? A good start is by unpacking what one means when he /she
says a “country” or what academics also call the 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 organized themselves as countries.
The nation-state is composed of two non-interchangeable terms. Not all states are nations and not all
nations are states. The nation Scotland, for example, has its own flag and national culture, but still
belongs to a state called the United Kingdom. At home, commentators believe that the Bangsamoro is a
separate nation existing within the Philippines but, through their elites, recognizes the authority of the
Philippine state.
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 term, State refers to a country and its government, i.e., the government of the Philippines,.
Four attributes of a state:
1. Exercises authority over a specific population, called its citizens.
2. Governs a specific territory.
3. Has a structure of government that crafts various rules that people follow.
4. Has sovereignty over its territory, the most crucial.
Sovereignty refers to internal and external authority.

On the other hand, 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 citizen of a nation. Being limited means that the nation has its
boundaries.
Calling it “imagined” does not mean that the nation is made up. Rather, the 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.
Finally, most nations strive to become states. If there are communities that are not states, they often
seek some form of autonomy within their “mother states”. Like 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).

Nation and state are closely related because it is nationalism that facilitates state formation. In the
modern contemporary era, it has been the nationalist movement that have allowed for the creation of
nation-states. States become independent and sovereign because of nationalist sentiments that clamors
for this independence. Sovereignty is, thus, one of the fundamental principles of modern state politics.

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 agreement 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, a system was designed to 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 faced a major challenge during the Napoleonic Wars that lasted from
1803-1815.In every country they conquered, the French implemented the Napoleonic Code that
forbade birth privileges, encouraged freedom or religion, and promoted meritocracy in
government service.
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 system 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 monarchial, hereditary,
and religious privileges. The Concert’s power and authority lasted only from 1815 – 1914, at the
dawn of World War I.
Despite the challenge of Napoleon to the Westphalian system and the eventual collapsed of the
Concert of Europe after World War I, present day international system still has traces of this
history. 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, all having veto powers over the council’s decision-making process.

Internationalism

The Westphalian and Concert systems divided the world into separate sovereignty entities. Some
political leaders challenged the system by infringing on other states’ sovereignty, while others
sought to imagine other systems of governance that may beyond , but do not necessarily
challenge, sovereignty. Still others imagine a system of heightened interaction between various
doverein states, particularly the desire for greater cooperation and unity 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 18th century German philosopher
Immanuel Kant. He said, “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. Likewise British
philosopher Jeremy Bentham advocated the creation of “international law” that would govern
the inter-state relations. Bentham believed that the objective of global legislators should aim to
propose legislation that would create “the greatest happiness of all nations taken together.”

The first thinker to reconcile nationalism with liberal internationalism was the 19th century Italian
patriot Giuseppe Mazzini. He believed in a Republican government (without kings, queens,
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.

One of Mazzini’s biggest critics was German socialist philosopher Karl Marx who was also an
internationalist, but who differed from the former because he did not believe in nationalism. He
believed that any true form of internationalism should deliberately reject nationalism, which
rooted people in domestic concerns instead of global ones. He placed premium on economic
equality; he did not divide the world into countries, but into classes. The capitalist class referred
to the owners of factories, companies, and other “means of production”. In contrast, the
proletariat class included those who did not own the means of production, but instead, worked
for the capitalists.

Marx died in 1883, but his followers soon sought to make his vision concrete by establishing their
international organization, the Socialist International. A union of European socialist and labor
parties established in Paris in 1889. The SI collapsed during World War I as the member parties
refused or were unable to join the international efforts to fight for the war.

As the SI collapsed, a more radical version emerged. In the so- called Russian Revolution of 1917,
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 USSR. The Bolsheviks did not believe
in obtaining power for the working class through elections, rather, they exhorted the
revolutionary “vanguard” parties to lead the revolution across the world, using methods of terror
if necessary. Today, parties like this are referred to as Communist parties.

With the eventual collapsed 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. And
the best evidence of this is the rise of the United Nations as the center for global governance.

SUMMARY

Internationalism is but one window into the broader phenomenon of globalization. Nevertheless,
it is a very crucial aspect of globalization since global interactions are heightened by the increased
interdependence of states. This increase of interdependence manifests itself not just through
state-to-state relations. And these are facilitated by international organizations like the United
Nations to promote norms and policies for their guidance.

Note: Topics presented are excerpts from the book The Contemporary World by Lisandro Claudio
and Patricio N. Abinales
Other References: The Contemporary World by Prince Kennex Reguyal Aldama
 WORKSHEET NO. 3

Instruction: Discuss briefly each.

1. What remnants of the Westphalian system can still be felt at this day and age? In what sense
has the world gone beyond the Westphalian system?

2. What are the differences between liberal and socialist internationalism? What are their
strengths and weaknesses?

3. Do you think internationalization erodes the sovereignty of states?

Lesson 4 - The United Nations and Contemporary Global Governance

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of this lesson, you should be able to:

1. Define global governance.

2. Identify the roles and functions of the United Nations.
3. Determine the challenges of global governance in the twenty-first century.

INTRODUCTION

Although many internationalist like Bentham and Kant imagined the possibility of a global
government, nothing of the sort exists today. There is no one organization that various states are
accountable to. Moreover, no organization can militarily compel a state to obey predetermined
global rules. There is, however, some regularity in the general behavior of states. For example,
they more or less follow global navigation routes and, more often than not, respect each other’s
territorial boundaries. The fact that states in an international order continue to adhere to certain
global norms means that there is semblance of world order despite the lack of a single world
government.

There are many sources of global governance. States sign treaties and form organizations in the
process legislating public international law. International non-government organizations (NGO),
though not having formal state power, can lobby individual states to behave in a certain way. For
example, an international animal protection NGO can pressure government to pass animal
cruelty laws). Even ideas such as the need for “global democracy” or the clamor for “good
governance” can influence the ways international actors behave.

Activity I: Cite some measures or solutions that can be considered applicable in order to achieved
or maintain adherence to global norms and foster international order by all nations.

COURSE CONTENT

What is an International Organization?

When scholars refer to groups like the UN or institutions like the IMF and the World Bank, they
usually call them international organizations (IOs). Although international NGOs are sometimes
considered as IOs, the term is commonly used to refer to international intergovernmental
organizations or groups that are primarily made up of member-states.
One major fallacy about international organization is that they are merely amalgamations of
various state interests. Many scholars believed that IOs were just venues where the contradicting
but sometimes interesting agendas of countries were discussed – no more than talk shops. IOs
can thus become influential as independent organizations.

International relations scholars Michael N. Barnett and Martha Finnemore listed the following
powers of IOs.
1. IOS have the power of classification, Because IOs can invent and apply categories, they create
powerful global standards. For example, it is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
that defines what a refugee is.
2, IOs have the power to fix meanings. This is a broader function related to the first. Various terms
like “security” or “development” need to be well defined. For example, recently the UN has
started to define security as not just safety from military violence, but also safety from
environmental harm.
3. IOs have the power to diffuse norms. Norms are accepted codes of conduct that may not be
strict laws, but nevertheless produce regularity in behavior. For example, World Bank economist
come to be regarded as experts in development and thus carry some form of authority. They can
therefore create norms regarding the implementation and conceptualization of development
projects.

Because of these immense powers, IOs can be sources of great good and great harm.

The United Nations

Having examined the powers, limitations, and weaknesses of IOs, the spotlight will now fall on
the most prominent IO in the contemporary world, the United Nations (UN). Although the
organization is far from perfect, it should be emphasized that it has so far achieved its primary
goal of averting another global war. For this reason alone, the UN should be considered a success.

The UN is divided into five active organs:

1. The General Assembly (GA) is UN’s “main deliberative policymaking and representative organ.
According to UN charter: “Decisions on important questions such as those on peace and security
admission of new members, and budgetary matters, require a two-thirds majority of the General
Assembly. The Philippines played a prominent role in the GA’s early years when Filipino diplomat
Carlos P. Romulo was elected GA president from 1949-1950.

2. Many commentators consider the Security Council as the most powerful body in the UN. This
body consists of 15 members, five of them sometimes referred to as the Permanent 5 (P5) are
China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. States that seek to intervene
militarily in another state need to obtain the approval of the SC. With the SC’s approval a military
intervention maybe deemed legal. This is an immense power.

3. The third UN organ is the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which is the principal body
for coordination, policy review, policy dialogue and recommendations on social and
environmental issues, as well as implementation of internationally agreed development goals.

4. The fourth is the International Court of Justice whose task “is to settle, in accordance with
international law, legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions referred
to it by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies.” The court as such, cannot try individuals
( international criminal cases are heard by the International Criminal Court which is independent
of the UN), and its decisions are only binding when states have explicitly agreed to place
themselves before the court’s authority. The SC my enforce the rulings of the ICJ, but this remains
subject to the P5’s veto power.

5. Fifth, , the secretariat consists of the “Secretary General and tens of thousands of International
UN staff members who carry out the day-to-day work of the UN as mandated by the General
Assembly and the organization’s other principal organs. Members of the secretariat serve in their
capacity as UN employees and not as state representatives.
 Challenges of the United Nations

The United Nation is not a world government, and it functions primarily because of voluntary
cooperation from states. If states refuse to cooperate, the influence of the UN can be severely
circumscribed. For example, the UN Council on Human Rights can send special rapporteurs to
countries where alleged human rights violations are occurring. If a country does not invite the
rapporteur or places conditions on his/her activities, however, this information-gathering
mechanism usually fails to achieve its goals.

However, perhaps the biggest challenge of the United Nations is related to issues of security. As
mentioned the UN Security Council is tasked with authorizing international acts of military
intervention. Because of the P5;s veto power, it is tough for the council to release a formal
resolution much more implement it.
The Kosovo war and the Syrian civil war is an example that nevertheless, left the UN ineffectual.

Despite these problems, it remains important for the SC to place a high bar on military
intervention, The UN Security Council has been wrong on issues of interventions, but it has also
made right decisions.

The UN, in particular, is the closest to a world government. What is important to remember is
that international institutions like the UN are always in a precarious position (depending on the
will or pleasure of another).

SUMMARY

Global governance is so broad to understand since international and global politics play an
important role. The United Nation in particular is at the helm since it is the most visible symbol
for global governance. However, this independent organization is place in an uncertain position
relying on the pleasure of one or the other. We have groups of sovereign states and on the other
hand, organizations with their own interests and agendas creating tensions and uncertainty even
to this time.
 WORKSHEET NO. 4

Instruction: Discuss briefly each.

1. What are the challenges faced by the United Nations in maintaining global security?

2. Discuss briefly the functions of the five active organs of the United Nations.

3. What makes the United Nations ineffectual when it comes to military conflict / military
interventions?

4. What is global governance?

 MODULE 2

A World of Ideas: Cultures of Globalization

Lesson I – The Globalization of Religion

OBJECTIVES:

At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:

1. Explain how globalization affects religious practices and beliefs.
2. Identify the various religious responses to globalization.
3. Discuss the future of religion in a globalized world.

INTRODUCTION

Religion, much more than culture, has the most difficult relationship with globalism. First, the
two are entirely contrasting belief systems. Religion is concerned the sacred, while globalism
places value on material wealth. Religion follows the divine commandments, while globalism
abides by the human made laws. Furthermore, “Allah” or “Yahweh” defines and judges human
action in moral terms (good vs. bad) Globalism’s yardstick , however, is how much of human
action can lead to the highest material satisfaction and subsequent wisdom that this new status
produce.

Religious people are less concerned with wealth and all that comes along with it. A religious
person’s main duty is to live a virtuous, sin-less life such that when he/she dies, he/she is assured
of a place in the other world (i.e. heaven). On the other hand, globalists are less worried about
whether they will end up in heaven or hell. Their skills are more pedestrian as the aim to seal
trade deals, raise the profits of private enterprises, improve government revenue collections,
protect the elites from excessively taxed by the state and naturally enrich themselves.

Finally, religion and globalism clash over the fact that religious evangelization is in itself a form of
globalization. The globalist ideal, on the other hand, is largely focused on the realm of markets.
The religious is concerned with spreading holy ideas globally, while the globalist wishes to spread
goods and services.Certain religious groups “flee” their communities and create impenetrable
sanctuaries where they can practice their religions without the meddling and control of state
authorities. These groups believe that living among “non-believers” will distract them from their
mission or tempt them to abandon their faith and become sinners like everyone else.

Activity I: Conduct a research on the religion of Christianity-Catholicism and Christianity-

Protestantism, its relationship with politics and how it is engaged and why they are involved.

COURSE CONTENT

Realities

In actuality, the relationship between religion and globalism is much more complicated. Peter
Berger argues that far from being secularized, the contemporary world is furiously religious.
Religions are the foundations of modern republics. The Malaysian government places religion at
the center of the political system. Its constitution explicitly states that “Islam is the religion of the
Federation”, and the rulers of each state was also the “Head of the religion of Islam.” The late
Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeni, bragged about the superiority of Islamic rule
over its secular counterparts. To Khomeni, all secular ideologies were the same – they were
flawed – and Islamic rule was the superior form of government because it was spiritual. Yet, Iran
calls itself a republic, a term that is associated with the secular.

The moderate Muslim association Nahdlatul Ulama in Indonesia has a Islamic schools where
students are taught , not only about Islam, but also about modern science, the social sciences,
modern banking, civic education, rights of women, pluralism, and democracy. In the US, religion
and law were fused together to help build this “modern secular society.” Not only do the
Americans practice their religion out of self- interest but they often even place in this world the
interest which they have in practicing it. Jose Casanova confirms that “historically, religion has
always been at the very center of all great political conflicts and movements of social reform.

Religion for and against Globalization

There is hardly a religious movement today that does not use religion to oppose “profane”
globalization. Yet, two of the so-called “old world religions” – Christianity and Islam – see
globalization less as an obstacle and more as an opportunity to expand their reach all over the
world. Globalization has “freed” communities from the constraints of the nation-state’” but in
the process also threatened to destroy their cultural system that bind them together. Religion is
thus not the “regressive force” that stops or slows down globalization; it is a “pro-active force”
that give communities a new and powerful basis of identity. It is an instrument with which
religious people can put their mark in the reshaping of this globalizing world, although in its own
terms.

It is therefore, not entirely correct to assume that proliferation of “Born Again” groups, or in the
case of Islam, the rise of movements like Daesh(more popularly known as ISIS, or Islamic State in
Iraq and Syria signals religion’s defense against the materialism of globalization. It is, in fact,
opposite. These fundamentalist organizations are the result of the spread of globalization and
both find ways to benefit or take advantage of each other.

Some Muslims view “globalization” as a Trojan horse hiding supporters of Western values like
secularism, liberalism, or even communism ready to spread these ideas in their areas to
eventually displace Islam. The World Council of Churches – an association of different Protestant
congregations- has criticized economic globalization’s negative effects. It vowed that “ we as
churches make ourselves accountable to the victims of the project of economic globalization,”
by becoming the latter’s advocate inside and outside “the centers of power.”
The Catholic Church and its dynamic leader, Pope Francis likewise condemned globalization’s
“throw-away culture” that is “fatally destined to suffocate hope and increase risks and threats.”

These advocacies to reverse or mitigate economic globalization eventually gained attention of

globalist institutions. In 1998, the World Bank brought in religious leaders in its discussions about
global poverty, leading eventually to a “cautious, muted, and qualified” collaboration, in 2000.
Although it only yielded insignificant results (the World Bank agreed to support some faith-based
anti-poverty projects in Kenya and Ethiopia), it was evident enough that institutional advocates
of globalization could be responsive to the “liberationist, moral critiques of economic
globalization.

SUMMARY

According to Peter Bayer and Lori Beaman, “Religion, it seems, is somehow ‘outside’ looking at
Globalization as a problem or potential.” Religion, it seems, is somehow ‘outside’ looking at
globalization as problem or potential” Religion, being a belief system that cannot be empirically
proven is, therefore, anathema to modernization. The thesis that modernization will erode
religious practice is often called secularization theory. However, historians, political scientists,
and philosophers have now debunked much of secularization theory.
Religious leaders have used religion to wield influence in the political arena, either as outsiders
criticizing the government, or as members of coalition who play key roles in policy decision-
makings and implementation of government projects. Globalists, therefore, have no choice but
to accept the reality that religion is here to stay.

Note: Topics presented are excerpts from the book The Contemporary World by Lisandro E,
Claudio, Patricio N. Abinales
Other References: The Contemporary World by Prince Kennex Reguyal Aldama
 WORKSHEET NO. 5

Instruction: Discuss briefly each.

1. What are the conflicting ideas between religious thoughts and the ideology of globalization?

2. How do you describe the reactions of some religious movements to globalization?

3. Explain how globalization affects religious practices and beliefs.