A History of Global Politics: Creating and

International Order Learning Outcomes

At the end of this lesson you should be able to:

1. identify key events in the development of international elations

2. differentiate internationalization from globalization
3. define the state and the nation
4. Distinguish between the competing conceptions of internationalism and
5. discuss the historical volume of international politic

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 1.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 face of globalization, because state/government 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 discus 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 ate 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 Fllipinos. Finally, most nations strive to become states.
Nation-builders can only feel a sense of fulfillment when that national ideal assumes an organizational
form whose authority and power are recognized and accepted by "the people" Moreover. if there are
communities that are not states, they often seek some form of autonomy within their "mother states."
This is why, for example, the nation of Quebec, though belonging to the state of Canada, has different
laws about language (they are French-speaking and require French language competencies for their
citizens). It is also for this reason that Scotland, though part of the United Kingdom, has a strong
independence movement led by the Scottish Nationalist Party.

Nation and state are closely related because it is nationalism that facilitates state formation. In
the modern and contemporary era, it has been the nationalist movements that have allowed for the
creation of nation states. States become independent and sovereign because of nationalist sentiment
that clamors for this independence.

Sovereignty is, thus, one of the fundamental principles of modern state polities. Understanding
how this became the case entails going back as far as 400 years ago

The Interstate System

The origins of the present-day concept of sovereignty can be traced back to the Treaty of
Westphalia, which was a set of agreements signed in 1648 to end the Thirty Years' War between the
major continental powers of Europe. After a brutal religious war between Catholics and Protestants, the
Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden, and the Dutch Republic designed a system that would avert
wars in the future by recognizing that the treaty signers exercise complete control over their domestic
affairs and swear not to meddle in each other's affairs.

The Westphalian system provided stability for the nations of Europe, until it faced its first major
challenge by Napoleon Bonaparte. Bonaparte believed in spreading the principles of the French
Revolution-liberty, equality, and fraternity to the rest of Europe and thus challenged the power of kings,
nobility, and religion in Europe. The Napoleonic Wars lasted from 1803-1815 with Napoleon and his
armies marching all over much of Europe In every country they conquered, the French implemented the
Napoleonic Code that forbade birth privileges, encouraged freedom or religion, and promoted
meritocracy in government service. This system shocked the monarchies and the hereditary elites
(dukes, duchesses, etc) of Europe, and they mustered their armies to push back against the French
emperor.

Anglo and Prussian armies finally defeated Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, ending
the latter's mission to spread his liberal code across Europe. To prevent another war and to keep their
systems of privilege, the royal powers created a new system that, in effect, restored the Westphalian
system. The Concert of Europe was an alliance of "great powers-the United Kingdom, Austria. Russia,
and Prussia-that sought to restore the world of monarchical, hereditary, and religious privileges of the
time before the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. More importantly, it was an alliance that
sought to restore the sovereignty of states. Under this Metternich system (named after the Austrian
diplomat, Klemens von Metternich, who was the system's main architect), the Concert's power and
authority Metter from 1815 to 1914, at the dawn of World War 1.
 Klemens Von Metternich was the architect of the Concert of Europe

Despite the challenge of Napoleon to the Westphalian system and the eventual collapse of the
Concert of Europe after World War 1. 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 to 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 not a world government, in effect, become supreme? And would not its laws
overwhelm the sovereignty of individual states?

The first thinker to reconcile nationalism with liberal internationalism was the 19th century
Italian patriot Giuseppe Mazzini. Mazzini was both an advocate of the unification of the various Italian-
speaking mini-states and a major critic of the Metternich system. He believed in a Republican
government without kings, queens, and hereditary succession) and proposed a system of free nations
that cooperated with each other to create an international system. Far 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 20 th 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.

American President Woodrow William became the most prominent advocate for the creation of
the League of nations.

The League came into being that same year. Ironically and unfortunately for Wilson, the United
States was not able to join the organization due to strong opposition from the Senate. The League was
also unable to hinder another war from breaking out. It was practically helpless to prevent the onset and
intensification of World War II. On one side of the war were the Axis Powers Hitler's Germany.
Mussolini's Italy, and Hirohito's Japan who were ultra-nationalists that had an instinctive disdain for
internationalism and preferred to violently Impose their dominance over other nations. It was in the
midst of this war between the Axis Powers and the Allied Powers (composed of the United States,
United Kingdom, France, Holland, and Belgium) that internationalism would be eclipsed.

Despite its failure, the League gave birth to some of the more task-specific international
organizations that are still around until today, the most popular of which are the World Health
Organization (WHO) and the International Labor Organization (ILO). More importantly, it would serve as
the blueprint ffo future forms of international cooperation. to this respect, despite its organizational
dissolution, the League of Nations' principles survived World War II

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 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 (S) was a union of European socialist and
labor parties established in Paris in 1889. Although short-lived, the SI's achievements included the
declaration of May 1 as Labor Day and the creation of an International Women's Day. Most importantly,
it initiated the successful campaign for an 8-hour workday

The SI collapsed during World War I as the member parties refused or were unable to join the
internationalist efforts to fight for the war. Many of these sister parties even ended up fighting

each other. It was a confirmation of Marx's warning: when workers and their organizations take
the side of their countries instead of each other, their long-term interests are compromised.

As the SI collapsed, a more radical version emerged. In the so-called Russian Revolution of 1917,
Czar Nicholas 11 was overthrown and replaced by a revolutionary government led by the Bolshevik Party
and its leader. Vladimir Lenin. This new state was called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR.
Unlike the majority of the member parties of the SI, the Bolsheviks did not believe in obtaining power
for the working class through elections. Rather, they exhorted the revolutionary vanguard" parties to
lead the revolutions across the world, using methods of terror if necessary. Today, parties like this are
referred to as Communist parties.

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

To encourage these socialist revolutions across the world, Lenin established the Communist
International (Comintern) in 1919. The Comintern served as the central body for directing Communist
parties all over the world. This International was not only more radical than the Socialist International, it
was also less democratic because it followed closely the top-down governance of the Bolsheviks.

Many of the world's states feared the Comintern, believing that it was working in secret to stir
up revolutions in their countries (which was true). A problem arose during World War 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 Nation.