David Martin's EU Tribune

Are Nation states ‘unable to meet global challenges’?

I read a very interesting and inspirational article; by Vahram Ayvazyan is a participant in the Council of Europe’s Youth Peace Ambassadors project, on the problem of Globalisation. I did not agree with all of Vahram’s arguments and conclusions but his piece certainly made me think. I would like to share his article through my BLOG.

The gist of Vahram’s argument is: ‘The problems of the 21st century could be better tackled if individuals threw off the shackles of the outdated nation state and formed a more suitable supranational organisation than the United Nations

The world has faced overwhelming changes since 9/11. That calamity was the beginning of a new era, a vindication of the weakness of nation-states vis-à-vis non-state actors and individuals.

The diminishing gap between the west and the rest. Dramatic developments in information technology and its accessibility in remote areas of the world. Transparent borders with easy movement of people, goods and services. All of these support the idea of the nation states’ inability to deal with 21st century challenges and to effectively govern their territories.

Globalisation thus contradicts the national interest. The latter is an expression of a single state’s insular passions, and does not have the ability to overcome worldwide challenges such as climate change and nuclear terrorism. The former is a broader concept, intervening in every sphere of human life in every part of the world.

Globalisation is an evolutionary process undertaken by global society, which in turn can be defined as an association of all human beings. Globalisation is the product of individuals, by individuals, for individuals. As the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman once stated: “This era of globalisation is based around individuals … I’m not sure economics has fully been able to capture far below the firm level. I call it gross individual product.”

If individuals are capable of globalising the world, is it not their responsibility to bear the burden of coping with global dangers? Is it not time to reshape the international environment? Is it not time to envisage an abrupt reversal in the philosophy of relations between state and individual? Instead of state superiority and individual inferiority, the globalised world requires individuals’ dominance over states.

But how? Are individuals able to eschew the confines of the state, domestic law, ethnic boundaries and stereotypes? Yes: global society can become a punchy phenomenon if individuals jump from the state, and societal integration and interaction, to ‘individual amalgamation’ – by establishing a unique new organisation called United Individuals.

If we draw a parallel between the United Nations and United Individuals, we can find a sharp contradiction. The former is based on 193 member states, reflects their insular interests and is not an effective business model. But the latter represents the global society, comprising of individuals that do not recognise national interests or state borders, who comprehend the hazardous and gloomy future of our planet and for whom global security is an ultimate goal.

United Individuals can be formed through social networks and individual communications, making the international arena the homeland for themselves, rejecting their citizenships, passports and the very idea of state phenomenon, considering these a hindrance to global security. They can even spark an effective global movement for bringing such an organisation into life.

The UI can completely change the international order and international law: competition will become cooperation among individuals. It can replace the nation states in their dangerous undertakings, because of their alliances and enmities towards each other, which are unable to catch up with 21st century’s developments.

For instance, I am very suspicious of the ability of a single state, for example Pakistan or Russia, to control their nuclear facilities and avoid them falling into the hands of terrorists. The International Atomic Energy Agency or any other organisation can hardly do anything in this case because of mistrust among the member states.

But the UI, comprising of supranational members without boundaries, can deal with such problems vigorously, freely and effectively. If the idea of the formation of United Individuals is only a utopia, then the very future of human life on Earth is little more than a dream.’

As I said I do not agree with it all but it certainly made me think and I hope it does the same for you!