Lesson 1: What is Globalization?

Globalization: A Working Definition

Most accounts view globalization as primarily an economic process. When a newspaper reports
that nationalists are resisting “globalization,” it usually refers to the integration of the national markets
to a wider global market signified by the increased free trade. When activists refer to the “anti-
globalization” movement of the 1990s, they mean resisting the trade deals among countries facilitated
and promoted by global organizations like the World Trade Organization.

Globalization scholars do not necessarily disagree with people who criticize unfair international
trade deals or global economic organizations. In fact, many are sympathetic to the critique of economic
globalization. Academics differ from journalists and political activists, however, because they see
globalization in much broader terms. They view the process through various lenses that consider
multiple theories and perspectives. Academics call this interdisciplinary approach, and it is this approach
used by the general education (GE) courses that you will be taking alongside this one.

The best scholarly description of globalization is provided by Manfred Steger who described the
process as “the expansion and intensification of social relations and consciousness across world-time
and across world-space.” Expansion refers to “both the creation of new social networks and the
multiplication of existing connections that cut across traditional political, economic, cultural, and
geographic boundaries.” These various connections occur at different levels. Social media, for example,
establish new global connections between people, while international groups connect a more specific
group – social workers and activists – from different corners of the globe.

Intensification refers to the expansion, stretching, and acceleration of these networks. Not only
are global connections multiplying, but they are also becoming more closely-knit and expanding their
reach. For example, there has always been a strong financial market connecting London and New York.
With the advent of electronic trading, however, the volume of that trade increases exponentially, since
traders can now trade more at higher speeds. This connection is thus accelerating. Apart from this
acceleration, however, as the world becomes more financially integrated, the intensified trading
network between London and New York may expand and stretch to cover more and more cities. After
China committed itself to the global economy in the 1980s, for example, Shanghai steadily returned to
its old role as a major trading post.

It is not only in financial matters that you can find these connections. In 2012, when the
monsoon rains flooded much of Bangkok, the Honda plant making some of the critical car parts
temporarily ceased production. This had a strong negative effect on Honda-USA which relied heavily on
the parts being imported from Thailand. Not only was it unable to reach the sales targets it laid out, but
the ability of the service centers nationwide to assist Honda owners also suffered. As a result, the
Japanese car company’s global profits also fell.

The final attribute of this definition relates to the way people perceive time and space. Steger
notes that globalization processes do not occur merely at an objective, material level but they also
involve the subjective plane of human consciousness." In other words, people begin to feel that the
world has become a smaller place and distance has collapsed from thousands of miles to just a mouse-
click away. One can now e-mail a friend in another country and get a reply instantaneously, and as a
result, begins to perceive their distance as less consequential. Cable TV and the internet has also
exposed one to news from across the globe, so now, he/she has this greater sense of what is happening
in other places.

Steger posits that his definition of globalization must be differentiated with an ideology he calls
globalism. If globalization represents the many processes that allow for the expansion and
intensification of global connections, globalism is a widespread belief among powerful people that the
global integration of economic markets is beneficial for everyone, since it spreads freedom and
democracy across the world.6 It is a common belief forwarded in media and policy circles. In the next
lesson, you will realize why it is problematic.

For now, what is crucial to note is that when activists and journalists criticize "globalization,"
they are, more often than not, criticizing some manifestations of globalism. Often, these criticisms are
warranted. Nevertheless, it is crucial to insist that "globalization" as a process refers to a larger
phenomenon that cannot simply be reduced to the ways in which global markets have been integrated.

Conclusion: Globalization from the Ground Up

All this talk of large, intersecting processes may be confusing. Indeed, it may be hard to assess
globalization or comment on it because it is so diffuse and almost fleeting. Some scholars have,
therefore, found it simpler to avoid talking about globalization as a whole. Instead, they want to discuss
"multiple globalizations," instead of just one process.

For anthropologist Arjun Appadurai, different kinds of globalization occur on multiple and
intersecting dimensions of integration that he calls "scapes." An "ethnoscape,” for example refers to the
global movement of people, while a "mediascape" is about the flow of culture. A "technoscape" refers
to the circulation of mechanical goods and software; a "financescape” denotes the global circulation of
money; and an "ideoscape" is the realm where political ideas move around. Although they intersect,
these various scapes have differing logics. They are thus distinct windows into the broader phenomenon
of globalization.

Appadurai's argument is simple: there are multiple globalizations. Hence, even if one does not
agree that globalization can be divided into the five "scapes," it is hard to deny Appadurai's central
thrust of viewing globalization through various lenses.

Depending on what is being globalized, a different dynamic (or dynamics) may emerge. So while
it is important to ask "What is globalization?" it is likewise important to ask "What is/are being
globalized?" Depending on what is being globalized, the vista and conclusions change.

The structure of the lessons that follow will reflect this multidimensional understanding of
globalization. Each of the lessons will focus on a particular kind of globalization. Every one of them will
be about different networks and connections that are expanding and intensifying in the contemporary
world.

Treat each lesson not as an end in itself but as window to the broader phenomenon of
globalization.

Guide Questions
1. How have you experienced globalization?
 2. Why is it crucial to emphasize that globalization is uneven?
3. What is the different between globalization and globalism?

Lesson 2: The Globalization of World Economics

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) regards "economic globalization" as a historical

process representing the result of human innovation and technological progress. It is characterized by
the increasing integration of economies around the world through the movement of goods, services,
and capital across borders. These changes are the products of people, organizations, institutions, and
technologies/ As with all other processes of globalization, there is a qualitative and subjective element
to this definition. How does one define "increasing integration"? When is it considered that trade has
increased? Is there a particular threshold?

Even while the IMF and ordinary people grapple with the difficulty of arriving at precise
definitions of globalization, they usually agree that a drastic economic change is occurring throughout
the world. According to the IMF, the value of trade (goods and services) as a percentage of world GDP
increased from 42.1 percent in 1980 to 62.1 percent in 2007. Increased trade also means that
investments are moving all over the world at faster speeds. According to the United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the amount of foreign direct investments flowing across the
world was US$ 57 billion in 1982. By 2015, that number was $1.76 trillion. These figures represent a
dramatic increase in global trade in the span of just a few decades. It has happened not even after one
human lifespan!

Apart from the sheer magnitude of commerce, we should also note the increased speed and
frequency of trading. These days, supercomputers can execute millions of stock purchases and sales
between different cities in a matter of seconds through a process called high-frequency trading. Even
the items being sold and traded are changing drastically. Ten years ago, buying books or music indicates
acquiring physical items. Today, however, a "book" can be digitally downloaded to be read with an e-
reader, and a music "album" refers to the 15 songs on mp3 format you can purchase and download
from iTunes.

This lesson aims to trace how economic globalization came about. It will also assess this
globalization system, and examine who benefits from it and who is left out.

International Trading Systems

International trading systems are not new. The oldest known international trade route was
the Silk Road—a network of pathways in the ancient world that spanned from China to what is now the
Middle East and to Europe. It was called as such because one of the most profitable products traded
through this network was silk, which was highly prized especially in the area that is now the Middle East
as well as in the West (today's Europe). Traders used the Silk Road regularly from 130 BCE when the
Chinese Han dynasty opened trade to the West until 1453 BCE when the Ottoman Empire closed it.

However, while the Silk Road was international, it was not truly "global" because it had no
ocean routes that could reach the American continent. So when did full economic globalization begin?
According to historians Dennis O. Flynn and Arturo Giraldez, the age of globalization began when "all
important populated continents began to exchange products continuously— both with each other
directly and indirectly via other continents— and in values sufficient to generate crucial impacts on all
trading partners." Flynn and Giraldez trace this back to 1571 with the establishment of the galleon trade
that connected Manila in the Philippines and Acapulco in Mexico." This was the first time that the
Americas were directly connected to Asian trading routes. For Filipinos, it is crucial to note that
economic globalization began on the country's shores.

The galleon trade was part of the age of mercantilism. From the 16th century to the 18th
century, countries, primarily in Europe, competed with one another to sell more goods as a means to
boost their country's income (called monetary reserves later on). To defend their products from
competitors who sold goods more cheaply, these regimes (mainly monarchies) imposed high tariffs,
forbade colonies to trade with other nations, restricted trade routes, and subsidized its exports.
Mercantilism was thus also a system of global trade with multiple restrictions.

A more open trade system emerged in 1867 when, following the lead of the United
Kingdom, the United States and other European nations adopted the gold standard at an international
monetary conference in Paris. Broadly, its goal was to create a common system that would allow for
more efficient trade and prevent the isolationism of the mercantilist era. The countries thus established
a common basis for currency prices and a fixed exchange rate system—all based on the value of gold.

Despite facilitating simpler trade, the gold standard was still a very restrictive system, as it
compelled countries to back their currencies with fixed gold reserves. During World War I, when
countries depleted their gold reserves to fund their armies, many were forced to abandon the gold
standard. Since European countries had low gold reserves, they adopted floating currencies that were
no longer redeemable in gold.

Returning to a pure standard became more difficult as the global economic crisis called the
Great Depression started during the 1920s and extended up to the 1930s, further emptying government
coffers. This depression was the worst and longest recession ever experienced by the Western world.
Some economists argued that it was largely caused by the gold standard, since it limited the amount of
circulating money and, therefore, reduced demand and consumption. If governments could only spend
money that was equivalent to gold, its capacity to print money and increase the money supply was
severely curtailed.

Economic historian Barry Eichengreen argues that the recovery of the United States really
began when, having abandoned the gold standard, the US government was able to free up money to
spend on reviving the economy. At the height of World War Il, other major industrialized countries
followed suit. Though more indirect versions of the gold standard were used until as late as the 1970s,
the world never returned to the gold standard of the early 20th century. Today, the world economy
operates based on what are called fiat currencies—currencies that are not backed by precious metals
and whose value is determined by their cost relative to other currencies. This system allows
governments to freely and actively manage their economies by increasing or decreasing the amount of
money in circulation as they see fit.

The Bretton Woods System

After the two world wars, world leaders sought to create a global economic system that
would ensure a longer-lasting global peace. They believed that one of the ways to achieve this goal was
to set up a network of global financial institutions that would promote economic interdependence and
prosperity. The Bretton Woods system was inaugurated in 1944 during the United Nations Monetary
and Financial Conference to prevent the catastrophes of the early decades of the century from
reoccurring and affecting international ties.

The Bretton Woods system was largely influenced by the ideas of British economist John
Maynard Keynes who believed that economic crises occur not when a country does not have enough
money, but when money is not being spent and, thereby, not moving. When economies slow down,
according to Keynes, governments have to reinvigorate markets with infusions of capital. This active role
of governments in managing spending served as the anchor for what would be called a system of global
Keynesianism.

Delegates at Bretton Woods agreed to create two financial institutions. The first was the
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, or World Bank) to be responsible for
funding postwar reconstruction projects. It was a critical institution at a time when many of the world's
cities had been destroyed by the war. The second institution was the International Monetary Fund
(IMF), which was to be the global lender of last resort to prevent individual countries from spiraling into
credit crises. If economic growth in a country slowed down because there was not enough money to
stimulate the economy, the IMF would step in. To this day, both institutions remain key
players in economic globalization.

Shortly after Bretton Woods, various countries also committed themselves to further global
economic integration through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947. GATT's main
purpose was to reduce tariffs and other hindrances to free trade.

Neoliberalism and Its Discontents

The high point of global Keynesianism came in the mid- 1940s to the early 1970s. During this
period, governments poured money into their economies, allowing people to purchase more goods and,
in the process, increase demand for these products. As demand increased, so did the prices of these
goods. Western and some Asian economies like Japan accepted this rise in prices because it was
accompanied by general economic growth and reduced unemployment. The theory went that, as prices
increased, companies would earn more, and would have more money to hire workers. Keynesian
economists believed that all this was a necessary trade-off for economic development.

In the early 1970s, however, the prices of oil rose sharply as a result of the Organization of
Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OAPEC, the Arab member-countries of the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries or OPEC) imposition of an embargo in response to the decision of the
United States and other countries to resupply the Israeli military with the needed arms during the Yom
Kippur War. Arab countries also used the embargo to stabilize their economies and growth. The "oil
embargo" affected the Western economies that were reliant on oil, to make matters worse, the stock
markets crashed in 1973-1974 after the United States stopped linking the dollar to gold, effectively
ending the Bretton Woods system. The result was a phenomenon that Keynesian economics could not
have predicted—a phenomenon called stagflation, in which a decline in economic growth and
employment (stagnation) takes place alongside a sharp increase in prices (inflation).

Around this time, a new form of economic thinking was beginning to challenge the
Keynesian orthodoxy. Economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman argued that the
governments' practice of pouring money into their economies had caused inflation by increasing
demand for goods without necessarily increasing supply. More profoundly, they argued that
government intervention in economies distort the proper functioning of the market.

Economists like Friedman used the economic turmoil to challenge the consensus around
Keynes's ideas. What emerged was a new form of economic thinking that critics labeled neoliberalism.
From the 1980s onward, neoliberalism became the codified strategy of the United States Treasury
Department, the World Bank the IMF, and eventually the World Trade Organization (WTO)—a new
organization founded in 1995 to continue the tariff reduction under the GATT. The policies they
forwarded came to be called the Washington Consensus.

The Washington Consensus dominated global economic policies from the 1980s until the
early 2000s. Its advocates pushed for minimal government spending to reduce government debt. They
also called for the privatization of government-controlled services like water, power, communications,
and transport, believing that the free market can produce the best results. Finally, they pressured
governments, particularly in the developing world, to reduce tariffs and open up their economies,
arguing that it is the quickest way to progress. Advocates of the Washington Consensus conceded that,
along the way, certain industries would be affected and die, but they considered this "shock therapy"
necessary for long-term economic growth.

The appeal of neoliberalism was in its simplicity. Its advocates like US President Ronald
Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher justified their reduction in government spending
by comparing national economies to households. Thatcher, in particular, promoted an image of herself
as a mother, who reined in overspending to reduce the national debt.

The problem with the household analogy is that governments are not households. For one,
governments can print money, while households cannot. Moreover, the constant taxation systems of
governments provide them a steady flow of income that allows them to pay and refinance debts
steadily.

Despite the initial success of neoliberal politicians like Thatcher and Reagan, the defects of
the Washington Consensus became immediately palpable. A good early example is that of post-
communist Russia. After Communism had collapsed in the 1990s, the IMF called for the immediate
privatization of all government industries. The IMF assumed that such a move would free these
industries from corrupt bureaucrats and pass them on to the more dynamic and independent private
investors. What happened, however, was that only individuals and groups who had accumulated wealth
under the previous communist order had the money to purchase these industries. In some cases, the
economic elites relied on easy access to government funds to take over the industries. This practice has
entrenched an oligarchy that still dominates the Russian economy to this very day.

The Global Financial Crisis and the Challenge to Neoliberalism

Russia's case was just one example of how the "shock therapy of neoliberalism did not lead
to the ideal outcomes predicted by economists who believed in perfectly free markets. The greatest
recent repudiation of this thinking was the recent global financial crisis of 2008-2009.

Neoliberalism came under significant strain during the global financial crisis of 2007—2008
when the world experienced the greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression. The crisis can
be traced back to the 1980s when the United States systematically removed various banking and
investment restrictions. The scaling back of regulations continued until the 2000s, paving the way for a
brewing crisis. In their attempt to promote the free market, government authorities failed to regulate
bad investments occurring in the US housing market. Taking advantage of "cheap housing loans,"
Americans began building houses that were beyond their financial capacities. To mitigate the risk of
these loans, banks that were lending houseowners' money pooled these mortgage payments and sold
them as "mortgage-backed securities" (MBSs). One MBS would be a combination of multiple mortgages
that they assumed would pay a steady rate.

Since there was so much surplus money circulating, the demand for MBSs increased as
investors clamored for more investment opportunities. In their haste to issue these loans, however, the
banks became less discriminating. They began extending loans to families and individuals with dubious
credit records—people who were unlikely to pay their loans back. These high-risk mortgages became
known as sub-prime mortgages.

Financial experts wrongly assumed that, even if many of the borrowers were individuals and
families who would struggle to pay, a majority would not default. Moreover, banks thought that since
there were so many mortgages in just one MBS, a few failures would not ruin the entirety of the
investment.

Banks also assumed that housing prices would continue to increase. Therefore, even if
homeowners defaulted on their loans these banks could simply reacquire the homes and sell them at a
higher price, turning a profit.

Sometime in 2007, however, home prices stopped increasing as supply caught up with
demand. Moreover, it slowly became apparent that families could not pay off their loans. This
realization triggered the rapid reselling of MBSs, as banks and investors tried to get rid of their bad
investments. This dangerous cycle reached a tipping point in September 2008, when major investment
banks like Lehman Brothers collapsed, thereby depleting major investments.

The crisis spread beyond the United States since many investors were foreign governments,
corporations, and individuals. The loss of their money spread like wildfire back to their countries.

These series of interconnections allowed for a global multiplier effect that sent ripples
across the world. For example, Iceland's banks heavily depended on foreign capital, so when the crisis
hit them, they failed to refinance their loans. As a result of this credit crunch, three of Iceland's top
commercial banks defaulted. From 2007 to 2008, Iceland's debt increased more than seven-fold.

Until now, countries like Spain and Greece are heavily indebted (almost like Third World
countries), and debt relief has come at a high price. Greece, in particular, has been forced by Germany
and the IMF to cut back on its social and public spending. Affecting services like pensions, health care,
and various forms of social security, these cuts have been felt most acutely by the poor. Moreover, the
reduction in government spending has slowed down growth and ensured high levels of unemployment.

The United States recovered relatively quickly thanks to a large Keynesian-style stimulus
package that President Barack Obama pushed for in his first months in office. The same cannot be said
for many other countries. In Europe, the continuing economic crisis has sparked a political upheaval.
Recently, far-right parties like Marine Le Pen's Front National in France have risen to prominence by
unfairly blaming immigrants for their woes, claiming that they steal jobs and leech off welfare. These
movements blend popular resentment with utter hatred and racism, We will discuss their rise further in
the final lesson.

Economic Globalization Today

The global financial crisis will take decades to resolve. The solutions proposed by certain
nationalist and leftist groups of closing national economies to world trade, however, will no longer work.
The world has become too integrated. Whatever one's opinion about the Washington Consensus is, it is
undeniable that some form of international trade remains essential for countries to develop in the
contemporary world.

Exports, not just the local selling of goods and services, make national economies grow at
present. In the past, those that benefited the most from free trade were the advanced nations that were
producing and selling industrial and agricultural goods. The United States, Japan, and the member-
countries of the European Union were responsible for 65 percent of global exports, while the developing
countries only accounted for 29 percent. When more countries opened up their economies to take
advantage of increased free trade, the shares of the percentage began to change. By 2011, developing
countries like the Philippines, India, China, Argentina, and Brazil accounted for 51 percent of global
exports while the share of advanced nations— including the United States—had gone down to 45
percent. The WTO-led reduction of trade barriers, known as trade liberalization, has profoundly altered
the dynamics of the global economy.

In the recent decades, partly as a result of these increased exports, economic globalization
has ushered in an unprecedented spike in global growth rates. According to the IMF, the global per
capita GDP rose over five-fold in the second half of the 20th century. It was this growth that created the
large Asian economies like Japan, China, Korea, Hong Kong, and Singapore. And yet, economic
globalization remains an uneven process, with some countries, corporations, and individuals benefiting
a lot more than others. The series of trade talks under the WTO have led to unprecedented reductions
in tariffs and other trade barriers, but these processes have often been unfair.

First, developed countries are often protectionists, as they repeatedly refuse to lift policies
that safeguard their primary products that could otherwise be overwhelmed by imports from the
developing world. The best example of this double standard is Japan's determined refusal to allow rice
imports into the country to protect its farming sector. Japan's justification is that rice is "sacred."
Ultimately, it is its economic muscle as the third largest economy that allows it to resist pressures to
open its agricultural sector.

The United States likewise fiercely protects its sugar industry, forcing consumers and sugar-
dependent businesses to pay higher prices instead of getting cheaper sugar from plantations of Central
America.

Faced with these blatantly protectionist measures from powerful countries and blocs,
poorer countries can do very little to make economic globalization more just. Trade imbalances,
therefore, characterize economic relations between developed and developing countries.

The beneficiaries of global commerce have been mainly transnational corporations (TNCs)
and not governments. And like any other business, these TNCs are concerned more with profits than
with assisting the social programs of the governments hosting them. Host countries, in turn, loosen tax
laws, which prevents wages from rising, while sacrificing social and environmental programs that
protect the underprivileged members of their societies. The term "race to the bottom" refers to
countries' lowering their labor standards, including the protection of workers' interests, to lure in
foreign investors seeking high profit margins at the lowest cost possible. Governments weaken
environmental laws to attract investors, creating fatal consequences on their ecological balance and
depleting them of their finite resources (like oil, coal, and minerals).

Conclusion

International economic integration is a central tenet of globalization. In fact, it is so crucial

to the process that many writers and commentators confuse this integration for the entirety of
globalization. As a reminder, economics is just one window into the phenomenon of globalization; it is
not the entire thing.

Nevertheless, much of globalization is anchored on changes in the economy. Global culture,

for example, is facilitated by trade. Filipinos would not be as aware of American culture if not for the
trade that allows locals to watch American movies, listen to American music, and consume American
products. The globalization of politics is likewise largely contingent on trade relations. These days, many
events of foreign affairs are conducted to cement trading relations between and among states.

Given the stakes involved in economic globalization, it is perennially important to ask how
this system can be made more just. Although some elements of global free trade can be scaled back,
policies cannot do away with it as a whole. International policymakers, therefore, should strive to think
of ways to make trading deals fairer. Governments must also continue to devise ways of cushioning the
most damaging effects of economic globalization, while ensuring that its benefits accrue for everyone.

Guide Questions:
1. How do economic forces facilitate the deepening of globalization?
2. How is the Philippines central to the history of economic globalization?
3. Compare and contrast the assumptions of the original Bretton Woods system with those of the
Washington Consensus.

Lesson 3: 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 does not equal globalization, although it is a major part of globalization.

As we explained in Lesson I, 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 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 times, they see themselves as members of larger political categories like "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 example, 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 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 nationalist sentiment
that clamors for this

Sovereignty is, thus, one of the fundamental principles of modern state politics.
Understanding how this became the case emails ping 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.

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 on 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 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. Kant likened states in a global system to people living in a given territory. If
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 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 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 a world government, in effect, become supreme? And would 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 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 Il. 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 its organizational
dissolution, the League of Nations' principles survived World War Il.

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 Sl's achievements included the
declaration of May I 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 Il 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.

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 Il 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.

Conclusion

This lesson examined the roots of the international system. In tracing these roots, a short
history of internationalism was provided. Moreover, 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 increased
interdependence manifests itself not just through state-to-state relations. Increasingly, international
relations are also facilitated by international organizations that promote global norms and policies. The
most prominent example of this organization, of course, is the United Nations.

Guide Questions
1. What remnants of the Westphalia 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

Although many internationalists 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. Moreover, when they do not—like when Russia invaded Crimea in 2014—it becomes a
cause for global concern and debate. The fact that states in an international order continue to adhere to
certain global norms means that there is a semblance of world order despite the lack of a single world
government. Global governance refers to the various intersecting processes that create this order.

There are many sources of global governance. States sign treaties and form organizations, in
the process legislating public international law (international rules that govern interactions between
states as opposed to, say, private companies). International MD-governmental organizations (NGOs),
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 governments to pass animal cruelty
laws). Powerful transnational corporations can likewise have tremendous effects on global labor laws,
environmental legislation, trade policy, etc. Even ideas such as the need for "global democracy" or the
clamor for "good governance" can influence the ways international actors.

One lesson will not be able to cover the various ways global governance occurs. As such, this
lesson will only examine how global governance is articulated by intergovernmental organizations. It will
focus primarily on the United Nations (UN) as the most prominent intergovernmental organization
today.
What is an International Organization?

When scholars refer to groups like the UN or institutions like the IMF and the World Bank
(see Lesson 2), 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 organizations is that they are merely amalgamations
of various state interests. In the 1960s and 1970s, many scholars believed that IOS were just venues
where the contradicting, but sometimes intersecting, agendas of countries were discussed—no more
than talk shops. What has become more evident in recent years, however, is that IOS can take on lives
of their own. For example, as seen in Lesson 2, the IMF was able to promote a particular form of
economic orthodoxy that stemmed mainly from the beliefs of its professional economists. IOS can thus
become influential as independent organizations. International relations scholars Michael N. Barnett
and Martha Finnemore listed the following powers of IOS.

First, 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 (see Lesson 10 for more). And since states are required to accept refugees
entering their borders, this power to establish identity has concrete effects.

Second, 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. States, organizations, and
individuals view IOS as legitimate sources of information. As such, the meanings they create have effects
on various policies. For example, recently, the United Nations has started to define security as not just
safety from military violence, but also safety from environmental harm.

Finally, IOS have the power to diffuse norms. Norms are accepted codes of conduct that
may not be strict law, but nevertheless produce regularity in behavior. IOS do not only classify and fix
meanings; they also spread their ideas across the world. thereby establishing global standards. Their
members are, as Barnett and Finnemore emphasized, the "missionaries" time. Their power to diffuse
norms stems from the fact that IOS are staffed with independent bureaucracies, who are considered
experts in various fields. For example, World Bank economists 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 developmental projects.

Because of these immense powers, IOs can be sources of great good and great harm. They
can promote relevant norms like environmental protection and human rights. But, like other entrenched
bureaucracies, they can become sealed-off communities that fail to challenge their beliefs. For example,
the Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz famously criticized the IMF for using a “one-size-fits-
all” approach when its economists made recommendations to developing countries

The United Nations

Having examined the powers, limitations, and weaknesses of IOs, the spotlight will now fall
on the most prominent 10 in the contemporary world, the United Nations (UN). After the collapse of the
League of Nations at the end of World War Il, countries that worried about another global war began to
push for the formation of a more lasting international league. The result was the creation of the 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. The General Assembly (GA) is UN's "main
deliberative policymaking and representative organ." According to the 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. Decisions on other questions are done
by simple majority. Annually, the General Assembly elects a GA President to serve a one-year term of
office " All member states (currently at 193) have seats in the GA. 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.

Although the GA is the most representative organization in the UN, many commentators
consider the Security Council (SC) to be the most powerful. According to the UN, this body consists of 15
member states. The GA elects ten of these 15 to two-year terms. The other five—sometimes referred to
as the Permanent 5 (P5)—are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These
states have been permanent members since the founding of the UN, and cannot be replaced through
election. The SC takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or an act of
aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle the act by peaceful means and recommends
methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, it can resort to imposing sanctions or
even authorizing the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Because of
these powers, 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 may be deemed legal. This is an immense.

Much attention has been placed on the SC's P5 due to their permanent seats and because
each country holds veto power over the council's decisions. It only takes one veto vote from a P5
member to stop an SC action dead in its tracks. In this sense, the SC is heir to the tradition of "great
power" diplomacy that began with the Metternich/Concert of Europe system (see the previous lesson).
It is especially telling that the P5 consists of the major Allied Powers that won World War Il. The Security
Council will be further discussed in the next section.

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 the implementation of internationally agreed development goals." It
has 54 members elected for three-year terms. Currently, it is the UN's central platform for discussions
on sustainable development.

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 United Nations organs and specialized agencies." The major cases of the court consist of
disputes between states that voluntarily submit themselves to the court for arbitration. 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 may enforce the rulings of the ICJ, but this
remains subject to the P5's veto power.
 Finally, 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." As such, it is the bureaucracy of the
UN, serving as a kind of international civil service. Members of the secretariat serve in their capacity as
UN employees and not as state representatives.

Challenges of the United Nations

Given the scope of the UN's activities, it naturally faces numerous challenges. Chief among
these are the limits placed upon its various organs and programs by the need to respect state
sovereignty. The UN 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. This became an issue, for example, in the late 1990s when the United States
sought to intervene in the Kosovo war. Serbian leader Slobodan was committing acts of ethnic cleansing
against ethnic Muslim Albanians in the province of Kosovo. Hundreds and thousands of Albanians were
victims of massacres, mass deportations, and internal displacement. Amid this systematic terror,
members Of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, see Lesson 5), led by the United States,
sought SC authorization to intervene in the Kosovo war on humanitarian grounds. China and Russia,
however, threatened to veto any action, rendering the UN incapable of addressing the crisis. In
response, NATO decided to intervene on its own. Though the NATO intervention was largely a success,
it, nevertheless. left the UN ineffectual.

Today, a similar dynamic is evident in Syria, which is undergoing a civil war. Russia has
threatened to veto any SC resolution against Syria; thus, the UN has done very little to stop state-
sanctioned violence against opponents of the government. Since Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is an
ally of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin, the latter has shied away from any policy that could weaken the
legitimacy of the former. As a result, the UN is again ineffectual amid a conflict that has led to over
220,000 people dead and Il million displaced.

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 intervention, but it has also made
right decisions. When the United States sought to invade Iraq in 2001, it claimed that Iraq's Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that threatened the world. However, UN members
Russia, China, and France were unconvinced and vetoed the UN resolution for intervention, forcing the
United States to lead a small "coalition of the willing" with its allies. It has since been discovered that
there were no weapons of mass destruction, and the invasion of Iraq has caused problems for the
country and the region that last until today.
Conclusion

Global governance is such a complex issue that one can actually teach an entire course in
itself. This lesson has focused on the IOS and the United Nations in particular. International
organizations are highlighted because they are the most visible symbols of global governance. 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.

On the one hand, they are groups of sovereign states. On the other, they are organizations
with their own rationalities and agendas. It is this tension that will continue to inform the evolution of
these organizations.

However, note that there are many institutions, groups, and ideas that hold international
and global politics together. In your own time, you may want to explore these topics on your own.

Guide Questions
1. Why is global governance multi-faceted?
2. How do international organizations take on "lives of their own?"
3. What are the challenges faced by the United Nations in maintaining global security?