LESSON

A History of Global Politics: Creating 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 does not equal globalization,
although it is a major part of globalization. As we explained in less globalization encompasses a
multitude of connections 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 examine
internationalization as one window to view the globalization of politics. Although this course is about
the 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. Don't worry; we will eventually discuss
contemporary world politics. But to do that, we need first to work backward. This lesson will begin with
identifying the major attributes of contemporary global politics and then 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

World politics today has four key attributes. First, there are countries or states that are independent and
govern themselves. Second, these countries interact with each other through diplomacy. Third, there
are international organizations, like the United Nations (UN), that facilitate these interactions. Fourth,
beyond simply facilitating meetings between states, international organizations also take on lives of
their own. The UN, for example, apart from being a meeting ground for presidents and other heads of
state, also has task-specific agencies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International
Labor Organization (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 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 their tribe, and at other time they
see themselves as members of larger political categories "Christendom" (the entire Christian world).

The nation-state is composed of two non-interchangeable terms. 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 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, i.e., the government of the Philippines.
A state has four attributes. First, it exercises authority over a specific population, called 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 like 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, the 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 the nation has its boundaries. This characteristic is in stark contrast to many religious imagined
communities. Anyone, for examples can become a Catholic if one chooses to. In fact, Catholics want

More people to join their community; they refer to it as the call to discipleship. But not everyone can
simply become a Filipino. 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, speak
a common language, and live in a specific territory.

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.
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 like the Philippine archipelago, you rest in the comfort that the
majority of people living in it are also Filipinos. 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 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,
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 that forbade birth privileges, encouraged freedom or religion, and promoted
meritocracy in government service. This system shocked the monarchies and the hereditary elites
(dukes, duchesses, etc.) 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.

Klemens Von Metternich was the architect of the Concert of Europe

Despite the challenge of Napoleon to the Westphalian system and the eventual collapse of the Concert
of Europe after World War I, 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, all having veto powers over the council's
decision-making process.

Internationalism

The Westphalian and Concert systems divided the world into separate, sovereign entities. Since the
existence of this interstate system, there have been attempts to transcend it. Some, like Bonaparte,
directly challenged the system by infringing o other states' sovereignty, while others sought to imagine
other systems of governance that go beyond, but do not necessarily challenge, sovereignty. Still, others
imagine a system of heightened interaction between various sovereign states, particularly the desire for
greater cooperation and unity among states and people, 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. Kant likened states in a global system to people living in a given territory. I people living
together require a government to prevent lawlessness shouldn't that same principle be 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 government. Nations of the
world." In short, Kant imagined a form of global

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 the 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? And would not its laws
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. He argued that if the various
Italian mini-states could unify, one could scale up the system to create, for example, a United States of
Europe. Mazzini was a nationalist internationalist, who believes that free, unified nation-states should
be the basis of global cooperation.

Mazzini influenced the thinking of United States president (1913-1921) Woodrow Wilson, who became
one of the 20th century's most prominent internationalist. Like Mazzini, Wilson saw nationalism as a
prerequisite for internationalism. Because of his faith in nationalism, he forwarded 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 nations 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.
Wilson, in short, became 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 prevent another war. For his efforts, Wilson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919.

The League came into being that same year. Ironically and unfortunately for Wilson, the United States
was not able to join 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 Labor Organization (ILO). More importantly, it would serve as the blueprint for
future forms of international cooperation. In this respect, despite survived World War II. Its
organizational dissolution, the League of Nations' principles

The League was the concretization of the concepts of liberal internationalism. 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 re-assert themselves in the creation of the United Nations in 1946
(see next lesson).

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. Instead, Marx placed a 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 and his co-author, Friedrich Engels, believed that in a socialist revolution seeking to overthrow the
state and alter the economy, the proletariat "had no nation." 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 workers in individual 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 SI'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 ended up fighting each
other. It was a confirmation of Marx's warning: when workers and their organizations take the side of
their countries instead of each other, their long-term interests are compromised.

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 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.

Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin founded the Comintern to spread socialist revolutions across the
world.

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 International was not only more radical than the Socialist International, it
was also less democratic because it followed closely 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). The Soviet Union took over the countries in Eastern Europe when the United States, the
Soviet Union, and Great Britain divided the war-torn Europe into their respective spheres of influence.
The Cominform, like the Comintern before it, helped direct the various communist parties that had
taken 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. And the best
evidence of this is the rise of the United Nations as the center of global governance.