National and European Socialization of Negotiators - Literature review Example

Introduction Is nation-state rescinding into obsolescence? Or, will there always be United States of America, China, and United Kingdom? In the 21st century, this question takes on an added significance and urgency to pose particularly on account of the unprecedented social, economic, cultural, technological and political developments. Specifically, a political development that is pertinent to our topic is the formation of supra-national institutions – together with multi-nation states, confederation of sovereign state, multi-national federation, federation of nation-states, etc. -- as resultant of the sweepingly fast process of globalization. And coming together with this development – as if, the other side of the coin – the territorial nation-states are observably becoming increasingly irrelevant. While this issue has aroused principally the minds of philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and government analysts as they grapple with the differing concepts of nationhood, national consciousness, nation building policies, and the like, our intent in this paper is simply to sketch as in broad strokes the general threads of ideas related to this matter (in order to better understand the context of doing international business.) Literature Review The nation-state in modern times is essentially a country with an integrated economy, a national market and a co-extensive political structure. Without a national market, nationhood is empty of power. There may be a state, but it will definitely not be a nation-state. After 1648, with the Treaty of Westphalia, only were there nation-states (in the modern sense of the word). Before this epoch, there were only city-states, duchies, principalities, Papal States, etc.; and the people knew no sense of nationalism or national loyalty as they were loyal to royalties or to the church, but not necessarily to a nation (Toffler 2002). Since these times, nation-states have remained the central actor in the international political stage. More or less five centuries later, however, nation-states have started to show many signs that its powers have already been diminishing in today’s world (Melamed 2002). These signs are – among others – the becoming less important of the national markets and national economies as global markets and the global economy – as well as regional markets and economies and even local markets and economies – growing more important (Ohmae 1996). In addition, nations are having a harder time controlling their own borders, currencies, ecological conditions and even information flows (Toffler 2002). This does not mean that nation-states are necessarily disappearing. We only mean that they are evidently losing some of their power in global affairs to other global forces. One of these forces is global corporations that we have seen to be in some if not most cases more influential on the course of the world events than many nations. Similarly, the same thing may be told of religious denominations – like the Islam (which is clearly a principal player whose interests transcend any individual nation) or the Catholic Church (that was fundamentally behind the events leading to the collapse of the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) and the transpirations in East Timor and Croatia). Likewise, there were the fast-multiplying non-government organizations (NGO’s) from Greenpeace to thousands of lesser-known but very active groups. For one, we can take the event in Seattle against the World Trade Organization (WTO), where the NGO’s asserted their demand for a voice in the GO’s (governmental organizations) that until now have represented only nation-states (see, Melamed 2002; Toffler 2002). In addition to the entire range of phenomena that are either related to or fruits of economic globalization, there are supra-national organizations (taken by some authorities as heralding the epoch of post-national identity). These organizations include the United Nations Organization, as well as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, among others. Too, they may take the form of confederations of nation-states in which the elemental sates remain sovereign. European Union (EU) is actually a hybrid of federation and confederation of states (Seymour 2004, p. 5; Beyer 1998; Buhr 2007; Leal-Arcas 2006). In fact, these forces have rendered not only unpredictable but often counterproductive the outcomes of attempts by nation-state governments to control their economies. And this effectively sidelines national governments as resolves of great import are now passed into the hands of the transnational corporations, the international markets, global financial institutions, supra-national authorities and the globalized media (Baker 2002; Vhutuza and Ngoshi 2008). As if still discontented with the power that is already at their disposal at present, many multinational corporations are even now merging to form bodies comparable in power to the nation-states (see Rothbard). As a consequence of this shift in power, many people begin to be more loyal to their trans-nationals than to their nation. This was very much a continuation of the trend away from nationalism in the developed areas of the world and a growth of disgust in the sheer competence of governments in other regions. Perceptibly, this weakening of the old nation-states has resulted to many ruptures along ethnic-linguistic fault lines. In effect, it has resulted to proliferation of state-lets that proved to be even weaker in the face of the globalized economy than the nations of which they had been part. Effectively, mega-corporations are dominating these state-lets in the long run. Likewise, to successfully empower themselves in the face of these across-the-board growths occasioned by globalization, nation-states enter into supra-nationalization. In fact, globally, supra-nationalism of Eurasia and the Americas is matched. In Asia-Pacific region, there is APEC (Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation); on smaller scale, several West African nations have formed the West African Free Trade Area (Baker 2002). Now, we need to clarify that the supra-nationalization or the conceptualization of multinational states observes a process that is akin to nation-state or state-nation building process. We have de facto multi-national states (e.g., Canada, a territorial federation based on the equality of provinces), just as we have de jure multinational states (e.g., Belgium) – i.e, it is their constitution and institutions that define their being multinational in character (Seymour 2004). Similarly, the viability of multi-national states is contentious. Some would maintain that multi-national states must have a very thick cultural identity (as in the case of the United Kingdom); others, however, posit that a thin identity – such that a civic identity would suffice – is enough. Still, in the absence of the strong, durable and common cultural affiliation and to avoid recourse to a thin, civil identity (that would in the future most likely threaten the country), a substitute may be an adoption of politics of recognition. Such recognition would normally result to a strong sentiment of loyalty to the encompassing state, and a relation of trust would soon follow. Finally, another way is to take a pragmatic and pluralist position. This stance is to recognize that there are different acceptable models of political organization, as there are different populations articulating different self-representations with different national consciousness on different territories (Seymour 2004, p. 4-5; Beyer 1998; Leal-Arcas 2006; Joerges and Neyer 2006). Analysis To comprise our analysis, let us focus on the observable patterns of relationship that nation-states and supra-national organizations have. This relationship patterns may take the form of impressions that one has on the other, impact or resultant effect of one over the other, the synergy between these two seemingly “opposing” entities, and the adjustment that specifically the nation-states have to effect in order to more fully serve the call of the time. While it is happily welcomed especially by what Alvin Toffler (1980) called the “global gladiators,” the rise of the trans-nationals, especially if viewed in relation to the weakening of the nation-states, is viewed rather sensitively. It was reported that initially – or until now? – for the Africans it is nothing but a new form of colonialism (Vhutuza and Ngoshi 2008). Notwithstanding this sensitivity of the issue, we have to admit that indeed the game is being won by the supra-nationals or by the other “creations of globalization” at the expense of nation-states. The mega-corporations are proving to be stronger than the national governments. To prove our point, we have to mention that despite the Africans’ perception of these new global forces as merely targeting their continent for another era of subjugation and exploitation, most of African never really had the option to oppose the trans-nationals. Much of the troubled continent has soon been converted into inter-corporate development zones centered around major cities, oilfields, and mining operations. And this is true elsewhere in the world – with the nations Asia Pacific regions being taken over by the Japanese and Chinese corporations, the Indian government’s edicts and protestations about workers’ rights, pollution and planning being ignored by trans-nationals, and even in North America where the balance between corporate interests and the federal government tilted strongly in favor of the corporations (Baker 2002). And it is said matter-of-factly by Morrison (2006, p. 273) as he cogently concludes that the growth of global political forces has led to questioning of traditional notions of sovereignty; in fact, the EU is currently sparking a re-evaluation of the role of the nation-states. Now, it is nothing but a statement of fact to hold that these transnational groups – in consideration of the current state of, among other things, technological progress – are here to stay. Elsewhere, we are seeing all kinds of new political units springing up (or old ones being revived) in relative clout. And these political units are banking principally on the potentials of electronic connection. In fact, we may even see leagues of city-states allied with NGO groups – “Internet-ted,” in a manner of speaking. And, so, what is left for the nation-states? Candidly said, there is none but to come to terms with these signs of the time and fashion for themselves a new framework to guide their conduct of affairs towards the trans-nationalism and/or supra-nationalism. The following elements may be considered in reference to the above-cited challenge that confronts the nation-states. Firstly, from the preceding we argued that it is mistaken to consider the nation-states as spent-force; for, actually, they still remain as central actors in the international political system. In this connection, they still have their position as “underwriter” – so to speak – of democratic legitimacy founded on popular sovereignty; and, as such, they also still are and must remain an indispensable agent of promoting and institutionalizing new forms of supranational global governance. And with reason, the latter are being perceived by nation-states as both advantageous and threatening. In fact, it is observable that successful democratic nation-states are the prime promoters of human rights, democratic principles, cooperation – among others – on the level of supra-national politics (Lucas 1999; Campbell 2005). Besides, another aspect of the synergy between the nation-states and the supra-national entities consists of the pressure on the former to advance the cause of supra-nationalism. And this practically brings to the fore the degree to which the nation-states need to effect far-reaching corrections to remodel their own nationally-oriented domestic institutions and policy infrastructures. Of course, it is understandable that nation-states have these parochial measures and institutions in order to protect their sovereignty so as not to lose political power in the real-political pecking order of states (Lucas 1999). Further, we focus our attention too on the need for the nation-states to develop domestic and foreign policies in line with their de facto multi-nationalization. Expectedly, nation-states that fail to adjust their policies to multi-ethnic realities today would surely fail to deal effectively with the challenges of supra-national integration and their increasing impact on domestic politics of individual nation-states. Said differently, to try to sustain policies based on “thick” cultural identity (Mamadouh 1998) – that is, unreconstructed, traditional, ethnically, and linguistically based notions of sovereignty and nation-state nationalism – will surely lead to isolation. In the concrete, the adjustments may include for instance domestic and inter-governmental legislation, reforms of citizenship laws, immigration regulations, and anti-discrimination legislation. Moreover, to earn more credibility, nation-states are obligated to engage seriously enhancing the monitoring and implementation of international agreements in countries in which violations of, say, international humanitarian law and other international legal instruments and agreements repeatedly happen (see Whelan 2004). And, logically, this challenge to the nation-states underpins the need to lobby for additional supra-national institutions, including the very controversial International Criminal Court – which until now are yet to be recognized by all the countries in the world. To complete our analysis, we pose the question: what could facilitate the possible satisfaction of the challenges that we have highlighted in the preceding by the nation-states? A probable way is empowerment of the NGO’s and their grassroots constituencies with favorable conditions in order to more effectively provide development aid and inputs for livelihood stabilization and democratization. In short, to tide over the pressures of globalization, the path to “glocalization” (Perlas 2003) needs to be traversed. For, at present, it is necessary in order that nation-states are integrated in the emerging post-modernist, supra-national global polity. Conclusion As compendium, we first have to draw out “political” lessons. Firstly, we no longer have an only model of political organization. Complementing, supplementing, or taking over the nation-states are multinational and supranational organizations. Secondly, however, there should also be recognition on our part that the viability of multinational state is essentially dependent on a number of circumstances – namely, how multinational states conduct themselves towards their component nations (Catterall 2002). Be that as it may, the hard fact that we need to live with in our current time is the fact of supranational organizations. For now, these entities would be for us a mixed blessing. Their dichotomous nature makes them a vehicle for, say, further social provisioning and social justice – not to mention their effect on technology transfer and the delivery of goods and services that cross national borders -- and at the same time a vehicle for – to say the least – compromising the identity and existence of nation-states. We can only think of the supranational organizations’ military tour of duty in the Cape of Eden when they quite effectively protect the merchant ships of different countries from the piracy by the Somali outlaws; at the same time, however, we can also think of the supranational organizations’ incursion into sovereign territories in aid of imperialistic tendencies of their major nation-member (like the United States of America). We can think of the monetary, technical and material assistance that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund extend to different countries in distress; at the same time, however, we can not be forgetful of the countries especially in the Third World that are literally being dictated by these international funding organizations on policies of even national governance (thus, in the process, breaching the lines of sovereignty that nation-states are said to enjoy). Since, as posited above, the supra-national entities are here to stay, we just have to learn to live with them. In ardent hope, we anticipate that eventually we are afforded with a framework – akin to the social economics approach proposed by McClintock (1999) in dealing with multi-national corporations (MNC’s) -- by which we shall grasp our local and national relationship with them. As we have made our point, we can only expect to have a framework to use in the future. References Baker, R. 2002. The decline of nation-states. theculture.org. Available from . Accessed on 9 January 2009. Buhr, R. 2007. Supranationalism vs. the nation: Effects of EU integration on extreme right party fortunes. Available from . Accessed on 9 January, 2009. Campbell, T. 2005. Supranationalism: Democracy and diversity. Available from < http://www.law.uvic.ca/demcon/documents/Supranationalism%20and%20Diversity2.doc> Accessed on 9 January, 2009. Catterall, D.P. 2002. Britain and supranationalism. Available from . Accessed on 9 January 2009. De Wit, B. and Meyer, R. (2005). Strategy process, content and context: International perspective 3rd Ed. Minneapolis: Thompson Learning. Joerges, C. and Neyer, J. 2006. Deliberative supranationalism revisited. EUI Working Paper Law No. 2006/90. Available from < http://www.iue.it/PUB/LawWPs/law2006-20.pdf>. Accessed on 9 January 2009. Leal-Arcas, R. 2006. Theories of supranationalism in EU. bepress Legal Series. Working Paper 1790. Available from < http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1790>. Accessed on 9 January 2009. Lucas, M. (1999). Nationalism, sovereignty, and supranational organizations. Available from < http://www.ifsh.de/pdf/publikationen/hb/hb114.pdf >. Accessed on 8 January 2009. Mamadouh, V. 1998. Supranationalism in the European Union: What about multilingualism? Available from < http://www.nuim.ie/staff/dpringle/igu_wpm/mamadouh.pdf>. Accessed on 9 January 2009. McClintock, B. (1999). The multinational corporation and social justice: Experiments in supranational governance. Review of Social Economy (57). Available from < http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JmBJhpdwXhg22Q2Tj0NbGjTBWtXkkVhv10nJFPLLrtyW0Jtn7MQS!-157726363?docId=5001850442>. Accessed on 8 January 2009. Melamed, Vlad. 2002. The destruction of national consciousness. New Tradition. Available from < http://www.revisedhistory.org/destraction.htm> Accessed on 9 January 2009. Morrison, J. (2006). The international business environment. 2nd Ed. Basingtoke: Palgrave -MacMillan. Ohmae, Kenichi. 1996. The end of the nation state: The rise of regional economies. New York: Free Press Paperbacks. Perlas, N. 2003. Shaping globalization: Civil society, cultural power and threefolding. Manila: Center for Alternative Development Initiative. Rothbard, M. Nations by consent: Decomposing the nation-states. The Journal of Libertarian Studies. Available from < http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_1.pdf>. Accessed on 9 January 2009. Seymour, M. 2004. The fate of the nation state. Quebec: McGill-Queen’s Press. Toffler, A. 2002. Can nation survive in the 21st century? USAToday.com. Available from . Accessed on 8 January 2009. Toffler, A. 1980. The third wave. New York: Bantam Books. Vhutuza, E. and Ngoshi, H. 2008. Nationalism or supranationalism in the 21st century? African Integration Review (2)1. Available from < http://www.africa-union.org/root/ua/Newsletter/EA/Vol%202%20No%201/Vhutuza_Ngoshi.pdf>. Accessed on 9 January 2009. Whelan, R. 2004. The nation state is the best guarantor of democracy, freedom and human rights says independent expert. The Institute for the Study of Civil Society. Available from < http://www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/prcs33.php>. Accessed on 9 January 2009. Read More