|
| Thread: Did globalization cause countries to form? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
posted March 12, 2011 02:41 PM |
|
|
Did globalization cause countries to form?
With new inventions like internet, aircraft, and phones humans have chosen to communicate with people all around the world. We don’t have to use these technologies in this way but we do. On this very discussion bored there are people from several different countries all choosing to communicate with each other despite being from different nations. There are even examples of people of different nations intermarrying (something that I have seen with my own eyes). So this would suggest that humans are open communicative creatures willing to reach past borders but then again…
The 20th century saw a great split amongst countries for in the beginning of the century there little more than 50 countries, but the end there was almost 200 countries and countless “autonomous regions”. The great European empires split into many smaller countries which then broke up into still smaller countries which feel apart into still smaller countries and quasi states a process sometimes called “Balkanization” as the process was aptly demonstrated in that region. There was also constant racial bigotry in the 20th century there was many attempts at ethnic cleansing and genocide the Holocaust in NAZI Germany being only the most infamous attempt. Surly then humans must be Xenophobic creatures as people kill and struggle to be with their own nation and nobody else but then again…
Many of the new countries formed eagerly joined the U.N. the WTO and the E.U. A process that sacrificed some of their sovereignty. Oddly people fought hard for national sovereignty only to sacrifice some of it to intergovernmental organizations.
Contradictions with in contradictions.
I have been working on a theory to explain these contradictions; that theory being that globalization, through trade and international institutions, was one factor that caused some countries to fall apart into other smaller countries.
The international institutions that are best enforced (by that I mean enforced at all) are institutions that protect countries from invasion therefore making it safer to form new countries. Besides that there are examples in history where the powers that be in the global community decided to create new countries. Panama for example was created by a decree by the U.S. more than by the actual people living Panama.
The desire for global trade amongst some encouraged some people to brake away from semi-isolationist communist states like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. This would explain why some peoples worked hard for their national sovereignty only to join a Intergovernmental organization like the E.U. because they were forming their countries in part to engage more in the world.
Question? Comments? Crazed displays anyone?
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted March 12, 2011 03:26 PM |
|
|
This thread is made of win 
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 12, 2011 05:40 PM |
|
|
|
<IMO> Global business does rule. I saw a global-map-picture a few years back that someone made. It didn't have our familar "countries" it was showing the boundaries of familar "companies".
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 12, 2011 11:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
<IMO> Global business does rule. I saw a global-map-picture a few years back that someone made. It didn't have our familar "countries" it was showing the boundaries of familar "companies".
I would love to see that. Prehaps I will look for it.
Also I want to make it clear that I don't think globalization is the only factor for why countries formed. I think it is one factor and I am sure other factors are involved although I don't know them at the top of my head.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted March 12, 2011 11:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I would love to see that. Perhaps I will look for it.
Sorry, it's been a while back or I'd give you the link. You could always make your own. The eastern-half of the U.S could be Coke and the western-half Pepsi. 
Quote:
Also I want to make it clear that I don't think globalization is the only factor for why countries formed.
I agree but "jobs" are needed all over the globe and that gives mucho-power to the companies. Here in the central U.S. (most likely everywhere now), smaller cities have battled each other and waved all sorts of business-taxes ...just to get the jobs. I can only imagine what is happening between countries.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 12:27 AM |
|
|
The problem with the idea of countries being formed by globalization is that it doesn't match up with when they became independent. As I see it, there were 3 major bursts of independence in the 20th century: immediately after WWI, decolonization, and the collapse of the Eastern bloc (and this one is somewhat questionable because the nationalities were already recognized within the USSR and Yugoslavia). The independence of countries post-WWI was a result of the defeat of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia - I don't think that has much to do with globalization. Decolonization doesn't have much to do with globalization either, as most of the newly formed countries were not connected to global trade networks. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc had nothing to do with globalization and more to do with liberalization within the Soviet Union and its refusal to support the other Communist regimes.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 02:02 AM |
|
|
Around 1800 some time some guy proposed the GLORIOUS idea of nationalism, and thus nations was formed.
Italy was turned from a bickering collection of nations into the boot we know it as today on the map.
What has happened the last 50 years is that we had a bit of polarization in some countries, lets say 2 religious groups disagreeing, then moving to different parts of the country, and then after some time get so alien to each other they WANT to get a split because they dislike the idea.
With liberalization we got the situation where people could disagree, could fight, and then could form different countries.
And then we got Africa: Nations divided with pencil and liners.
So yeah: I disagree with your theory.
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 03:26 AM |
|
Edited by Raelag84 at 03:29, 13 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
The problem with the idea of countries being formed by globalization is that it doesn't match up with when they became independent. As I see it, there were 3 major bursts of independence in the 20th century: immediately after WWI, decolonization, and the collapse of the Eastern bloc (and this one is somewhat questionable because the nationalities were already recognized within the USSR and Yugoslavia). The independence of countries post-WWI was a result of the defeat of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Russia - I don't think that has much to do with globalization. Decolonization doesn't have much to do with globalization either, as most of the newly formed countries were not connected to global trade networks. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc had nothing to do with globalization and more to do with liberalization within the Soviet Union and its refusal to support the other Communist regimes.
It is true that Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire did not fall apart because of global trade. However global institutions had a role to play in their dismantling (I consider global institutions part of globalization). The Ottoman Empire was partitioned by the European powers and the nations that took the place of Austria-Hungry were recognized in the Treaty of Trianon.
Decolonization is defiantly correlated with global trade networks especially in Africa. If you take a look in any Almanac at the chief trading partners of various African countries you will almost always find that they are countries outside of Africa. So yes Africa and for that matter Asian countries trade extensively with the rest of the world.
It is also true that liberalization had allot to do with the fall of Soviet Union, but then Liberalization isn't separate from globalization. Liberalization means, among other things, that you can trade with people both in and out of your country, and when people can trade international they do; that's how people are.
Plus how else would you explain why these new countries joined Inter-governmental organizations like the WTO and the IMF?
And Del-Diablo...I disagree with you about this issue, but if you lived in the same country as me I wouldn't start a new one just because of that.
Firstly just because you disagree with me on this issue doesn't necessarily mean we disagree on everything.
Secondly starting another country is really hard to do so if we are going to split it better be one heck of a disagreement.
Thirdly if I am going through all this work starting a country then I better be sure I can defend from empires trying to gobble me up.
Fourthly after all that work making and defending my country we can still disagree and affect each other through the internet like now! Almost as though we didn't seprate into two countries.
The point is people need a lot of incentive to start a country and the occasional disagreement and “some guy” inventing nationalism isn’t goanna cut it. Besides even people do form a new country doen't mean they are going to stop all internation with the world.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 03:52 AM |
|
|
I agree with Mvass. The massive wave of new countries was mostly directly because the UK and France and other colonial powers got their asses handed to them by the Axis nations, and because the USSR collapsed under its own armor. The aftermath of those two major events produced the opportunity for a wave of new nation-states.
I predict in the long-term that globalization will make the world far more unified and countries will blur. It might not necessarily be with nation-states literally merging with other nation-states, at least not anytime in the near future, but even now the borders between nations are becoming increasingly trivial. Resources and labor are all on a global market now. Graduates don't just compete with their fellow classmates; they compete with everybody. You hear brands like IBM, Toyota, or Fiat, and associate it with a certain country, and yet so many companies so heavily transcend borders that such associations are becoming obsolete.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 04:08 AM |
|
|
The British Empire and France were not "global institutions" like the UN, IMF, etc. They were centrally managed empires with their own goals.
As for decolonization, the colonies primarily traded with the home country. Now, 40 or more years later, they trade extensively with other countries as well, but they didn't back then.
And even when the Soviet Union liberalized, there were still very heavy controls on international trade. The government was responsible for the vast majority of foreign sales and foreign purchases.
All these countries joined the WTO and IMF much later - years after their independence.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 04:12 AM |
|
|
I was referring to globalization post-WW2 and post-USSR. Colonization was in many ways the opposite of globalization since it forcefully directed trade to where those in power wanted it, which was generally good for the empire but inefficient for the colony (i.e. Cuba trading with Spain instead of the U.S.)
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 01:39 PM |
|
Edited by Raelag84 at 13:40, 13 Mar 2011.
|
Quote:
I agree with Mvass. The massive wave of new countries was mostly directly because the UK and France and other colonial powers got their asses handed to them by the Axis nations, and because the USSR collapsed under its own armor. The aftermath of those two major events produced the opportunity for a wave of new nation-states.
I predict in the long-term that globalization will make the world far more unified and countries will blur. It might not necessarily be with nation-states literally merging with other nation-states, at least not anytime in the near future, but even now the borders between nations are becoming increasingly trivial. Resources and labor are all on a global market now. Graduates don't just compete with their fellow classmates; they compete with everybody. You hear brands like IBM, Toyota, or Fiat, and associate it with a certain country, and yet so many companies so heavily transcend borders that such associations are becoming obsolete.
I agree with most of what you say. I think globalization has made us more united than we ever been since coming out of Africa and it has eroded the power of Countries. On the other hand new countries are still being made and that has to be reconciled with this new unity. Furthermore it true that the WWII and the Soviet Union's collapse proveded an oppurtunity to make new nations, but oppurtunity is not enouph; you also have to have incentive. The possibilty of trading globally, and the assurence they would not just be annexed by someone else at independence are two incentives to make a country (I cannot stress enouph there would be other incentives as well).
Quote:
The British Empire and France were not "global institutions" like the UN, IMF, etc. They were centrally managed empires with their own goals.
As for decolonization, the colonies primarily traded with the home country. Now, 40 or more years later, they trade extensively with other countries as well, but they didn't back then.
And even when the Soviet Union liberalized, there were still very heavy controls on international trade. The government was responsible for the vast majority of foreign sales and foreign purchases.
All these countries joined the WTO and IMF much later - years after their independence.
Global Institutions are rules for countries essentialy. They need not come from an Intergovermental orginzation like the U.N. they could just as easly come countries that are powerful. That said even orginzations like the U.N. have a role to play in all this.
For all their flaws Intergovermental orginzations make it much harder to annex a country, but they do not make it harder for new countries to form. Therefore mathmaticaly the amount of countries that exisit can only go up.
As you say European colonies traded almost exculsivly with their masters nations, but then that's kind of the point. People in the colonies wouldn't be very happy to trade just with England or just with France. They want to trade with other countries as well and to do that they had to become independent.
By the way when governments of the former Soviet block nations were controling international sales I would hardly call them liberalized. I would argue that the process of liberlization and therefore globalization simply took time. You can't exactly move from comunism to capitalism in a single day.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 01:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And Del-Diablo...I disagree with you about this issue, but if you lived in the same country as me I wouldn't start a new one just because of that.
Firstly just because you disagree with me on this issue doesn't necessarily mean we disagree on everything.
Secondly starting another country is really hard to do so if we are going to split it better be one heck of a disagreement.
Thirdly if I am going through all this work starting a country then I better be sure I can defend from empires trying to gobble me up.
Fourthly after all that work making and defending my country we can still disagree and affect each other through the internet like now! Almost as though we didn't seprate into two countries.
The point is people need a lot of incentive to start a country and the occasional disagreement and “some guy” inventing nationalism isn’t goanna cut it. Besides even people do form a new country doen't mean they are going to stop all internation with the world.
Ironically, it cuts it.
The "conflicts" are not of the scale you propose, but bigger.
When you have an entire country of several million citizens looking at each other with a bad eye and have a large disagreement over ethics, either you have a civil war or a split of some sort.
The split ranges from splitting the govermental bodies with into 2 nation states with 1 head, from splitting a country.
I think you SEVERELY underestimate the scale of things here.
____________
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 10:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
When you have an entire country of several million citizens looking at each other with a bad eye and have a large disagreement over ethics, either you have a civil war or a split of some sort.
Humans don't tend to obay their own ethics so therefore disagreements over them will not cause countries to split. Disagreements over economic issues could. My own country had a civil war over economic issues. I could also see a split of a country over language and the rights of minority groups.
I said in my second post I don't think globalization alone was the only factor for why nations form. But Ethics...can't see it.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted March 13, 2011 10:25 PM |
|
|
I think an ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation has a strong advantage over a diverse one (come at me PC machine, I'm waiting for you). If everybody looks like (and possibly is) a not-so-distant relative and all of you share more or less the same values, it goes without saying that things will get done easier and there will be more transparency, but globalization is responsible for bridging those gaps, which is why in the long term I think globalization will create fewer truly autonomous nations rather than more of them. Or if there are a ton of minor nations, they'll likely be in some sort of economic and political union, possibly to the extent of becoming federated states akin to the USA.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 14, 2011 12:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think an ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation has a strong advantage over a diverse one (come at me PC machine, I'm waiting for you). If everybody looks like (and possibly is) a not-so-distant relative and all of you share more or less the same values, it goes without saying that things will get done easier and there will be more transparency, but globalization is responsible for bridging those gaps, which is why in the long term I think globalization will create fewer truly autonomous nations rather than more of them. Or if there are a ton of minor nations, they'll likely be in some sort of economic and political union, possibly to the extent of becoming federated states akin to the USA.
I don't know what a PC machine is, but I don't think you're wrong really. I mean countries are definitely less sovereign due to globalization and if the process continues we will soon be under one world government. Part of what I am trying to argue is that world-wide governing policies are already in place; it just so happens they are policies that protect countries and encourage their formation.
But the fact that people are still making new countries means that there is an added complication to everything you just said. People seem to want both unity and division at the same time. This hypocrisy would lead to political divisions continuing to occur even as we trade and interact more.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 14, 2011 03:12 AM |
|
|
by forming new country, I understand you mean, countries dividing in several little country, and not exactly people grouping together with the aim to form a nation.
reasons for divisions between people are multiple, and results too. divisions of countries probably occur because people want to identify themselves to a country, the country representing a bunch of people sharing the same values as them.
imo, it would make more sense if we cared first about the local level of things. globalization seems just silly to me, why would you care of what's happening on the other side of the world, that's the business of people living there. though, of course, in some exceptionnal cases, the intervention of distant countries is welcome, like nowadays in japan.
when I say local level, I don't mean countries, that's still far too big, I just don't get how a couple of politicians staying in their offices can take decisions for so many people.
I think a world without frontiers would be better, but not the way the globalization is doing it. I think it is possible to have independance without divisions.
the major cause of divisions might actually be the fear of other people, which is fueled by men thirsty for power, that's how they keep control of crowds.
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted March 15, 2011 11:03 PM |
|
|
Quote:
imo, it would make more sense if we cared first about the local level of things. globalization seems just silly to me, why would you care of what's happening on the other side of the world,...
I had to pause after this post because I have found it to be profound. But to anwser your question I think it's because proxmity is not always the best way to build one's own comunity. I don't know the person living above me in my appartment; never met this person I only know they exist from the occational stomping above me. I know you better than I know this person right above me. But there are some "lost boys" from Southren Sudan that I have known for years. I worry about them as it is a very violent part of the world. I wish I could influence events there more so I could protect them, the fact that they are on the other side of the planet means nothing.
The one good thing about globalization is that it allows people to choose their own community. You can choose your own ethnic group or your own relgious group to be your community if you want to, but you don't have too. You have the possibilty of having a community with people 5000 killometers away if you want to.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted March 16, 2011 12:12 AM |
|
|
yes of course, no problems with having friends who live far.
but why doing better than other countries (in term of economical or military power for example) has become more important than just making sure everyone has a shelter and can eat? small communities could very well produce for themselves all they need without being dependent from anyone else, and still have contacts with other communities, but real contacts, you know, not just trade.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted March 18, 2011 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
When you have an entire country of several million citizens looking at each other with a bad eye and have a large disagreement over ethics, either you have a civil war or a split of some sort.
Humans don't tend to obay their own ethics so therefore disagreements over them will not cause countries to split. Disagreements over economic issues could. My own country had a civil war over economic issues. I could also see a split of a country over language and the rights of minority groups.
I said in my second post I don't think globalization alone was the only factor for why nations form. But Ethics...can't see it.
Then you are not using the same vocabulary as I am.
Language and money is a large part of ETHICS, moral is just a part of it too.
____________
|
| |
|
|
