It has become fashionable to claim that the nation state has lost its place. Globalization, it is said, means that nations can no longer control their own affairs. They must join with others, as in the EU or ASEAN or Mercosur, and they must increasingly rely on global institutions like the UN, the World Bank and the WTO.
But such a view is risky. Indeed, on closer inspection, it proves to be dubious, when not simply wrong. The nation state, with both its strengths and weaknesses, is alive and well.
To begin with its strengths, the nation state remains the only political space in which the constitution of liberty thrives. The democratic credentials of organizations like the EU are doubtful, and entirely absent in the case of the UN and other world institutions. Moreover, despite the frequent search for new identities, European or Latin American or otherwise, and despite many references to a new cosmopolitanism, or even a "world civil society," most people feel at home in their own country -- the nation state of which they are citizens.
Migration is generally migration to other countries. Many countries are currently debating the integration of migrants. What does it take to be British or German or American? Such debates about immigration make sense only if we recognize that citizenship is defined by and for nations.
This is, for most people, the positive side of the nation state. The nation state has been, and continues to be, the relevant unit of belonging and civic involvement for most human beings for more than two centuries. It is the context in which we find our liberties safeguarded or destroyed. Certainly, the countries freed from communism in 1989 felt that restoring national sovereignty and recovering liberty were bound together.
Yet there is, and always has been, another, uglier face of the nation state: nationalism. The nationalist impulse can be aggressive or defensive, directed against others or inward-looking. Either way, it vitiates all attempts to create an international community of open societies.
This was the problem in Iraq: a nation state had become a disturber of peace in the region and beyond. More recently, a less violent but equally worrying phenomenon has gained ground, the revival of national protectionism. The Doha Round of trade negotiations is stalled because developed countries do not want to open their markets to cheaper products from developing countries, which in turn try to protect what nascent industries they have. Many would prefer privileged relationships to open trade.
national markets
In this regard, the EU has often obliged. But now the nationalist bug has infected the EU itself. France, Spain and Poland have attempted to keep major industries firmly in "national hands." Suddenly, the single European market is forgotten, and a return to fragmented markets is taking root.
Consider, for example, the European Commission's so-called "services directive." Although freedom of movement for labor is one of the single market's "four freedoms," many EU countries are trying to protect their domestic labor markets by suspending this freedom for as long as possible. Germany, in particular, argues that the high unemployment resulting from reunification in 1990 requires it to close its labor market to the new member states to its east.
Such trends are dangerous. Historically, protectionism has often led to economic conflict, which can rapidly turn into more serious clashes.
The signs are not good, even in Europe. A recent summit of EU leaders addressed energy policy -- one area where cooperation is not only highly desirable, but necessary. Yet even German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- clearly a pro-European -- went to the meeting with the explicit intention of barring the creation of other European powers in this field. The German-Russian agreement to build a gas pipeline bypassing Poland and Lithuania, with former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder leading the effort, has already harmed Polish-German relations, to say nothing of European cooperation.
For a time, the pendulum of political opinion may have swung too far against the nation state and its role. This is one reason why so many people have felt estranged from their political leaders. But it would be unfortunate -- indeed, dangerous -- if the pendulum now swung back to old-fashioned nationalism.
Nation states are welcome; they are important elements of a liberal world order. But they have to be open to cooperation and coordination with others. We must be vigilant in resisting the start of a trend reminiscent of developments in the early years of the 20th century -- a trend that quickly led to global disaster.
Ralf Dahrendorf, a former European commissioner from Germany, is a member of the British House of Lords, a former rector of the London School of Economics and a former warden of St. Antony's College, Oxford.
Copyright: Project Syndicate/Institute for Human Sciences
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under