The relationship of the nation state and capitalist economy in the age of globalization

In the age of globalization, modern nation states and the free market are not separated from each other, they rather form an entity on the world market. Moreover, the specific role of the nation state is changing. This opposes the view of many anti-globalization activists who tend to view the regulating power of the nation states as the opposite (and sometimes the cure) to problems caused by neoliberalism and globalization.

In a modern capitalist society, the economy (or the "relations of productions") is basically made up of two spheres: On the one hand, goods are being produced. On the other hand, these goods are traded on the free market. Both cannot exist without the other, thus they have to always be analyzed together.
From a capitalist point of view, the role of the nation state is to provide the necessary preconditions for a successful production. The state enables (and forces) its citizens to be a part of the economy by educating them to pick a job while also providing some social security. Without the characteristics of a nation state, such as a government, a bureaucracy and a legal system, there would hardly be any production.
The sphere of the free market does not rely as heavy on the nation state, but still needs some institutional support to be able to function. The nation state must for example provide an infrastructure and some judicial accountability to ensure smooth transactions.
While this seems like a relatively one-sided deal that favors the economy, the nation state also needs the economy to ensure its very existence. The benefits from a capitalist economy provide the material basis for the nation state. Without the wealth accumulated by the economy, there would be no taxes and the state as a whole would fail.

With the rise of globalization in the 1970s, the role of the nation state in International Relations began to change. The growing influence of economic forces transformed the way in which politicians made decisions. They started to think about foreign matters in a more commercial way. Political thinking did not disappear, but it started to look a lot more like economic thinking. At the same time, national sovereignty was also undermined by this. Since there was a growing international competition, decisions about labor market policies for example were increasingly depended on the labor markets of other countries. There was a tendency to protect the state's national currency and its "economic territory" alongside the classic state territory.
The national states are not the "victims" of these developments. They made them possible in the first place through policies of deregulation and neoliberalism.

When anti-globalization activists call for a "stronger state" that should regulate commerce and limit the effects of globalization, they do not take into account that the modern nation state itself is organizing and providing the very foundation on which capitalist production and the principles of globalization are based on. Trade regulations and social security systems can moderate the negative effects of free trade - but these are measures undertaken by an institution (the state) that relies on capitalism itself to be able to function. Institutional barriers to the capitalist economy will only go to such an extent that they will not harm free trade. The modern nation state and its capitalist economy are closely intertwined by definition. Globalization is furthering this relationship instead of abolishing it.

The Legitimacy of the Security Council is a Function of Constructivism.

As Ian Hurd states in his article about the legitimacy of the Security Council, it is only given legitimacy by states’ perception of power. Perception is a formation of social and cultural values that influence the thought process of a person or state. The Security Council is a desirable position that is considered to have authority. However, this authority comes from perception, a function of constructivism. Its legitimacy is a socially constructed ideal that can be altered through cultural changes and can overturn the respect with which the Security Council is seen.

Over time, global culture has turned the Security Council into a symbol of power. When the UN was first created, the Security Council was truly a group of states that had more say, more authority, and more influence than others, making it a clear goal to attain. Membership connotes status and recognition because the Council has powers that others don’t have. This influences peoples’ perceptions of it, making them think that it is legitimate because it is a desirable, hard to attain position.

However, over the years, non-member states have had a larger role in Council meetings, participating more. This increase of participation devalues the special privileges of membership. Now, while the Council still no doubt has influence, it can be argued that its legitimacy exists because of the historical perception of power instead of the Council’s real power. Since non-members can have an arguably equal influence in the Council, membership has lost its value. Despite this fact, membership is still associated with authority and power through symbolism, granting the Council a legitimacy that is constructed by history but has the potential to be quickly dissolved.

Constructivism stresses that thoughts are created by social interaction, and that history is mutable. This ideal is clearly seen through the example of the Council. Historically it had power, and now that power remains but is being altered through social perception. Identity plays a central role in constructivism and can change as a person or state becomes part of a larger group. This change occurs as a state enters the Council and begins to be influenced by other identities within the group. Here, power identities come into play: identities that change based off changes in the balance of power. Since the Security Council only has value due to its symbolic power, states have a false sense of power balance shifts.

The Security Council itself acts in part as a constructivist body: the members have a collective security pact to protect one another, which creates a group of states that are part of a larger group whose identities change as a result of new and different influences. This socialization can make change difficult, which is why the Council sometimes is ineffective at making quick decisions.

Because of many contributing factors, the Council only has symbolic legitimacy because of its symbolic power that stems from authentic power from the past. By looking at constructivist theory, one can understand how the Council is socially constructed and how its authority only comes from perception.  

Globalization: Prosperous or potent?

            Many years ago, Thomas Malthus predicted that the human population would outsource food production leading to societal ruin dismissing the idea of unlimited growth. While he may have incorrectly predicted the future (so far..), he does make valid points about the relationship between population growth and resource availability. He also is not the only person to get long-term forecasts wrong: the peak oil date has come and gone several times as the amount of known oil reserves have increased. Also, Malthus had yet to see the tractor trailer, sewing machines, designer babies, or penicillin! As the world population nears 8 billion, population growth has fallen in line with increased quality of life and per capita GDP. Population also has a direct effect on the labor force in that a larger population means more worker to produce goods and services, as well as more people to consume those goods and services. Human ingenuity caused by globalization; if being defined by the increased communication, movement, economic, and political flow across borders, has offset the predicted effects of a larger population.

           

            Birth control has been able to offset a population explosion. In developing countries fertility rates are often very high due to the lack of access to birth control availability. Increasing awareness and access to birth control can also stall population growth. Having a child also bears an opportunity cost. In developing countries, women often have children at younger ages. If incentive for education rises, women will choose to go to school rather than start a family at a younger age therefore having fewer children in the future which decreases the fertility rate. Family planning is the education of the number of spacing of children through the use of birth control. It has been found that there is a correlation between higher levels of education and affluence among females and lower birth rates. Without the globalization of medicine and technology in these developing countries, the world population would be outsourcing our resources.

            Population has also been offset by access to education. Education has increased confidence in those who live in poverty and encourages environmental practices in developing countries. Educated women who are working will delay having children. Incomes are also ten times lower in developing nations than in developed countries. This results in a low growth rate per capita GDP. If these countries want to reach the standard of living that there is in developed countries, population growth must be limited. Education can also increase a country’s affluence. Education can raise awareness of sustainability and improve standards of living. Access to education can eradicate poverty, generate creative minds, reduce child mortality, and promote sustainability. An educated person can start a small business such as farming and selling produce in local markets allowing their family to rise from poverty and improve a country’s GDP. The globalization of education has had a snowball effect in increasing a country’s GDP and population stabilization.

            Technology and unexpected crop yields have allowed us to feed our growing population thanks to globalization. Going back to Malthus, he thought that if the food supply grows linearly, and population grows exponentially, the population will surpass the food supply. In the past 100,000 years, farmers have been able to increase the world’s agriculture output with improved technology and more efficient use of resources. In the twentieth century, farming became more mechanized with fertilizer and the tractor trailer allowing us to increase crop yields. This supports the claim that globalization is not necessarily new. Industrial agriculture uses mechanization and standardization to produce food to sustain our population. Globalization has allowed technology and ideas like irrigation, fertilization, mono-cropping, and pesticides to allow our food supply to grow in sync with our population.

            However, despite Malthus’ incorrect prediction of worldwide poverty and disease, he did provide some warning into the future of our environment due to globalization. Each time it seemed the food or oil supply was too small to limit human population, major advances increased both. But can we assume that we will continue to find ways to feed the human population? How will we know when we reach Earth’s carrying capacity? The disparity in population growth between developing and developed nations differentiates in their usage and allocation of resources. While many people may scoff at the idea of climate change, it is, and will continue to have significant environmental and geopolitical impacts on the world. We will, if we have not already, surpass Earth’s resource capacity, a trend accelerating in this era of globalization; the most potent, and prosperous of human progress. So will we peril or prosper with it?

How Russia's "humanitarian" intervention in Syria is related to the West

Russia's intervention in Syria is not primarily targeted on fighting the so-called Islamic State. It rather supports Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in his battle against other, sometimes moderate, rebel groups. This puts pressure on both the USA and the European Union. Especially the latter is struggling to uphold its liberal values in the face of a growing refugee crisis.

What pro-Russian observers of the Syrian civil war praise as a "humanitarian intervention" to stabilize the government and bring back peace to a war-torn country is actually just another one of Putin's strategic maneuvers to further consolidate Russian foreign policy interests confronting the West.

This map of the New York Times analyzes the current situation in Syria and shows where both Russia and the USA used their respective military forces to carry out airstrikes. The American Air Force aimed their strikes at IS-controlled territory, whereas Russia almost exclusively hit rebel groups in strategic areas where Syria's army afterwards began to carry out ground operations, often with the help of Russian military.
This shows that Russia is not actually interested in fighting the Islamic State and prevent further horrifying crimes against civilians and "infidels". Instead, Putin wants to display Russia's military power to the USA and show that he is capable of effectively engaging in the civil war, as opposed to American airstrikes who have so far only proven to be little effective. Putin also wants to help Assad's regime to get back on its feet to have a long-term ally in the Middle East.
When thinking about recent Russian engagement in Georgia, Ukraine or the Baltic States, this can be put into the context of an increasingly aggressive Russian foreign policy.

Another implication of Russia's engagement in Syria is yet another wave of refugees trying to escape from the civil war and looking for asylum in Europe.
This puts pressure on the European Union as more and more people cross the borders and move to wealthy countries such as France, Germany or England. EU border states such as Greece or Bulgaria have de facto abolished the Dublin II regulations and let refugees move to other European countries to not be responsible for their asylum applications.

In countries like Germany, liberal politicians have so far more or less managed to uphold a "refugees welcome"-policy that tries to reflect on the values of humanity and liberalism. Refugees from countries like Syria are granted shelter at least for a certain period of time. Right-winged opposition to this is growing but has not yet succeeded in overturning these principles.
In the face of the recent crisis of the Greek economy, European politicians know very well that even national economies have their limitations and might eventually collapse. The very large number of refugees may pose a serious problem to the economic power even of a country like Germany. This is why European politicians hesitate to put an end to the inhuman situation at Europe's borders such as the Mediterranean Sea where tens of thousands refugees have died already: The EU could not possibly handle the influx of all refugees without risking a collapse of its economic and social systems. They need to deter people from crossing EU borders in an inhuman way.
In summary, the dilemma of European liberals looks something like this: To be able to maintain a liberal attitude in domestic policies, they do little to prevent refugees from dying at the outer borders of the EU which is cynically not a very liberal thing to do.

To get back to my initial argument, Russia is certainly not unhappy with Europe's current situation. A struggling European Union might allow Putin to even further his aggressive foreign policy and destabilize the West.
Sadly enough, the ones who suffer the most from this are millions of Syrian people either stuck in a horrible civil war or struggling to make their way to Europe.

Sokolski, the Iran Deal, and Hillary Clinton

The Iran Deal is a policy that has raised a lot of controversy among our politicians in the last view months. I agree with Sokolski in “Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran” that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. When it comes specifically to how this situation should be handled, my views directly parallel that of Hillary Clinton’s—support for the Iran Deal but with some more aggressive stipulations.

There’s a number of reasons Sokolski puts forward about why Iran should not be allowed to go nuclear. The first reason, and what I think is the scariest, is the domino effect that will ensue with other Middle Eastern states once Iran goes starts making nuclear weapons. Once Iran starts, a lot of the other states in that region will demand to have nuclear weapons. That in itself will cause instability in the region. Security issues for the United States also arise, because Sokolski points out that a more confident Iran could equal more terrorist groups and operations, or even worse there’s the great risk of the nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Finally, there is also a risk to the world economy. Iran could use its nuclear capabilities to threaten or attack Saudi Arabian oil facilities and pipelines, and therefore dramatically increase the price of oil.  

Hillary has formally endorsed the Iran Deal and showed President Obama support for it, especially supporting his diplomacy. But with this support she has had a few stipulations which she voiced to the administration as Secretary of State. Originally, when she ran for president in 2008 her and then Senator Obama had conflicting ideas on how to handle Iran. At the time, she claimed that Obama’s diplomatic plan was far too optimistic and even naïve. So as she started to accept the Iran Deal, she still had some stipulations. I remember reading an article online on Politico a few weeks ago talking about how when she was Secretary of State, she pushed for consideration of a measure that would give Israel the approval to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites. I agree with her support with stipulations because I feel like it’s the happy medium needed. The Iran deal in my opinion seems like the only option right now because the United States, once again in my opinion, cannot afford another conflict or war. I feel that there are much more important other issues domestically going on that require attention and funding. But at the same time, the United States can’t pass policies that would hurt or put the country at risk. So I feel that diplomacy is necessary but with stipulations in place so that the U.S. isn’t put in a problematic position where conflict could be further escalated. 

The Ultimate Power Couple

Ask any politician or economist where the future is and they will tell you: the Pacific. Even Hillary Clinton said it is America’s time to pivot to the Pacific, but for many nations, such as Russia, that pivot has been made. As of late, Russia and China have had an increasingly close relationship, one that could potentially threaten the Western domination of world power. Russia and China have come a long way from their disputes in the 1960s regarding Communism and territory. Ever since settling border disputes, the Russian-Sino relationship has been, for the most part, on an upward trend. Both nations realize the benefits that come hand in hand with their alliance, and neither nation is willing to jeopardize it, at the moment. China has the wealth and Russia has the natural resources, and this combination has led to billions of dollars in natural gas deals. Also, China and Russia both have a strong disregard for conforming to the wants of the west. On their own, these two nations pose a possible threat, but not nearly as powerful like the threat created when they unite.

            There are speculations that China will be the next world superpower and take over the West. However, when looking at soft power, their demographics pose a large issue, except Russia may have a solution to this problem. China is incredibly over-populated and its next step might be to expand, and Russia’s under-populated Siberia is right next door. Russia does not have the money to pave their own roads, let alone invest in Siberia which is basically dead weight for Russia. So for the Chinese, having Siberia seems like a viable option. The Chinese are not only after the land occupied by Siberia but rather the untapped resources within it. China knows those resources are there and if at some point the benefits of Siberian resources outweigh a relationship with Russia, China will not hesitate to take over that area of land. When combined, Russia and China have a strong and lethal alliance when it comes to other superpowers. Both nations want what is the most beneficial and for their nation economically regardless of what that entails. In addition, both Russia and China have become nations with limited freedoms and increasing propaganda. The similarities between Russia and China make it seem obvious that Putin and Xi Jinping would get along.

            Russia and China share a common anti-West sentiment. It is difficult for Russia and the United States to have a strong relationship because they disagree so readily on issues regarding human rights and political systems. China and Russia, on the other hand, do not. During Soviet times, China disliked Russia’s willingness to live peacefully with capitalist societies and believed for Communism to spread, there must be a much more aggressive policy to spread the communist revolution. However, currently this disagreement is no longer an issue. Russia and China are now both equally anti-West and both use the West as a scapegoat. In China, the people of Hong Kong cry for democracy from a government that lacks transparency with their population. These cries are blamed on America’s attempt to undermine China. Very similarly, protests in Kiev during the Ukraine Crisis were blamed on America’s attempt to undermine Moscow. Both China and Russia rely heavily on propaganda and both are more than willing to go after those who pose a threat to their governments. These commonalities make it much easier for Russia and China to have a strong, powerful relationship. Both nations are similarly anti-West, both nations value propaganda, and both nations want what will economically benefit their nations, no matter the cost.

            As we can see from these two examples, the time of the Pacific has arrived. Russia and China have put into motion an extremely beneficial relationship that is bound to flourish. Neither Russia nor China values human rights, and both rely on propaganda, making these two nations similar and therefore more likely to cooperate with one another. They are also willing to work side by side without creating conflict. Also, Russia and China are economically dependent on each and have a mainly business relationship so they will not try to have political influence over one another, thus creating a relationship that is much harder to ruin. However, one can argue that perhaps disputes of the past could be brought up again. During the era of the Soviet Union, the two nations disagreed whole-heartedly on the ideology of Communism, and the two nations approached the political system differently. Although great strides have been taken towards a stable relationship between the two nations, their unstable history suggests that their current relationship has the possibility of going astray. But, for the time being it is clear Putin has officially made the pivot towards China, and will continue to focus on Russia and China’s relationship.